[Closed] the wonderful world of private healthcare US style

how many of us pays £2000 a year in total taxes ?

Heavy drinkers and smokers, easily, without bringing council or income tax into it.

how many of us pays £2000 a year in total taxes ?

I paid a lot more than that with one purchase last week

busydog - Member

.................

I hear antecdotal stories about how long it takes to get medical treatment in the UK, especially some of the more specialized and/or sophisticated tests, i.e. MRIs, etc and wondered if that is actually the case there or more myth than fact?

It depends on the urgency and on how good your local hospital is. Have a major injury / illness and there is no delay, have a chronic condition and there will be delays. Have a non urgent condition and you will wait.

also some treatments / diagnostic tools of little proven use are not used - s people cannot always get the latest wizz bang treatment they have read about in the papers

@uplink

As I have reached a "certain" age and am now on the Medicare program (no longer have personal health insurance--probably couldn't get it anyway with a case history of Melanoma), I was able to get an MRI next day for a shoulder injury----my cost was a co-pay of about $30 for seeing the specialist. My co-pay for my regular doctor is $10 and I can, more often than not, get in the same day (which I was yesterday, 45 minutes after calling).

Prior to reaching the official Social Security/Medicare age, I was on my wife's company healthcare plan and we paid, as I recall, about $250/month coverage for both (which is taken out pre-tax, so lowers your taxable income). With me off the policy now, she pays $110/month. My medicare basic medical costs me $1116.00 a year and I elected to take out a supplemental policy that costs $650.00 a year.

Hospitals here can't turn someone away from the Emergency Room if they don't have insurance--they have to treat them.

@tandemjeremy

It sounds like we can get in for some of the specialized stuff quicker (my MRI for the shoulder was somethng chonic I had lived with for a year and finally it got irritating enough to go to an orthopedic doctor), but doctors here won't always prescribe the latest, greatest tests that are still of uncertain value either.

Another, somewhat related issue here, is all of the extensive advertising by the pharma companies on TV, magazines, etc of every new wonder product under the sun, which results in everyone asking their doctors to prescribe it.

Another, somewhat related issue here, is all of the extensive advertising by the pharma companies on TV, magazines, etc of every new wonder product under the sun, which results in everyone asking their doctors to prescribe it.

I did notice all the drug ads
You seem to have quite a problem with erectile dysfunction over there - if the TV ads are anything to go by that is 🙂

This whole thread made me think of another, related situation that is especially prevalent here in New Mexico, as well as with the other border states with Mexico.
Our hospital emergency rooms are innundated with illegal aliens seeking treatment, not just for emergencies, but for everything you can think of--and by law they have to be treated, so it innundates the hospital systems and drives their costs up tremendously.

@uplink --- not sure, but I have reason to believe that our politicians and Hugh Hefner are the primary customers of Viagra. 😆

I hear antecdotal stories about how long it takes to get medical treatment in the UK, especially some of the more specialized and/or sophisticated tests, i.e. MRIs, etc and wondered if that is actually the case there or more myth than fact?

It used to be much worse than it is now, so a lot of stories probably date from them. As above though, if it's urgent you do get it quickly.

BUT

What you need to remember is that you are still free to buy private health insurance just the same as in the US. However here it's supplemental to the NHS so you still use the NHS for general doctor visits and long term cancer care or whatever, just that your private insurance will cover you for.. well.. whatever you buy it for I suppose. Most of the IT permanent jobs I've had came with health insurance, but I never used it.

My grandad had Alzheimers. He was in hospital for 7 years before he died. In the US his insurance would have run out by yr 3. I appreciate that self centred halfwits like zulu11 would prefer to have had him turfed out of hospital so they could save couple of pennies on their taxes, For myself, I thank the system that spared us the grief of looking after him and allowed him to live those years in, and to die with dignity. And when I hear of someone else dealing with a family member with a long term condition. my first thought isn't for the impact on my pocket, but that I hope we keep giving the level of care my grandad got.
Sadly, we probably won't.

I hear antecdotal stories about how long it takes to get medical treatment in the UK, especially some of the more specialized and/or sophisticated tests, i.e. MRIs, etc and wondered if that is actually the case there or more myth than fact?

Working in an NHS Radiology Dept, we do about 97.5% of MRIs in under 2 weeks from receiving the request. Most of the remainder are either DNAs (patient Did Not Attend) or are non-critical examinations requiring a specialist set up that we try to do in groups.

Not anecdotal, based on regular attendance at meetings where waiting times are discussed.

Don't know about MRI's etc, but the last time i had cause to visit the A&E Dept was a Sunday evening after a stack on the bike.
Bloody sore elbow, possible fracture i thought. Got to the hospital and expected to have to return for an x-ray because it was a Sunday night and i thought there would be no x-ray staff on duty.
Seen within 30 minutes by a nice lady Doctor, shunted off down to the x-ray dept and photo'ed by another nice lady*.

