British Medical Journal - Failing health of the United States. A complete shambles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

You are so wrong. We know at least three women in the UK (friends/family) who had breast cancer and were treated by the NHS. Life threatening issues are taken care of immediately.

I posted earlier, but seems that post disappeared. UK has NHS AND private insurance, AND the cost of medical care paying out of pocket is much much cheaper than here. So, the people we know there use NHS for common ailments and urgent care issues, but for things they don't want to wait for that are not life threatening, they pay private, and it's much more affordable. Plus, they don't pay the ridiculous health insurance premiums like we do (our's is $1500/mo for a high deductible plan HMO). I would MUCH prefer their system of public plus private than what we have, which is basically the poor get free care, the rich can afford anything, and those of us in the middle get screwed.

And before ACA, there were lifetime max caps and pre-existing condition clauses. NHS has none of that.

This is not the point. Most of the causes of increased deaths are attributable to LIFESTYLE choices. Little to do with access to care.
We eat too much, drink too much, and use drugs too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

This is totally wrong. I am British and lived there until 2 years ago. I had cancer in my early 20s and was treated on the NHS by one of the top hospitals in the world - the Royal Marsden in London. I had surgery, radiotherapy, and in-patient chemotherapy over a period of six months. I did not pay a penny and did not have to contend with one single bit of admin related to my health care. Just turned up to my appointments and hospital stays. I was treated within 7 days of being diagnosed and in fact when the hospital couldn't get hold of me following the results of a biopsy, someone actually came to my address and hand delivered a note to request I called the hospital (my phone number on file was incorrect).

Yes the NHS is in a bad way currently due to recent government cuts (and a whole heap of issues I'm not going into now) but the wait times are much worse for non-urgent issues, not the serious ones that need immediate attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

This is totally wrong. I am British and lived there until 2 years ago. I had cancer in my early 20s and was treated on the NHS by one of the top hospitals in the world - the Royal Marsden in London. I had surgery, radiotherapy, and in-patient chemotherapy over a period of six months. I did not pay a penny and did not have to contend with one single bit of admin related to my health care. Just turned up to my appointments and hospital stays. I was treated within 7 days of being diagnosed and in fact when the hospital couldn't get hold of me following the results of a biopsy, someone actually came to my address and hand delivered a note to request I called the hospital (my phone number on file was incorrect).

Yes the NHS is in a bad way currently due to recent government cuts (and a whole heap of issues I'm not going into now) but the wait times are much worse for non-urgent issues, not the serious ones that need immediate attention.

So your anecdote means no one is waiting for cancer treatment in the UK? Because publications and news articles say fohetwide:


Performance against the 62-day waiting time target in England has dropped below 80% for the first time on record, meaning in January this year one in five cancer patients (20.3%) – almost 2,500 people3 - had to wait more than two months for their treatment to start

https://www.macmillan.org.uk/aboutus/news/latest_news/nhs-performance-on-cancer-treatment-waiting-times-hits-record-low.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm in healthcare and trends that I have seen in the last 30 years that worsens life expectancy are:
Alcohol!!! way too much. Young people come to work talking more and more about what they drink on the weekends. To much jabber about "craft" beer and nightly glasses of wine. Almost as if they think it makes them sound more sophisticated.
Heroin, fentanyl, and the oxys.
OBESITY.
Extreme sports and cyclists.
Smoking tobacco is about the same.
Smoking marijuana is more common.
Suicide, depression and a general dissatisfaction with life. Yong people expecting too much early on and walking away from the basic principles. Disconnected from family and religion. Like they want these amazing lives and anything less is a failure.

there was a massive (20-30+ page) thread in off-topic a year or two ago asking white women why they drink so much. The self destructiveness of white women over the last 15 years is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

For sure british healthcare is in a poor state. The issue with NHS is they don't fund it as well as the french do.

http://www.cityam.com/article/why-french-model-may-have-answer-nhs-s-many-challenges

the british have a funding problem. many european counterparts fund their health care much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

This is totally wrong. I am British and lived there until 2 years ago. I had cancer in my early 20s and was treated on the NHS by one of the top hospitals in the world - the Royal Marsden in London. I had surgery, radiotherapy, and in-patient chemotherapy over a period of six months. I did not pay a penny and did not have to contend with one single bit of admin related to my health care. Just turned up to my appointments and hospital stays. I was treated within 7 days of being diagnosed and in fact when the hospital couldn't get hold of me following the results of a biopsy, someone actually came to my address and hand delivered a note to request I called the hospital (my phone number on file was incorrect).

