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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Your taxes would be higher in the UK. Nothing is free.

[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

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.

This is their fault. Especially with the individual mandate and government assistance for lower income people to buy the mandated insurance. You’re required to purchase insurance in the US now. Did you even know that??

[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.

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.

DP.. yes, in UK you can pay privately if you want, and it's cheaper than here, by a lot.

In the US, we pay $1500/mo for a high deductible plan, and never meet the deductible. We spend probably $20K/yr on healthcare - premiums plus out of pocket, and the only reason we pay for insurance is because we are afraid that one of us might get a serious illness, then we'd be hosed even more.

In the UK, you don't have to pay for insurance. But, if you get seriously ill, like cancer, NHS will pay for it. If you want hip surgery without waiting, it costs about $12K. In the US, if one of us were to get hip surgery, we would pay $1500/mo insurance premiums, $7000 deductible. That's $25K - all in all, double what it would cost to get that one surgery in the UK. Then the next year, you pay another $18K in insurance premiums because you don't want to be without insurance in case something else bad happens, while in the UK you pay zero in insurance premium because you know that if something bad were to happen, you always have NHS or pay out of pocket with all that money you have because you didn't have to pay $18K/yr for the past however many years.

How in the world does anyone think our *system* here is vastly superior to the UK? I'm not talking about the quality of care. I think that's a different argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So? Your taxes would be higher in the UK. Nothing is free.

It is only *slightly* higher because they don't have double tax like we do here. My DH is from the UK. But even if taxes are higher, that's fine, since we get services for it. While here in the US, we pay highish taxes PLUS high insurance premiums PLUS high healthcare costs. The US is the ONLY developed country that doesn't have universal healthcare.

[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.

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.

This is their fault. Especially with the individual mandate and government assistance for lower income people to buy the mandated insurance. You’re required to purchase insurance in the US now. Did you even know that??

The article doesn't go into detail but maybe he couldn't afford the high premiums but made too much to get subsidies. I don't know. But there others who live in states which didn't take the medicaid expansion who probably can't afford the insurance. The individual mandate can't force you to buy insurance. You just pay a tax penalty if you don't. Is it stupid to not have insurance? Absolutely, but some people just can't afford it. I'm sure you are aware of the sky rocketing costs of insurance premiums. Trump even said his workers couldn't afford it (yes, I know that was BS, but even he knows that it's expensive).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP.. yes, in UK you can pay privately if you want, and it's cheaper than here, by a lot.

In the US, we pay $1500/mo for a high deductible plan, and never meet the deductible. We spend probably $20K/yr on healthcare - premiums plus out of pocket, and the only reason we pay for insurance is because we are afraid that one of us might get a serious illness, then we'd be hosed even more.

In the UK, you don't have to pay for insurance. But, if you get seriously ill, like cancer, NHS will pay for it. If you want hip surgery without waiting, it costs about $12K. In the US, if one of us were to get hip surgery, we would pay $1500/mo insurance premiums, $7000 deductible. That's $25K - all in all, double what it would cost to get that one surgery in the UK. Then the next year, you pay another $18K in insurance premiums because you don't want to be without insurance in case something else bad happens, while in the UK you pay zero in insurance premium because you know that if something bad were to happen, you always have NHS or pay out of pocket with all that money you have because you didn't have to pay $18K/yr for the past however many years.

How in the world does anyone think our *system* here is vastly superior to the UK? I'm not talking about the quality of care. I think that's a different argument.

How can you not take the quality of care into account when debating healthcare? I don’t want hip surgery in a crappy Understaffed British hospital with outdated medical equipment.

Also, uk taxes are insane and salaries are lower.

[Anonymous]

We need to stop being so comfortable with being obese.
No amount of access to the best doctors can make a person stop eating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP.. yes, in UK you can pay privately if you want, and it's cheaper than here, by a lot.

In the US, we pay $1500/mo for a high deductible plan, and never meet the deductible. We spend probably $20K/yr on healthcare - premiums plus out of pocket, and the only reason we pay for insurance is because we are afraid that one of us might get a serious illness, then we'd be hosed even more.

