Let's have Health Care like the UK

[tpaschal30]

"Waiting Times. Waiting lists are a huge problem in Great Britain. Some examples: 750,000 are on waiting lists for hospital admission; 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. Further, minimum waiting times have been instituted to reduce costs. “A top-flight hospital like Suffolk Est PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding.”"

source
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008...great-britain/

[Henry V]

And yet, despite all that terrible rationing (which also happens in the US), the UK still ranks 18th and the US ranks 37th as of 2000 by the WHO.

As your linked article states in the UK health care accounts for 7.5% of GDP. In the US estimates range from 15-17% (twice what is spent on education).

So, the US is far and away number one in cost per person and in the percent of GDP spent on health care yet we are consistently is middle of the pack in outcomes (of course not according to the CATO inst.). These great results despite 20 years of attention to health care costs and many projections are that health care will consume 20% of GDP in the near future. I am sorry but these are not results to be proud of, especially if you are a fiscal conservative.

If the choice is to stay the course with the current system tweaking it here and there like we have for 20+ years and going to a completely different system where there may be some rationing but it would cost half as much, I am all for a new universal or single payer system like the rest of the world. Lower cost and just as good if not better outcomes.

[luvmylabs23139]

And yet, despite all that terrible rationing (which also happens in the US), the UK still ranks 18th and the US ranks 37th as of 2000 by the WHO.

As your linked article states in the UK health care accounts for 7.5% of GDP. In the US estimates range from 15-17% (twice what is spent on education).

So, the US is far and away number one in cost per person and in the percent of GDP spent on health care yet we are consistently is middle of the pack in outcomes (of course not according to the CATO inst.). These great results despite 20 years of attention to health care costs and many projections are that health care will consume 20% of GDP in the near future. I am sorry but these are not results to be proud of, especially if you are a fiscal conservative.

If the choice is to stay the course with the current system tweaking it here and there like we have for 20+ years and going to a completely different system where there may be some rationing but it would cost half as much, I am all for a new universal or single payer system like the rest of the world. Lower cost and just as good if not better outcomes.

People in the UK who can offord to, pay outside the system in order to get faster and better service, and access to drugs the gov't won't pay for but are readily availble in the US.

[Cody Covey]

to bad they all die from cancer

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

[Gerry Clinchy]

And yet, despite all that terrible rationing (which also happens in the US), the UK still ranks 18th and the US ranks 37th as of 2000 by the WHO.

I've never heard of anyone who had a mandatory waiting period of 122 days before being admitted to a hospital here in the U.S. Quite the reverse, I have had friends whose doctors insisted on immediate hospitalization upon examination of the patient.

Would the mandatory waiting period make the statistics look better than they actually are? Some of the people waiting would die before they get into the "official" medical statistics?

[Matt McKenzie]

And yet, despite all that terrible rationing (which also happens in the US), the UK still ranks 18th and the US ranks 37th as of 2000 by the WHO.

As your linked article states in the UK health care accounts for 7.5% of GDP. In the US estimates range from 15-17% (twice what is spent on education).

So, the US is far and away number one in cost per person and in the percent of GDP spent on health care yet we are consistently is middle of the pack in outcomes (of course not according to the CATO inst.). These great results despite 20 years of attention to health care costs and many projections are that health care will consume 20% of GDP in the near future. I am sorry but these are not results to be proud of, especially if you are a fiscal conservative.

If the choice is to stay the course with the current system tweaking it here and there like we have for 20+ years and going to a completely different system where there may be some rationing but it would cost half as much, I am all for a new universal or single payer system like the rest of the world. Lower cost and just as good if not better outcomes.