Yes the NHS is in a bad way currently due to recent government cuts (and a whole heap of issues I'm not going into now) but the wait times are much worse for non-urgent issues, not the serious ones that need immediate attention.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

You are so wrong. We know at least three women in the UK (friends/family) who had breast cancer and were treated by the NHS. Life threatening issues are taken care of immediately.

I posted earlier, but seems that post disappeared. UK has NHS AND private insurance, AND the cost of medical care paying out of pocket is much much cheaper than here. So, the people we know there use NHS for common ailments and urgent care issues, but for things they don't want to wait for that are not life threatening, they pay private, and it's much more affordable. Plus, they don't pay the ridiculous health insurance premiums like we do (our's is $1500/mo for a high deductible plan HMO). I would MUCH prefer their system of public plus private than what we have, which is basically the poor get free care, the rich can afford anything, and those of us in the middle get screwed.

And before ACA, there were lifetime max caps and pre-existing condition clauses. NHS has none of that.

This is not the point. Most of the causes of increased deaths are attributable to LIFESTYLE choices. Little to do with access to care.
We eat too much, drink too much, and use drugs too much.

I was responding to the first PP - bolded. Yes, Americans engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices. I don't think there's anything to argue about there. But to say that NHS is inferior to the US healthcare system, not quality of care, is incorrect. When middle class people are priced out of healthcare, that's an inferior system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

This is totally wrong. I am British and lived there until 2 years ago. I had cancer in my early 20s and was treated on the NHS by one of the top hospitals in the world - the Royal Marsden in London. I had surgery, radiotherapy, and in-patient chemotherapy over a period of six months. I did not pay a penny and did not have to contend with one single bit of admin related to my health care. Just turned up to my appointments and hospital stays. I was treated within 7 days of being diagnosed and in fact when the hospital couldn't get hold of me following the results of a biopsy, someone actually came to my address and hand delivered a note to request I called the hospital (my phone number on file was incorrect).

Yes the NHS is in a bad way currently due to recent government cuts (and a whole heap of issues I'm not going into now) but the wait times are much worse for non-urgent issues, not the serious ones that need immediate attention.

So your anecdote means no one is waiting for cancer treatment in the UK? Because publications and news articles say fohetwide:


Performance against the 62-day waiting time target in England has dropped below 80% for the first time on record, meaning in January this year one in five cancer patients (20.3%) – almost 2,500 people3 - had to wait more than two months for their treatment to start

https://www.macmillan.org.uk/aboutus/news/latest_news/nhs-performance-on-cancer-treatment-waiting-times-hits-record-low.aspx

No that wasn't what I said. I said the wait times were worse dor non-urgent issues. But ultimately you can pay for private treatment if you choose and can afford it. There are huge funding issues, yes, but it's not accurate to say that the care for serious issues is substandard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is shocking. What educated Americans don't already know this?

Yep. Plenty of us see the problems, but our political process is owned by corporate America now, and corporations act in their own self-interest, not that of people. I would argue it's the amorality of corporations that is leading to our demise. The processed food we eat, the car-centric nature of our communities, the cost and lack of access to healthcare, all stem from corporate interests. And we go along with it, like lambs to the slaughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

This is totally wrong. I am British and lived there until 2 years ago. I had cancer in my early 20s and was treated on the NHS by one of the top hospitals in the world - the Royal Marsden in London. I had surgery, radiotherapy, and in-patient chemotherapy over a period of six months. I did not pay a penny and did not have to contend with one single bit of admin related to my health care. Just turned up to my appointments and hospital stays. I was treated within 7 days of being diagnosed and in fact when the hospital couldn't get hold of me following the results of a biopsy, someone actually came to my address and hand delivered a note to request I called the hospital (my phone number on file was incorrect).