In the UK, you don't have to pay for insurance. But, if you get seriously ill, like cancer, NHS will pay for it. If you want hip surgery without waiting, it costs about $12K. In the US, if one of us were to get hip surgery, we would pay $1500/mo insurance premiums, $7000 deductible. That's $25K - all in all, double what it would cost to get that one surgery in the UK. Then the next year, you pay another $18K in insurance premiums because you don't want to be without insurance in case something else bad happens, while in the UK you pay zero in insurance premium because you know that if something bad were to happen, you always have NHS or pay out of pocket with all that money you have because you didn't have to pay $18K/yr for the past however many years.

How in the world does anyone think our *system* here is vastly superior to the UK? I'm not talking about the quality of care. I think that's a different argument.

How can you not take the quality of care into account when debating healthcare? I don’t want hip surgery in a crappy Understaffed British hospital with outdated medical equipment.

Also, uk taxes are insane and salaries are lower.

A system is different from "quality of care". Thousands of people get hip surgery in the UK and they do well, just as they do in the US. Their quality of care is not substandard, but our "system" is definitely substandard. What good is our system if people can't afford the care.

Here's a perfect example - In the UK, rx are something like $12. In the US, it's a heck of a lot more expensive.

A mom and 2nd grade teacher recently died of the flu because her medication was $116, and she didn't buy it because it was too high. More than likely she had insurance, but the insurance coverage was crap, as is the case for many people. What the heck kind of system do we have that even with insurance people can't afford the care.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/02/12/texas-mom-dies-from-flu-after-skipping-on-meds-deemed-too-costly-report.amp.html

Again, taxes are only slightly higher and yes, salaries are lower, but it all evens out because they don't have to pay for crazy health care and college costs (their college costs are much cheaper, too). Folks in the UK never worry about medical bankruptcies. Oh, and if you do have surgery that limits your mobility for a time, NHS will send over health/home aides to check on you and clean your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP.. yes, in UK you can pay privately if you want, and it's cheaper than here, by a lot.

In the US, we pay $1500/mo for a high deductible plan, and never meet the deductible. We spend probably $20K/yr on healthcare - premiums plus out of pocket, and the only reason we pay for insurance is because we are afraid that one of us might get a serious illness, then we'd be hosed even more.

In the UK, you don't have to pay for insurance. But, if you get seriously ill, like cancer, NHS will pay for it. If you want hip surgery without waiting, it costs about $12K. In the US, if one of us were to get hip surgery, we would pay $1500/mo insurance premiums, $7000 deductible. That's $25K - all in all, double what it would cost to get that one surgery in the UK. Then the next year, you pay another $18K in insurance premiums because you don't want to be without insurance in case something else bad happens, while in the UK you pay zero in insurance premium because you know that if something bad were to happen, you always have NHS or pay out of pocket with all that money you have because you didn't have to pay $18K/yr for the past however many years.

How in the world does anyone think our *system* here is vastly superior to the UK? I'm not talking about the quality of care. I think that's a different argument.

How can you not take the quality of care into account when debating healthcare? I don’t want hip surgery in a crappy Understaffed British hospital with outdated medical equipment.

Also, uk taxes are insane and salaries are lower.

A system is different from "quality of care". Thousands of people get hip surgery in the UK and they do well, just as they do in the US. Their quality of care is not substandard, but our "system" is definitely substandard. What good is our system if people can't afford the care.

Here's a perfect example - In the UK, rx are something like $12. In the US, it's a heck of a lot more expensive.

A mom and 2nd grade teacher recently died of the flu because her medication was $116, and she didn't buy it because it was too high. More than likely she had insurance, but the insurance coverage was crap, as is the case for many people. What the heck kind of system do we have that even with insurance people can't afford the care.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/02/12/texas-mom-dies-from-flu-after-skipping-on-meds-deemed-too-costly-report.amp.html

Again, taxes are only slightly higher and yes, salaries are lower, but it all evens out because they don't have to pay for crazy health care and college costs (their college costs are much cheaper, too). Folks in the UK never worry about medical bankruptcies. Oh, and if you do have surgery that limits your mobility for a time, NHS will send over health/home aides to check on you and clean your house.

Agree with all of this. I'm British and moved here about 3 years ago. Sometimes the "UK taxes are insanely high" thing reminds me of people in East Germany/Russia during the Cold War who truly believed that their services/goods were better than those in the west. I'm very happy here so this is not a complaint, but my salary here is only slightly higher, my taxes are only slightly lower, but my take home is very similar given that I pay a huge amount for health insurance. I have a high deductible plan and haven't met the deductible in any year so far. I am genuinely terrified of what falling ill (me or any family member) could do to our finances. I had private health insurance in the UK (paid for by my employer, not by me, which is not uncommon in higher-paid jobs) and used my NHS GP for most things, but went private if I needed to. I never worried at all about the financial impact of being unwell. In case you were wondering, what IS cheaper here (in DC - probably not in other cities) compared to London is real estate. Everything else is comparable. There are many other positive quality of life things about being here, but the health system here is a huge, huge negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP.. yes, in UK you can pay privately if you want, and it's cheaper than here, by a lot.