Or you could just save yourself some trouble and move a few hundred miles north. Enjoy all the medical rationing you can stand. A few years ago, my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. She underwent chemo and radiation and a week after she was pronounced, "in remission", she was diagnosed with colon cancer and we started the whole process again. It's been almost four years and so far, she's in the clear. If we had been forced to wait any signifacant amount of time for the treatment of her breast cancer, she would no longer be with us. If necessary, I'll work three jobs for the rest of my life to pay for overpriced American health care for my wife or children rather than have to settle for waiting lists and substandard health care so that we can all get it for "free".
This is going to sound terrible to some of you, but if you have made choices in your life that have resulted in your inablity to get health care in this country, you have made some bad ones. If you "can't afford" health care for your family but have a cell phone, a car, a television or new clothes, your priorities are screwed up and I'll be damned if I'm willing to sacrifice my family to make up for your lack of judgement and responsibility.
Statistically, we can expect my wife's cancer to return at some point. I want access to the best treatment on the planet if that happens. The best treatment on the planet is currently in the USA but if the left gets their way, that will no longer be true. But at least it will be "fair". We can all suffer together, then. Screw that!

[Eric Johnson]

NPR recently discussed a recent study in Sweden that compared cost of medical care to life expectancy. The bottom line was that the greater the life-cycle cost, the longer lived was the population.

The reason is that if the population is healthy, there will be several more years of life in which to incur some medical cost. Further, in countries with say a life expectacy of 70 compared to one with a life expectancy of 75, the end result was the same with comparable costs. Thus, the country with the 5 years of extra life expectancy had 5 years of routine care plus the end result to pay for.

This is a single study and it screams a need for replication.

Eric

[zeus3925]

France is considered to have one of the best health care systems. When I visited France a year and a half ago, the French I spoke with were very happy with their system.

Basically, it requires universal insurance coverage. You may visit a health care provider of your choosing. Hospitalization is covered by the government. Treatment for catastrophic illness such as cancer is covered by the government. There are no gatekeepers regulating access to specialists and hospitals. It delivers a better result at lower cost than the US system.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1447687

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm

[twall]

If the choice is to stay the course with the current system tweaking it here and there like we have for 20+ years and going to a completely different system where there may be some rationing but it would cost half as much, I am all for a new universal or single payer system like the rest of the world. Lower cost and just as good if not better outcomes.

Do you really understand what you are saying? What do you think "some" rationing means? What do you consider better outcomes? Look at the states in the US with state sponsored insurance and where physician assisted suicide is legal. In Oregon a woman had a recuurance of her breast cancer. The state insurance refused to pay for chemotherapy but would pay for physician assisted suicide. Do you think she is happy with the lower cost and "better" outcome?

Why are healthcare costs higher in the US? Have things improved with HMO's and PPO's? How will universal (government) healthcare be better? If you think you will be happy with government insurance look at getting on medicaid and then tell me what you think. Look at provider lists and then tell us how great you think government insurance is. Shop for malpractice insurance and then figure that into the costs fo government insurance. Figure out how many non-US citizens are either receiving medicaid or incurring cost at hospitals that will never be reimbursed and then tell me about US healthcare costs. Ask a senior citizen on Medicare about their "donut hole" and then tell me how great it will be to have the governement run our healthcare system.

What has the government ever taken over from the private sector and done a better job at? Do you want your medical decisions made by a government employee who reports to a political appointee? I don't understand why free people are so willing to give up their freedom so willingly. The grass isn't green on the otherside of the fence.

If socialism is so great then how come people from socialist countries have been immigrating here for so many years? People in this country nwo expect to have everything given to them. They are so hungry for government handouts they will willingly give the one thing that sets this country apart from all ther rest, our freedom.

God help us!

Tom

[Matt McKenzie]

France is considered to have one of the best health care systems. When I visited France a year and a half ago, the French I spoke with were very happy with their system.

Basically, it requires universal insurance coverage. You may visit a health care provider of your choosing. Hospitalization is covered by the government. Treatment for catastrophic illness such as cancer is covered by the government. There are no gatekeepers regulating access to specialists and hospitals. It delivers a better result at lower cost than the US system.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1447687

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...8/b4042070.htm

Are you ready to be taxed at French rates?