Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

I'm glad your family member had a good experience with cancer care in the UK, but their statistics for meeting treatment deadlines are terrible and their survival rates are lower than the US.

If you add up the timeline below, the *targets* are diagnosis within 28 days of an urgent referral, 62 days for referral to treatment, and 31 days for a treatment plan. And they aren't meeting those targets. That doesn't even address getting the actual treatment, which, according to the comments in the article below is a major problem. People waiting 6 months or more for treatment after they have a treatment plan.

Further, the life expectancy statistics include factors like auto accidents, so it can't all be attributed to health care.

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/02/08/cancer-waiting-times-latest-updates-and-analysis/

The Faster Diagnosis Standard: Target Missed

74.2% of people were diagnosed, or had cancer ruled out, within 28 days of an urgent referral in December 2023. The target is 75% and has never been met since its introduction in October 2021.

The 62-day referral to treatment standard: Target Missed

Only 65.9% of people in England received their diagnosis and started their first treatment within 2 months (or 62 days) of an urgent referral* in December 2023. The target is 85%.

The 31-day decision to treat standard: Target Missed

91.1% of people started treatment** within 31 days of doctors deciding a treatment plan in December 2023. The target is 96%.

1. either you have comparative data or you have no data.
2. your argument is fundamentally very dumb because it's like if you needed to travel 50 miles and had no car and i said here's a maserati and here's a 2010 kia sorrento; the maserati is $1k a month and the kia is free - and you said 'the kia sorrento didn't go as fast as the maserati'. I mean - duh.

1. There is lots of data. I just didn't bother to go searching, but since you don't seem to be able to operate the internet, here you go.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-survival-rates-by-country

US
Breast. 88.6%
Stomach 29.1%
Lung 18.7%
Prostate 97.2%

UK
Breast 81%
Stomach 18.5%
Lung 9.6%
Prostate 83.2%

Which country has the best cancer survival rate?

The country with the highest cancer survival rate varies depending on the type of cancer, but those in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have the best odds of beating cancer, according to the CONCORD-3 report.

https://news.yale.edu/2018/05/01/disparities-found-lung-cancer-care-survival-us-versus-england

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-cancer-survival-rates-bottom-world-league-table-a9101916.html

2. In your analogy, the Kia is free, but you're going to die while waiting for one so you can drive to the hospital for treatment.


This article is paywalled, but it focuses on the fact that survival rates for cancer in the UK are 15 years behind other countries because of a lack of access to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Meanwhile, advanced immunotherapy treatments are becoming standard in the US.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/26/uk-cancer-survival-rates-lag-15-years-countries-chemo/

You are very very very dumb.
Uk has immunotherapy.
Most European countries do.
Americans have some of the worst health in the western world.
The nhs cannot be compared to private healthcare. It is a safety net.
Private healthcare in Europe is largely superior to the us.
American exceptionalism is one step away from maga. Chill the f out.

Anonymous wrote:I posted earlier about having lived in both London and DC. You can't really meaningfully compare your experience vacationing in a place with living there. If you haven't had to work in a place, pay taxes there, hire a plumber, or try to find a decent school for your kid, you dont really know it.

Most Americans would be horrified at the condition of rental apartments in the UK (run-down, no clothes dryers, no garbage disposals), much in the same way that Londoners would be horrified to discover the number of important US cities that are wholly inaccessible by public transit.

Most Americans would also be frustrated by the need to be on hold for 40 minutes starting at 8 am to get one of the NHS appointment slots available that day at your local surgery, with its 10000 person patient docket. They would also be shocked to hear the NHS mammogram lady say, "See you in 4 years." On the flip side, Americans would also be pleasantly surprised when their NHS mammogram, scheduled for 10:30, actually takes place at 10:30, something that you could be sure wouldnt happen in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived one year in london and one year in DC and agree on some similarities. I personally love London, it’s a bigger world than DC and I love that. But in my experience the biggest difference is not at the city level but between countries: free healthcare in the UK is a dealbreaker!