Yes the NHS is in a bad way currently due to recent government cuts (and a whole heap of issues I'm not going into now) but the wait times are much worse for non-urgent issues, not the serious ones that need immediate attention.

So your anecdote means no one is waiting for cancer treatment in the UK? Because publications and news articles say fohetwide:


Performance against the 62-day waiting time target in England has dropped below 80% for the first time on record, meaning in January this year one in five cancer patients (20.3%) – almost 2,500 people3 - had to wait more than two months for their treatment to start

https://www.macmillan.org.uk/aboutus/news/latest_news/nhs-performance-on-cancer-treatment-waiting-times-hits-record-low.aspx

No that wasn't what I said. I said the wait times were worse dor non-urgent issues. But ultimately you can pay for private treatment if you choose and can afford it. There are huge funding issues, yes, but it's not accurate to say that the care for serious issues is substandard.

That says it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is shocking. What educated Americans don't already know this?

Yep. Plenty of us see the problems, but our political process is owned by corporate America now, and corporations act in their own self-interest, not that of people. I would argue it's the amorality of corporations that is leading to our demise. The processed food we eat, the car-centric nature of our communities, the cost and lack of access to healthcare, all stem from corporate interests. And we go along with it, like lambs to the slaughter.

this. Combined with the fact that our elected officials represent these corporations and not the health and safety of the American people. There is too much money in politics. We need campaign finance reform, we need to get rid of citizens United, and reduce the influence of lobbyists. Elected officials need to represent us not corporations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

You are so wrong. We know at least three women in the UK (friends/family) who had breast cancer and were treated by the NHS. Life threatening issues are taken care of immediately.

I posted earlier, but seems that post disappeared. UK has NHS AND private insurance, AND the cost of medical care paying out of pocket is much much cheaper than here. So, the people we know there use NHS for common ailments and urgent care issues, but for things they don't want to wait for that are not life threatening, they pay private, and it's much more affordable. Plus, they don't pay the ridiculous health insurance premiums like we do (our's is $1500/mo for a high deductible plan HMO). I would MUCH prefer their system of public plus private than what we have, which is basically the poor get free care, the rich can afford anything, and those of us in the middle get screwed.

And before ACA, there were lifetime max caps and pre-existing condition clauses. NHS has none of that.

This is not the point. Most of the causes of increased deaths are attributable to LIFESTYLE choices. Little to do with access to care.
We eat too much, drink too much, and use drugs too much.

I was responding to the first PP - bolded. Yes, Americans engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices. I don't think there's anything to argue about there. But to say that NHS is inferior to the US healthcare system, not quality of care, is incorrect. When middle class people are priced out of healthcare, that's an inferior system.

What does this mean? Do you live in the US? If someone is “priced out” then they receive government assistance for purchasing insurance. Most Europeans have this vision that Americans must pay for healthcare before they can receive it. They also seem shocked when they find out what Medicaid is and that we’ve had it for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

This is totally wrong. I am British and lived there until 2 years ago. I had cancer in my early 20s and was treated on the NHS by one of the top hospitals in the world - the Royal Marsden in London. I had surgery, radiotherapy, and in-patient chemotherapy over a period of six months. I did not pay a penny and did not have to contend with one single bit of admin related to my health care. Just turned up to my appointments and hospital stays. I was treated within 7 days of being diagnosed and in fact when the hospital couldn't get hold of me following the results of a biopsy, someone actually came to my address and hand delivered a note to request I called the hospital (my phone number on file was incorrect).

Yes the NHS is in a bad way currently due to recent government cuts (and a whole heap of issues I'm not going into now) but the wait times are much worse for non-urgent issues, not the serious ones that need immediate attention.