Happy with my treatment and with the manner of the staff - lovely people.

*Lady had to re-shoot the elbow a couple of times saying "I'm sorry, i'm normally good at elbows". I replied "S'ok, i'm normally good at riding my bike!" 😆

It's nice when emergency room people are pleasant---knowing what they have to deal with 24/7 it would make a lot of people really cranky. I used to date an emergency room nurse and some of her stories about the incoming patients and their various conditions made me cringe---more than I would want to deal with.

It's nice when emergency room people are pleasant

You have 'emergency rooms' ? Here in the UK we have accident and emergency departments.

Socialised healthcare rocks.

In the UK, $2815 per person per year, to cover everyone in the country All paid for from tax.

In the US, they spend $6719 per person per year, to cover some people for emergency only treatment, and the lucky ones for all treatment. On average, people spend $3500 themselves on healthcare, and the government spends $3200.

So, the US government spends more as a % of gdp per person and they still have to pay for insurance

and the grand result...................

the average life expectancy in the usa is 78.7 yrs
the average life expectancy in the uk is 80.1 yrs
(source world bank for 2009)

conclusion
america is stoopid

and our emergency number is bigger than yours ...these things are important for socialism to take hold
america is stoopid but still the land of the free and the home of the brave

A & E at Royal Sussex in Brighton on a Friday night was an experience. Luckily there was a policewoman waiting to be seen with a suspected broken arm and her two colleagues were able to 'subdue' the very drunk and abusive woman who was trying to attack the triage nurse (don't know if they're actually called that but that's what he was doing).

Didn't envy anyone working there at that time but very thankful they were!

@ernie_lynch

Same kind of service--just different titles---here the ER is an entire department within the hospital

here the ER is an entire department within the hospital

Those crazy yanks..........do you still ask where the "bathroom" is when you're in a pub ?

.

.

😉

When I need a slash in the states they just tell me I'm talking non-cents.

Average life expectancy Utah - 81
Average life expectancy Mississipi - 76

Average life expectancy England - 81
Average life expectancy Scotland - 77

Conclusion, anyone who thinks the entirity of America can be compared to the UK is stupid

Yeah, people here in the US calling it a "bathroom" is about as dumb as when they refer to it as a "restroom"

Yeah, people here in the US calling it a "bathroom" is about as dumb as when they refer to it as a "restroom"

And we call it a toilet. You know what toilet actually means?

You know what toilet actually means?

Does it come from the fancy posh french word 'toilette' meaning to dress or groom oneself ?

Ty Bach ..like that one

donations to charity are tax-deductible in the UK, too.

Please explain more.

'Give as you earn' deducts donations from gross salary

I've never heard of that before, I wonder how many companies sign up to this scheme?

No, that's wrong. It's not just give as you earn (which is a relatively new scheme) that allows tax-free donations, it's all donations to charity (apart from tiny ones). Charitable donations in the UK have been tax-deductible for donkey's years. The reason why Americans donate more money (and time) to charity is not because it's tax deductible there and not here.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingMoney/GivingMoneyToCharity/DG_078329

Don't NHS GPs get paid per procedure?

Couldn't be further from the truth. The NHS uses gps as gate keepers to control access to expensive and over medicalised hospital based care.

I do apologise - I'm obviously under the wrong info. As someone else pointed out, I'm also probably misleading people using the word "procedure" which seems to have a proper medical meaning. I think I just meant "interaction" or "appointment" or something.

In the private US system, the insurance companies use loss adjusters as (usually retroactive) gatekeepers to expensive care. And when it comes to approved/non-approved treatments, the insurance companies are doing the same thing as what NICE does when it decides whether or not to let treatment/drug X to be used in the NHS.

And actually to go back to Junkyard's suggestion that he wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor that had a financial interest in how many treatments he gets - that's not really how it works in the US anyway. A US GP doesn't get paid any more for ordering lab work/drugs etc because all of it is outsourced and billed direct to the insurance co or patient/user.

If you believe that the US has a superior health care system, you'd sort of expect to see a [relatively] high life expectancy rather than one that falls below most of the Western world and at a similar level to Albania

Life expectancy is determined by far more than the healthcare system.

Yep, things such as diet, smoking, alcohol intake, etc, which have nothing to do with healthcare, are extremely important.

The single best indicator of how effective a country's healthcare provisions are, is infant mortality.

In the United States the number of infants dying before reaching one year of age, per 1,000 live births, is 6.06. Which compares with 4.62 in the UK.