You could have gone private just like here, the difference being gorgeous facilities, cappuccinos on tap brought by the nurses, and doctors taking the time; none of which is the case in the US, no matter what

How long have you been gone from the US? You've never heard of concierge care? It's common and I pay $2,000 a year for a doctor who is always available (I have his cell phone #), has same day appointments, and he'll spend as much time with me as I want. He doesn't have a cappuccino machine, but my dermatologist does!

I want to know who this doctor is! My doctor went concierge and charges 20k/year, which is beyond my means and seems foolish for a generally healthy 30-something. 2k I'd be down with!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

I'm glad your family member had a good experience with cancer care in the UK, but their statistics for meeting treatment deadlines are terrible and their survival rates are lower than the US.

If you add up the timeline below, the *targets* are diagnosis within 28 days of an urgent referral, 62 days for referral to treatment, and 31 days for a treatment plan. And they aren't meeting those targets. That doesn't even address getting the actual treatment, which, according to the comments in the article below is a major problem. People waiting 6 months or more for treatment after they have a treatment plan.

Further, the life expectancy statistics include factors like auto accidents, so it can't all be attributed to health care.

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/02/08/cancer-waiting-times-latest-updates-and-analysis/

The Faster Diagnosis Standard: Target Missed

74.2% of people were diagnosed, or had cancer ruled out, within 28 days of an urgent referral in December 2023. The target is 75% and has never been met since its introduction in October 2021.

The 62-day referral to treatment standard: Target Missed

Only 65.9% of people in England received their diagnosis and started their first treatment within 2 months (or 62 days) of an urgent referral* in December 2023. The target is 85%.

The 31-day decision to treat standard: Target Missed

91.1% of people started treatment** within 31 days of doctors deciding a treatment plan in December 2023. The target is 96%.

1. either you have comparative data or you have no data.
2. your argument is fundamentally very dumb because it's like if you needed to travel 50 miles and had no car and i said here's a maserati and here's a 2010 kia sorrento; the maserati is $1k a month and the kia is free - and you said 'the kia sorrento didn't go as fast as the maserati'. I mean - duh.

1. There is lots of data. I just didn't bother to go searching, but since you don't seem to be able to operate the internet, here you go.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-survival-rates-by-country

US
Breast. 88.6%
Stomach 29.1%
Lung 18.7%
Prostate 97.2%

UK
Breast 81%
Stomach 18.5%
Lung 9.6%
Prostate 83.2%

Which country has the best cancer survival rate?

The country with the highest cancer survival rate varies depending on the type of cancer, but those in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have the best odds of beating cancer, according to the CONCORD-3 report.

https://news.yale.edu/2018/05/01/disparities-found-lung-cancer-care-survival-us-versus-england

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-cancer-survival-rates-bottom-world-league-table-a9101916.html

2. In your analogy, the Kia is free, but you're going to die while waiting for one so you can drive to the hospital for treatment.


This article is paywalled, but it focuses on the fact that survival rates for cancer in the UK are 15 years behind other countries because of a lack of access to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Meanwhile, advanced immunotherapy treatments are becoming standard in the US.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/26/uk-cancer-survival-rates-lag-15-years-countries-chemo/

Anonymous wrote:Not all Americans. Just the dumb ones. You know who you are

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

I'm glad your family member had a good experience with cancer care in the UK, but their statistics for meeting treatment deadlines are terrible and their survival rates are lower than the US.

If you add up the timeline below, the *targets* are diagnosis within 28 days of an urgent referral, 62 days for referral to treatment, and 31 days for a treatment plan. And they aren't meeting those targets. That doesn't even address getting the actual treatment, which, according to the comments in the article below is a major problem. People waiting 6 months or more for treatment after they have a treatment plan.

Further, the life expectancy statistics include factors like auto accidents, so it can't all be attributed to health care.