In the US, we pay $1500/mo for a high deductible plan, and never meet the deductible. We spend probably $20K/yr on healthcare - premiums plus out of pocket, and the only reason we pay for insurance is because we are afraid that one of us might get a serious illness, then we'd be hosed even more.

In the UK, you don't have to pay for insurance. But, if you get seriously ill, like cancer, NHS will pay for it. If you want hip surgery without waiting, it costs about $12K. In the US, if one of us were to get hip surgery, we would pay $1500/mo insurance premiums, $7000 deductible. That's $25K - all in all, double what it would cost to get that one surgery in the UK. Then the next year, you pay another $18K in insurance premiums because you don't want to be without insurance in case something else bad happens, while in the UK you pay zero in insurance premium because you know that if something bad were to happen, you always have NHS or pay out of pocket with all that money you have because you didn't have to pay $18K/yr for the past however many years.

How in the world does anyone think our *system* here is vastly superior to the UK? I'm not talking about the quality of care. I think that's a different argument.

How can you not take the quality of care into account when debating healthcare? I don’t want hip surgery in a crappy Understaffed British hospital with outdated medical equipment.

Also, uk taxes are insane and salaries are lower.

A system is different from "quality of care". Thousands of people get hip surgery in the UK and they do well, just as they do in the US. Their quality of care is not substandard, but our "system" is definitely substandard. What good is our system if people can't afford the care.

Here's a perfect example - In the UK, rx are something like $12. In the US, it's a heck of a lot more expensive.

A mom and 2nd grade teacher recently died of the flu because her medication was $116, and she didn't buy it because it was too high. More than likely she had insurance, but the insurance coverage was crap, as is the case for many people. What the heck kind of system do we have that even with insurance people can't afford the care.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2018/02/12/texas-mom-dies-from-flu-after-skipping-on-meds-deemed-too-costly-report.amp.html

Again, taxes are only slightly higher and yes, salaries are lower, but it all evens out because they don't have to pay for crazy health care and college costs (their college costs are much cheaper, too). Folks in the UK never worry about medical bankruptcies. Oh, and if you do have surgery that limits your mobility for a time, NHS will send over health/home aides to check on you and clean your house.

Agree with all of this. I'm British and moved here about 3 years ago. Sometimes the "UK taxes are insanely high" thing reminds me of people in East Germany/Russia during the Cold War who truly believed that their services/goods were better than those in the west. I'm very happy here so this is not a complaint, but my salary here is only slightly higher, my taxes are only slightly lower, but my take home is very similar given that I pay a huge amount for health insurance. I have a high deductible plan and haven't met the deductible in any year so far. I am genuinely terrified of what falling ill (me or any family member) could do to our finances. I had private health insurance in the UK (paid for by my employer, not by me, which is not uncommon in higher-paid jobs) and used my NHS GP for most things, but went private if I needed to. I never worried at all about the financial impact of being unwell. In case you were wondering, what IS cheaper here (in DC - probably not in other cities) compared to London is real estate. Everything else is comparable. There are many other positive quality of life things about being here, but the health system here is a huge, huge negative.

PP here.. yes, my DH is from the UK. He is a high earner, and he said the difference in taxes wasn't that big of a deal. He hates the health care system here. He has a congenital pre-existing condition, and before ACA, he got denied coverage.

And here's another example of our crap healthcare system - health insurance companies can deny you life saving treatment. Turns out, the medical director at Aetna never even looks at patient records when approving/denying treatment, and now they are under investigation.

What good is health insurance if they can deny you treatment? My DC needs a certain medication. The insurance company always denies it because they want us to use the generic even though the Dr. has told them repeatedly that the generic version causes bad side effects. We have to appeal it every year. And the non generic rx costs us $100. We have a crap system. Next time we go to the UK, we are going to try to get the rx filled there because it's a fraction of the cost.

http://fortune.com/2018/02/12/california-launches-investigation-aetna-medical-director/