Britain has undoubtedly better and hugely cheaper healthcare than the US.
It's also fairer, if that bothers anyone.

Britain has undoubtedly better and hugely cheaper healthcare than the US.
It's also fairer, if that bothers anyone.

Isn't the fact that is it so expensive and unfair exactly why Obama is trying to drive the changes through?

'Better' is very subjective.

It's easy to get confused by the various funding streams in the nhs, konabunny, even when you work there.
Basically gps are paid £x per patient on the list, regardless of how many times the patient is seen. With extra £y per patient for doing things like staying open later of offering extra services like minor surgery, plus a proportion related to performance (quality outcomes framework)
Hospitals are on a system of payment by results. They get paid a fee for each "interaction", from a set tarrif. So a first appointment costs more than a follow up, etc.
Neither the US or UK system is perfect. The uk system is like a big sweet shop with a sign above the door saying "loads of good stuff for free, take as much as you want" then we are surprised when it is abused.
The US sweet shop has nicer sweets but you have to pay $50 to get in.

'Better' is very subjective.

I reckon it is universally accepted that the purpose of a healthcare system is to provide health care. If one healthcare system does this more effectively than another healthcare system, then it can be fairly described as "better".

The comment that in the United States the infant mortality is 6.06, which compares with 4.62 in the UK, isn't my [i]opinion[/i], it's a fact. So solely on the basis of what is the single best indicator of how effective a country's healthcare provisions are, Britain's healthcare provisions are better than the US's.

Unless of course you think higher infant mortality is a good thing, in which case the US's healthcare provisions are better.

Here's a nice picture for people who like to pretend that the truth isn't as it seems :

[img] [/img]

Ah - Ernie stumbles at the first fence, the OECD's own cautionary note, which warns against country-to-country infant mortality comparisons, because they are unfair.
[i]"Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or not)," [/i]

The Center for Disease Control says the U.S. ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality rates, behind most other developed nations. But points out that this ranking ignores other statistical nuances that, if adjusted for, would show the U.S. actually has much better care for infants than these rankings allow.
The U.S. is supposedly worse than Greece, Northern Ireland, Cuba and Hungary in infant mortality rates.

The U.S. ranks poorly on the infant mortality list largely because they country actually count neonatal deaths, notably premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries who don't count these infant deaths.

Again according to the OECD: [i]"In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births,[/i]”

The World Health Organization [WHO] defines a country's infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births. WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any sign of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one single breath, or has one heartbeat.The U.S. uses this definition. But other countries do not -- so they don't count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths. The United States actually counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity, or size, or duration of life, Also, what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, foetal weight must be at least 500 grams before they count as live births, In Switzerland, the foetus must be at least 30 centimeters long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and not counted as infant mortality.

Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway's underweight infants who are not now counted.

pretty comprehensive shooting down of Ernie's argument by Bernardine Healy, former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross 😆

pretty comprehensive shooting down of Ernie's argument by Bernardine Healy

Shot down by a presidential advisor to Ronald Reagan eh ? .....who would have thought it.

btw, I never bothered watching that Ronald Reagan video you posted on this thread.......what does it say?

And oh yeah, you never explained what you meant concerning that drivel you posted asking who pays £2000 in total taxes per year. I'll come back later and see what you've posted.

So, Ernie. This subjective better thing and your basis that infant mortality is the deciding factor.....oh.

Mrs TT had far better health care in the USA than has been available on the NHS in the UK. She was dealt with promptly in relatively modern facilities and the complete care package exceeded anything either of us has experienced in this country. A trip to somewhere like Peterborough Hospital would be enough to send anyone home claiming a miracle recovery.
Neither system is good, both have many faults and better is still subjective. Or confusing when you refer non-like statistics as evidence.

better is still subjective

I disagree.

Any system that leaves millions of citizens with no security is not good. No matter how you look at it. End of.

With regards your hospital experience - it does vary in the US too you know. I've heard lots of bad stories about US healthcare too. And it's not just about machines and nice buildings - Mrs Grips was really worried about giving birth because she thought it was going to be the US style with the whole operating theatre thing and epidurals all round. She was very relieved to find it was just us and a midwife in a room. Sometimes LESS is better.

What you going to do next tell me Eton is better than a Peterborough state school? We all know it is..... if you can afford it?
In respect of healthcare ours is much more likely [ on average] to be better as it treats everyone. I am sur eyou can find examples to support each view but universal health care must , on average, be better than non universal health care.

I work in the healthcare sector and have visited hospitals all over the world.

The Amercian Healthcare system - if you can afford it - is in many ways superior to the NHS. US citizens paying for healthcare find it completely unacceptible to wait for a hospital appointment or even to wait for a GP (this is one of the reasons why they see the NHS as such a failure). US Healthcare is like going private in the UK (as you might expect). If you have no money in the US - the US medicare system is pretty terrible. No surprises there either. I've been in some pretty rough Medicare/Charitable funded US hospitals.