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/02/08/cancer-waiting-times-latest-updates-and-analysis/

The Faster Diagnosis Standard: Target Missed

74.2% of people were diagnosed, or had cancer ruled out, within 28 days of an urgent referral in December 2023. The target is 75% and has never been met since its introduction in October 2021.

The 62-day referral to treatment standard: Target Missed

Only 65.9% of people in England received their diagnosis and started their first treatment within 2 months (or 62 days) of an urgent referral* in December 2023. The target is 85%.

The 31-day decision to treat standard: Target Missed

91.1% of people started treatment** within 31 days of doctors deciding a treatment plan in December 2023. The target is 96%.

1. either you have comparative data or you have no data.
2. your argument is fundamentally very dumb because it's like if you needed to travel 50 miles and had no car and i said here's a maserati and here's a 2010 kia sorrento; the maserati is $1k a month and the kia is free - and you said 'the kia sorrento didn't go as fast as the maserati'. I mean - duh.

1. There is lots of data. I just didn't bother to go searching, but since you don't seem to be able to operate the internet, here you go.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cancer-survival-rates-by-country

US
Breast. 88.6%
Stomach 29.1%
Lung 18.7%
Prostate 97.2%

UK
Breast 81%
Stomach 18.5%
Lung 9.6%
Prostate 83.2%

Which country has the best cancer survival rate?

The country with the highest cancer survival rate varies depending on the type of cancer, but those in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have the best odds of beating cancer, according to the CONCORD-3 report.

https://news.yale.edu/2018/05/01/disparities-found-lung-cancer-care-survival-us-versus-england

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/uk-cancer-survival-rates-bottom-world-league-table-a9101916.html

2. In your analogy, the Kia is free, but you're going to die while waiting for one so you can drive to the hospital for treatment.


This article is paywalled, but it focuses on the fact that survival rates for cancer in the UK are 15 years behind other countries because of a lack of access to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Meanwhile, advanced immunotherapy treatments are becoming standard in the US.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/26/uk-cancer-survival-rates-lag-15-years-countries-chemo/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived one year in london and one year in DC and agree on some similarities. I personally love London, it’s a bigger world than DC and I love that. But in my experience the biggest difference is not at the city level but between countries: free healthcare in the UK is a dealbreaker!

You could have gone private just like here, the difference being gorgeous facilities, cappuccinos on tap brought by the nurses, and doctors taking the time; none of which is the case in the US, no matter what

How long have you been gone from the US? You've never heard of concierge care? It's common and I pay $2,000 a year for a doctor who is always available (I have his cell phone #), has same day appointments, and he'll spend as much time with me as I want. He doesn't have a cappuccino machine, but my dermatologist does!

I want to know who this doctor is! My doctor went concierge and charges 20k/year, which is beyond my means and seems foolish for a generally healthy 30-something. 2k I'd be down with!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never want to hear people say how great London is or London is better than dc.

1. Housing is atrocious. We are living in a roughly 2 million pound flat in Mayfair and the plumbing is awful, the insulation/windows are awful and we are always cold (and we are used to Montana cold but homes in London are cold whereas in the us homes stay warm). Our colleagues here have homes anywhere between 500k to 6 million pounds here in various neighborhoods and they are all dumpy

2. The parks are overrated

3. People are mean

4. The tube and trains are mindblowingly expensive

5. Service is poor

6. British “professionals” have horrible work ethic without the “la dolce vita” attitude of Italians/southern euros. It’s the worst of both worlds - uptight, high expectations yet also poor work ethic/quality.

7. Food is awful

8. Social life is way too alcohol centric

There is literally nothing redeeming about this place. I’d rather live in Dallas and I think the south is 🤮 !

dc is 100x better than London

Payback for your criticism of the south. Enjoy your vacation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lived one year in london and one year in DC and agree on some similarities. I personally love London, it’s a bigger world than DC and I love that. But in my experience the biggest difference is not at the city level but between countries: free healthcare in the UK is a dealbreaker!

