Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reactions to US HC and what HC looks like in an actual developed nation:

From the UK

My friend in the UK gets an idea of the cost of medical procedures only when she has to pay the vet bills for her dog. There's no subsidy for that.

My friend in the UK and I had kids around the same time. Both of us had c sections.

She paid $20 for pain killers when she was released from the hospital.

I paid $6K (deductible out of pocket) + health insurance premiums for 12 months. The hospital charged me $10 per one tylenol pill.

There is no doubt that the NHS is collapsing, too, though. But, the thing is, you can still pay for private care in the UK and not use NHS, and it would still be cheaper than here in the US. I know someone who worked for the NHS, and I told them how much my ultrasound cost (it was like $1000), and they were gobsmacked. Even private, ultrasound in the UK is a couple of hundred.

The US health system is broken. We have the best advancement in medicine, but what good is that when the majority of people cannot access it? It's only for the wealthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really good anywhere?

Last week there were big complaints in the UK about the NHS computer system that led to unfavorable health outcomes and deaths.

My friend couldn't find a PCP in Toronto for months.

Other countries are losing doctors to higher paying countries and don't produce enough specialists. People wait years for joint surgery, or months for oncology appointments.

How much of this is because medical science can do more so demand is higher for an increased number of treatments.

I don’t buy about medical science doing more because life expectancy is not impressive in the USA.
If I have to guess Scandinavian countries might be doing better.

Of course they’re doing more. In 1986, there were 9,000 kidney transplants in the US. In 2022, there were over 22,000.

That's a 6% increase year over year, which is not that impressive. There are currently over 100,000 people waiting for a kidney transplant in the US.

Well, they have to wait for people to die and donate. That's a huge supply constraint. It's not like it's a shortage of operating theaters causing that wait-list.

Here's an article on why the organ transplant system is very inefficient in the US

https://www.statnews.com/2024/03/02/donor-organs-kidney-transplant-discard/

The US throws away kidneys that would be accepted for transplant in other European countries. Also the logistics are coordinated by one non-profit that has no incentive to upgrade their systems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really good anywhere?

Last week there were big complaints in the UK about the NHS computer system that led to unfavorable health outcomes and deaths.

My friend couldn't find a PCP in Toronto for months.

Other countries are losing doctors to higher paying countries and don't produce enough specialists. People wait years for joint surgery, or months for oncology appointments.

How much of this is because medical science can do more so demand is higher for an increased number of treatments.

I don’t buy about medical science doing more because life expectancy is not impressive in the USA.
If I have to guess Scandinavian countries might be doing better.

Of course they’re doing more. In 1986, there were 9,000 kidney transplants in the US. In 2022, there were over 22,000.

That's a 6% increase year over year, which is not that impressive. There are currently over 100,000 people waiting for a kidney transplant in the US.

Well, they have to wait for people to die and donate. That's a huge supply constraint. It's not like it's a shortage of operating theaters causing that wait-list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really good anywhere?

Last week there were big complaints in the UK about the NHS computer system that led to unfavorable health outcomes and deaths.

My friend couldn't find a PCP in Toronto for months.

Other countries are losing doctors to higher paying countries and don't produce enough specialists. People wait years for joint surgery, or months for oncology appointments.

How much of this is because medical science can do more so demand is higher for an increased number of treatments.

I don’t buy about medical science doing more because life expectancy is not impressive in the USA.
If I have to guess Scandinavian countries might be doing better.

Of course they’re doing more. In 1986, there were 9,000 kidney transplants in the US. In 2022, there were over 22,000.

That's a 6% increase year over year, which is not that impressive. There are currently over 100,000 people waiting for a kidney transplant in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reactions to US HC and what HC looks like in an actual developed nation:

From the UK

My friend in the UK gets an idea of the cost of medical procedures only when she has to pay the vet bills for her dog. There's no subsidy for that.

I’m a nurse working in an acute care setting/hospital for major system in the area. It’s a hot mess. Covid exacerbated certain issues but it’s always been tenuous. Issues included but are not limited to the following:
-Health insurances fighting providers/patients to make $$.
-Lack of experienced nurses at the bedside-nurses are burning out. Many retired during COVID. Newer nurses won’t put up with certain conditions and/or want to go to NP school right away. A lot of inpatient units are staffed by green nurses. It’s not safe.
-Hospitals continue to fight against safe nurse-patient ratios. It’s not rocket science that too many patients to a nurse increase the chances of errors. Some hospital systems or areas in the country are better than others. The ratios in the South and in long term/nursing facilities are beyond unsafe.
-Physicians are also burned out. The workload is unsustainable for many and I can see that many are dipping out earlier than they used to ..
-Not arguing against PP who said hospital admins are under immense pressure. BUT…many admins are utterly out of touch. Also too many VPs and assistant directors of blah blah and not enough hands on staff. Again-very hospital dependent. I’ve worked in systems where they try and are engaged. And I’ve worked or heard of others where making $$ whilst everything around them is collapsing is the name of the game.
-Medication/supply shortages. Made worse by Covid but also natural disasters, etc that impact supply chain.
I could keep going but yeah, it sucks. If you go to Reddit-the nursing and teacher subreddits are eye opening…like canaries in the mine of what’s to come in this country.

