The NHS

[Azog 150]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...lthcare-reform


Here are some of the absurd claims (And answer to those claims) made by those opposing Obama's healthcare reforms about the NHS. They are either outright lies or greatly exaggerated...


Just thought I would post this for any of our American users taken in by the BS regarding the NHS. Sure, the system is far from perfect, but I still believe it is better (And more cost effective if that is what people are worrying about) then the American system.

Anyway, this isn't about changing peoples minds, just making people think twice about some of those claims.

[Каие]

What did you expect? The Republicans have pulled their entire campaign out of their arses. It's retardation since Obama's plan is so flawed and imperfect, a genuine campai9gn which addressed factual information would have blown it out of the water, instead they have devolved into pure foam-at-the-mouth fallacy, fabrication and idiocy. As I said, a terrible shame.

[Erik]

Political spin in America is certainly paining a very twisted picture of the rest of the World.
The way the NHS is portrayed is just one example, you can also look at the "Amsterdam, Cesspool of crime" thread for another example.

I wonder if the American general public sees through all this spin, or if they actually believe it.

[Digbert]

I love the idea of the NHS free health care for that's great but in practise it a mess why should doctors and nurses fill out tons of bureaucratic forms just for one aspirin also beyond many other things. Also remember there is no thing as free health care we just pay with our taxes

[Каие]

why should doctors and nurses fill out tons of bureaucratic forms just for one aspirin

They don't. That's why. I s### you not it takes a doctor several seconds to type out a prescription on the computer and print it off for you.

The bureaucracy however is a problem... a problem which is just as bad in the USA private systems, as signalled by the $1.2 Trillion waste in US healthcare thread.

[Digbert]

They don't. That's why. I s### you not it takes a doctor several seconds to type out a prescription on the computer and print it off for you.

The bureaucracy however is a problem... a problem which is just as bad in the USA private systems, as signalled by the $1.2 Trillion waste in US healthcare thread.

Believe you me my mum is Nurse and yes they do its a shame they have to as there are far more important things they could doing with that time.

[Admiral Piett]

I love the idea of the NHS free health care for that's great but in practise it a mess why should doctors and nurses fill out tons of bureaucratic forms just for one aspirin also beyond many other things. Also remember there is no thing as free health care we just pay with our taxes

Um, they don't. And would you prefer a 3% tax increase or do you wanna pay for monthly insurance, plus out of pocket for doctor's visits, lab tests, and certain examinations, plus whatever deductible that they will force you to pay if you go to the hospital? Not to mention, what costs $75 for meds here costs only $10 in Britain. I think the 3% tax increase is infinitely cheaper for all of us. Plus, we will actually spend LESS per year on healthcare if we go to socialized medicine and abolish medicare, medicaid, and phase out social security - which we'll never see anyway.

[Poach]

Political spin in America is certainly paining a very twisted picture of the rest of the World.
The way the NHS is portrayed is just one example, you can also look at the "Amsterdam, Cesspool of crime" thread for another example.

I wonder if the American general public sees through all this spin, or if they actually believe it.

I hope for the former, but sadly I feel it may be the latter. The Republicans wouldn't throw out lies that are so easy to shoot down if they knew the general populace would check these claims out.

[Denny Crane!]

Yeah actually that stuff really is crap. My Grandad is over 80 and had really serious extensive heart surgery.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

I like how the article makes every kind of excuse for the NHS and NICE, and ends up conceding almost every point.

Take first claim

Ted Kennedy, 77, would not be treated for his brain tumour if he was in Britain because he is too old – Charles Grassley, Republican senator from Iowa.

The article answers

There is no ban on anyone of any age receiving any treatment,

but in a response to another claim it admits it rations care based on age and other things

allocate healthcare rationally within the context of limited healthcare resources. Nice assesses the cost of a treatment in terms of a cost-utility analysis which takes account of the quality adjusted life year

And a lot of other claims are dismissed by claiming reform was just done or just around the corner, such as:

The government is working to improve the situation.

Of course it is!

the Nice process does need reforming to ensure decisions are made more quickly and patients' quality of life is taken more into account."

[Каие]

And... if the NHS cannot provide it you can go private and the government even pays for it. They do not say ''Sorry, you're too old, off''. It's pure nonsense.

[Каие]

I agree completely. The government must not run the NHS top down. Or preferably at all.

[Yorkshireman]

The NHS compares more than favourably when matched against the US system of healthcare. We spend far less percentage of money and are ranked much higher according to the World Health Organisation, as indeed does every other industrialised nation on the planet.

This is from 2000, but I'm much has'nt changed since then.

1) France
18) United Kingdom
37) USA

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

World’s Best Medical Care?

Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is thwell behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.at this country lags

Michael Moore struck a nerve in his new documentary, “Sicko,” when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.

Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light.

Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs.

Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors.

Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.

Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world.

Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.

Life and death. In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor.

Patient satisfaction. Despite the declarations of their political leaders, many Americans hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system. Polls in Europe and North America seven to nine years ago found that only 40 percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s health care system, placing us 14th out of 17 countries. In recent Commonwealth Fund surveys of five countries, American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada.
That may be because Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. On the other hand, Gallup polls in recent years have shown that three-quarters of the respondents in the United States, in Canada and in Britain rate their personal care as excellent or good, so it could be hard to motivate these people for the wholesale change sought by the disaffected.

Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. This makes it harder to coordinate care, spot errors and adhere to standard clinical guidelines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/op...l?pagewanted=2

Ranked worse in access
Ranked worse in fairnes
Last to all other comparable nations
Worse for treatment of many major disease
Worse for patient satisfaction
Worse system of info/tech used within the service

Thats the real facts, not the bollacks some of the people on here spout. All these 'socialist system' countries with better healthcare than the most powerful nation on earth.

Does'nt look so good does it ?

[Sphere]

I love the idea of the NHS free health care for that's great but in practise it a mess why should doctors and nurses fill out tons of bureaucratic forms just for one aspirin also beyond many other things.

Thats not in line with the facts

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States

Administrative and managerial costs were 6.75% of total NHS spending in 1995-6, and this proportion had fallen to 6.10% by 1998-99, and dropped further since then to 5.4% in 2002-3, a spokesman said.

And healthcare spending per person per year

USA $4,271
UK $1,675

That means the average US citizen spends $1,324 on healthcare administration per year while a british subject spends $91. Think about that.

[LoZz]

to be honest who in the uk CARES what the americans think?

I know as do most brits that while its not perfect its better then what the americans have. If the american's don't belive it then who cares? are we that insecure now? let them think what they like. the WHO list states the truth. You can't force people to accept truths they choose to ignor. its a shame that the republicans are lieing to the public. But the british political spectrum doesn't do that to us?!? Its hardly something unique to them. But i personally am not so insecure about my health system that i actually care.

[Denny Crane!]

Why is the arguement always between UK and USA, why not something different altogether.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Why is the arguement always between UK and USA, why not something different altogether.

I suspect it has something to do with a common language.

[Erik]

Why is the arguement always between UK and USA, why not something different altogether.

Probably because the average American in oblivious to what kind of health care systems France and Germany have, but most have heard about the NHS.

Its impossible to have a national health care system which is paid for by taxes and have total choice over which system you pick at a personal level.

It's not impossible.

They could, for example, subsidize private health insurances (so you pay x amount less where x is the amount the NHS costs per person) or give people with private insurance a tax refund.

We used to have something like that in my country.

[Каие]

Yeah we always bring Canada and Australia into it too. But no one ever talks about France, the so called ''number 1'' on the WHO list.

[vopohame]

Pick anyone from western europe, hell even croatia isnt doing too bad compared to the US in health care.