You could have gone private just like here, the difference being gorgeous facilities, cappuccinos on tap brought by the nurses, and doctors taking the time; none of which is the case in the US, no matter what

How long have you been gone from the US? You've never heard of concierge care? It's common and I pay $2,000 a year for a doctor who is always available (I have his cell phone #), has same day appointments, and he'll spend as much time with me as I want. He doesn't have a cappuccino machine, but my dermatologist does!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically, I won’t need a hip replacement. That’s American pastime. You don’t like stairs or walking and there we have it.

Anyway, what are you arguing about?

London is amazing.

Statistically, it’s the stairs and walking (and even more actual athletic endeavors) that leads you to have a hip replacement. And old age. If you live to a certain age and were even just a little bit active you’ll need to get joints replaced to maintain that level of activity.

The UK definitely gets in the way. I’d hate to rely on the NHS for anything other than emergency care.

luckily you dont have to. the wonder of it is that the NHS is there so no one has to die or suffer because they can't afford healthcare, the mark of a civilized society, but you can also have private insurance.

This is a liberal American’s fantasy. The NHS sucks if you’re used to BCBS PPO or equivalent, or Medicare. It’s more along the lines of Medicaid with forced provider participation.

also i lived in london for 30 years so it's not a liberal americans fantasy.

Nope- we have a family member who married a UK citizen and they moved there. New spouse got cancer a few years later and had excellent care there, especially and including the end of life palliative care, which included things like delivering a hospital bed to their home and other medical equipment so the spouse could continue living at home. That's the benefit of a fully integrated system- it's of course much much cheaper to have a person stay at home and not use hospital services, but doing things like getting an insurance company in the US to cover a hospital bed would make you pull your hair out and probably take months to get approved. And then of course after the spouse died they have a service to come and pick up the bed and equipment- because they have a fully integrated system that does this sort of thing all the time. This is all within the last 10 years BTW, so pretty recent, not some fantasy of how things used to be.

Also read Rob Delaney's memoir about his son's cancer and the amazing care he got through NHS. Of course it's not perfect but I am willing to bet you just haven't had anything complex you have had to deal with an insurance company on before. Once you go through that once or twice you realize how ridiculous our system is. There's a reason every other industrialized country has a national health care system, and they spend on average half of what we do on health care (as percent of GDP) and have longer average lifetimes, to boot. The only people for whom the US system works better is mostly healthy rich people.

I'm glad your family member had a good experience with cancer care in the UK, but their statistics for meeting treatment deadlines are terrible and their survival rates are lower than the US.

If you add up the timeline below, the *targets* are diagnosis within 28 days of an urgent referral, 62 days for referral to treatment, and 31 days for a treatment plan. And they aren't meeting those targets. That doesn't even address getting the actual treatment, which, according to the comments in the article below is a major problem. People waiting 6 months or more for treatment after they have a treatment plan.

Further, the life expectancy statistics include factors like auto accidents, so it can't all be attributed to health care.

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2024/02/08/cancer-waiting-times-latest-updates-and-analysis/

The Faster Diagnosis Standard: Target Missed

74.2% of people were diagnosed, or had cancer ruled out, within 28 days of an urgent referral in December 2023. The target is 75% and has never been met since its introduction in October 2021.

The 62-day referral to treatment standard: Target Missed

Only 65.9% of people in England received their diagnosis and started their first treatment within 2 months (or 62 days) of an urgent referral* in December 2023. The target is 85%.

The 31-day decision to treat standard: Target Missed

91.1% of people started treatment** within 31 days of doctors deciding a treatment plan in December 2023. The target is 96%.

1. either you have comparative data or you have no data.
2. your argument is fundamentally very dumb because it's like if you needed to travel 50 miles and had no car and i said here's a maserati and here's a 2010 kia sorrento; the maserati is $1k a month and the kia is free - and you said 'the kia sorrento didn't go as fast as the maserati'. I mean - duh.