Anonymous wrote:Reactions to US HC and what HC looks like in an actual developed nation:

From the UK

Anonymous wrote:you get what you pay for unfortunately. you can thank the insurance companies and politicians

Better take responsibility for your own health. The system won’t do it for you.

you get what you pay for unfortunately. you can thank the insurance companies and politicians

Anonymous wrote:Funny, I just returned from GW where I was scheduled to get an MRI to follow up on a mammogram and ultrasound. GW told me that I needed an MRI for further diagnosis. I ended up having to reschedule because they needed an order from my doctor, and the doctor's assistant sent in the wrong order. Nevermind that no one told me that I needed to get an order or that GW never provided the report to my doctor. Paid the co-pay. So I have a few more weeks to wonder if I have cancer. Great!

It was like being at the Mad Hatter's table. And I have excellent insurance.

I’d get myself as healthy as possible, rather than depend on the corrupted system of non-care.

^^EDIT: "Boston in the late 1980s."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really good anywhere?

Last week there were big complaints in the UK about the NHS computer system that led to unfavorable health outcomes and deaths.

My friend couldn't find a PCP in Toronto for months.

Other countries are losing doctors to higher paying countries and don't produce enough specialists. People wait years for joint surgery, or months for oncology appointments.

How much of this is because medical science can do more so demand is higher for an increased number of treatments.

I don’t buy about medical science doing more because life expectancy is not impressive in the USA.
If I have to guess Scandinavian countries might be doing better.

Of course they’re doing more. In 1986, there were 9,000 kidney transplants in the US. In 2022, there were over 22,000.

All that proves is there were more kidney transplants, which could be an indicator there's more kidney disease. Without context, that means nothing.

You’re being deliberately obtuse. I guess there were no kidney transplants in 1940 because there was no kidney disease.

DP. I agree that PP is being deliberately obtuse.

The first seminars in immunology were first taught in medical schools at Boston in the late 10980s. The first medical school genetics classes were in the 1990s, with a core medical school curriculum established only in 2001.

There are hundreds of diagnoses that couldn't even be made just a few decades ago, much less treated. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really good anywhere?

Last week there were big complaints in the UK about the NHS computer system that led to unfavorable health outcomes and deaths.

My friend couldn't find a PCP in Toronto for months.

Other countries are losing doctors to higher paying countries and don't produce enough specialists. People wait years for joint surgery, or months for oncology appointments.

How much of this is because medical science can do more so demand is higher for an increased number of treatments.

I don’t buy about medical science doing more because life expectancy is not impressive in the USA.
If I have to guess Scandinavian countries might be doing better.

Of course they’re doing more. In 1986, there were 9,000 kidney transplants in the US. In 2022, there were over 22,000.

All that proves is there were more kidney transplants, which could be an indicator there's more kidney disease. Without context, that means nothing.

You’re being deliberately obtuse. I guess there were no kidney transplants in 1940 because there was no kidney disease.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it really good anywhere?

Last week there were big complaints in the UK about the NHS computer system that led to unfavorable health outcomes and deaths.

My friend couldn't find a PCP in Toronto for months.

Other countries are losing doctors to higher paying countries and don't produce enough specialists. People wait years for joint surgery, or months for oncology appointments.

How much of this is because medical science can do more so demand is higher for an increased number of treatments.

I don’t buy about medical science doing more because life expectancy is not impressive in the USA.
If I have to guess Scandinavian countries might be doing better.

Of course they’re doing more. In 1986, there were 9,000 kidney transplants in the US. In 2022, there were over 22,000.

All that proves is there were more kidney transplants, which could be an indicator there's more kidney disease. Without context, that means nothing.

Funny, I just returned from GW where I was scheduled to get an MRI to follow up on a mammogram and ultrasound. GW told me that I needed an MRI for further diagnosis. I ended up having to reschedule because they needed an order from my doctor, and the doctor's assistant sent in the wrong order. Nevermind that no one told me that I needed to get an order or that GW never provided the report to my doctor. Paid the co-pay. So I have a few more weeks to wonder if I have cancer. Great!

It was like being at the Mad Hatter's table. And I have excellent insurance.