So your anecdote means no one is waiting for cancer treatment in the UK? Because publications and news articles say fohetwide:


Performance against the 62-day waiting time target in England has dropped below 80% for the first time on record, meaning in January this year one in five cancer patients (20.3%) – almost 2,500 people3 - had to wait more than two months for their treatment to start

https://www.macmillan.org.uk/aboutus/news/latest_news/nhs-performance-on-cancer-treatment-waiting-times-hits-record-low.aspx

DP.. my sister was diagnosed with breast cancer. Her surgeon wanted her to wait six weeks for surgery. WTF? I made her call them back and push the surgery up.

I am also a PP -- I stated that I know three women who were treated by the NHS for breast cancer. 20% of people in the UK had to wait for their treatment to start. How many folks in the US die of cancer because they can't afford treatment? According to one report, about 45,000 people a year die of cancer because they lack insurance. Waiting 2 months for treatment is terrible, but having no access to care is worse, don't you think.

A lottery winner died of cancer because he waited too long to seek treatment because he couldn't afford it. He was a self employed carpenter. If he lived in the UK, he would've gotten treatment before he hit stage 4 cancer.

http://abc7chicago.com/hobbies/lottery-winner-dies-weeks-after-cashing-in-$1m-scratch-off-ticket/3008129/

NHS is obviously imperfect, but the UK system of public PLUS private (you can pay for private out of perfect and it's cheaper than here) is vastly superior than what we have here where the rich can afford care, but the middle and lower income folks get screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The British love to talk about US healthcare. Why? Because they are insecure and the NHS is in shambles. Yes, there are issues with US healthcare but a different set of issues than in the UK. The British often face lengthy wait times and substandard care for serious conditions. The NHS is great if you have a common illness or ailment. NOT when you have breast cancer.

You are so wrong. We know at least three women in the UK (friends/family) who had breast cancer and were treated by the NHS. Life threatening issues are taken care of immediately.

I posted earlier, but seems that post disappeared. UK has NHS AND private insurance, AND the cost of medical care paying out of pocket is much much cheaper than here. So, the people we know there use NHS for common ailments and urgent care issues, but for things they don't want to wait for that are not life threatening, they pay private, and it's much more affordable. Plus, they don't pay the ridiculous health insurance premiums like we do (our's is $1500/mo for a high deductible plan HMO). I would MUCH prefer their system of public plus private than what we have, which is basically the poor get free care, the rich can afford anything, and those of us in the middle get screwed.

And before ACA, there were lifetime max caps and pre-existing condition clauses. NHS has none of that.

This is not the point. Most of the causes of increased deaths are attributable to LIFESTYLE choices. Little to do with access to care.
We eat too much, drink too much, and use drugs too much.

I was responding to the first PP - bolded. Yes, Americans engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices. I don't think there's anything to argue about there. But to say that NHS is inferior to the US healthcare system, not quality of care, is incorrect. When middle class people are priced out of healthcare, that's an inferior system.

What does this mean? Do you live in the US? If someone is “priced out” then they receive government assistance for purchasing insurance. Most Europeans have this vision that Americans must pay for healthcare before they can receive it. They also seem shocked when they find out what Medicaid is and that we’ve had it for years.

You must be unaware of how expensive health insurance is on the private market. We pay $1500 for an HMO high deductible plan - family of four. We never hit the deductible. Our HHI is $200K. A family of four making $90K is not eligible for government assistance, nor can they afford $1500/mo high deductible plan on healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this is shocking. What educated Americans don't already know this?

Yep. Plenty of us see the problems, but our political process is owned by corporate America now, and corporations act in their own self-interest, not that of people. I would argue it's the amorality of corporations that is leading to our demise. The processed food we eat, the car-centric nature of our communities, the cost and lack of access to healthcare, all stem from corporate interests. And we go along with it, like lambs to the slaughter.

this. Combined with the fact that our elected officials represent these corporations and not the health and safety of the American people. There is too much money in politics. We need campaign finance reform, we need to get rid of citizens United, and reduce the influence of lobbyists. Elected officials need to represent us not corporations.

Citizens United fought against campaign finance reform. The conservative SCOTUS overturned it, which prevents big money in politics.