Actually there are some much better Healthcare systems in Europe. The Dutch system (fabulous hospitals and treatments)is particularly good or even the French system gives better treatment than the NHS. It's just a question of how much the government can afford.

The NHS was getting to be so much better over the last few years. Sadly it looks like the piggy bank is now empty and it's going to be tough times ahead.

Ernie:

i) I'm [i]fairly[/i] confident that Bernadine Healy, who is:

an American physician, cardiologist and former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). She has been a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, professor and dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at the Ohio State University, and served as president of the American Red Cross. Currently she is health editor and columnist for U.S. News & World Report. She has become a well-known commentator in the media on health issues. She is a brain cancer survivor.[1]

Is eminently more qualified to comment on US infant mortality rates than you are!

ii) Anyone paying less than approx 2k per year in net taxation is not paying their way... at the moment, thats approx nine million of the UK "working age population" (ie, those officially not economically active, including approx 2 million "housewives", 2 million students, 2 million long term sick ) on top of this, there's about 2.5 million unemployed, then there's children, then there's those on state pensions, or low pensions.

Do the sums, and you come out with about half the population paying for the medical bills for the other half the population! see, the NHS really is "free" for half the population after all

The NHS was getting to be so much better over the last few years. Sadly it looks like the piggy bank is now empty and it's going to be tough times ahead.

Do the sums, and you come out with about half the population paying for the medical bills for the other half the population! see, the NHS really is "free" for half the population after all

Reading that as "I'm alright jack screw the rest of you"

Zulu-Eleven:

2 million students.....there's about 2.5 million unemployed

....as i mentioned earlier, if NarrowMindedTrackWorld is the arbiter of objectivity, it is highly likely these 2 groups contribute a great deal in alcohol and tobacco duty. 😆

Should you be daft enought to both smoke 20 straights a day and buy it all in the uk, then my back of a fag packet sums (did you see what i did there?) suggest you contribute about £1100 per year to the government. Whether you happen to be on the sick, retired or a higher rate income tax payer. Lord knows how much per year a 30-40 units-per-week alcohol intake contributes, I guess that would vary wildly on how you buy your booze (duty varies on abv and booze type iirc) but this will also be the case regardless of how worthy of free health care some folk on this thread seem to think you are.

Unhealthy health-service-costing lifestyles are already quite well taxed in some areas, it's just not been spent (by any government whatever flavour 👿 ) in the right places.

[i]pretty comprehensive shooting down of Ernie's argument by Bernardine Healy, former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross [/i]

Not really.

The primary reason for the United States’ higher infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the United States’ much higher percentage of preterm births. In 2004, 1 in 8 infants born in the United States were born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 in Ireland and Finland. Preterm infants have much higher rates of death or disability than infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more (2-4, 6), so the United States’ higher percentage of preterm births has a large effect on infant mortality rates. If the United States had the same gestational age distribution of births as Sweden, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 weeks of gestation) would go from 5.8 to 3.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, a 33% decline. These data suggest that preterm birth prevention is crucial to lowering the U.S. infant mortality rate.

[url] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm [/url]

I hear antecdotal stories about how long it takes to get medical treatment in the UK, especially some of the more specialized and/or sophisticated tests, i.e. MRIs, etc and wondered if that is actually the case there or more myth than fact?

I'm married to someone who recently needed MRI scans etc., here (Derby) it is a week or so wait in a non-urgent case, same day for an in-patient / high priority one.

If a child is hit by a car in the US and the car drives off how does this work? Who pays? Is it free at this point?

I'm married to someone who recently needed MRI scans etc., here (Derby) it is a week or so wait in a non-urgent case, same day for an in-patient / high priority one.

From what you and a couple other posters have described the wait for specialized tests, etc. isn't nearly the issue that ws portrayed in some of the stories going around from a few years ago.
I would imagine that in the UK, just like in the US, getting such tests/treatments in a timely fashion varies from area to area.
One issue we face here in New Mexico is the lack of physicians/dentists, etc in the more rural parts of the state---in some areas there isn't a doctor within 50-75 miles (of course there isn't much of anything else either)

busydog - a lot of what is publicised is when things go wrong.

Some of the stuff around testing is when people demand these tests but the protocols say not needed at this point - then they get unhappy about it.

There is rationing and delays for sure in the NHS - and sometimes unacceptable ones. However everyone gets treated and no one pays for the treatment.

The worst delays are for non urgent treatment - surgery - that can be a long time many weeks - for say a simple hernia repair or for a hip replacement for arthritis.