Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I found this part of the comparison aka the conclusion of the piece to be very interesting.

The bottom line: I prefer the NHS to the American private system. It's a little more inconvenient in terms of appointment times, but due to the fact that it is free, has no paperwork, and the treatment on the day is super-fast, the NHS wins. That Rolls Royce is moving at a pretty decent clip.

And, of course, there is the small matter of the fact that the NHS covers everyone equally, whereas Americans get care based on their ability to pay, leaving tens of millions with only minimal access to care. (Obamacare is changing that, but it's leagues behind the NHS if you're comparing them by the standard of universal full-service coverage.)

Americans think they have the best healthcare in the world. Take it from me, a fellow American: They don't.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/an-american-uses-britain-nhs-2015-1#ixzz3d50IJEoN

 whembly wrote:
<way past your bedtime? 3am in Perth?>

Wife was having a movie sleepover at her sisters, I was looking after bubby so I got wild and posted on the internet until like 3.30am. Life in the fast lane

I want the German model. (not to familiar with Australia's)

The German model is actually pretty damn expensive for what you get. I think any model that drags in employers is going to be, just because you end up adding a stakeholder who isn't a provider or beneficiary. But it has lots of strengths all the same (insurers as not-for-profit, coverage determined by technical committees) and it's probably the best system that the US could reach from where it is today. But if people freaked out about ACA, imagine trying to get the insurance companies to basically convert to not-for-profit organisations

The Australian model is quite similar to the German one, but ours is a lot messier on the split between private and public.

Honestly, I think from a purely economic point of view, the US system could benefit from massive reforms just by doing one thing - tax employer contributions as if they were income (this is actually in the recently released Republican proposal, and is honestly the best thing to come out of the Republican party since Bush's proposed removal of double taxation on dividends). That subsidy costs billions in federal govt revenue, and so you can take that money and build a really healthy income assessed subsidy scheme, similar to what's in place now but far more extensive (so it could effectively replace the medicaid expansion).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.

Worthless anecdotes? I've got one of those!

When I honeymooned in the US we booked our travel insurance, and depending on where you go you get a risk rating. Europe, Japan and all the other first world places get put together as the cheapest insurance... except the US. The US gets lumped in with Africa and South America. This is because if you get sick in the US the bill is astronomically higher than it would be anywhere else.

Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.

The issue here is that the comparison is going to come down to personal factors more than an overall view of either system. Whether a condition is easily identifiable and treated and stuff like that will determine your experience with the medical system far more than any real difference between countries.

Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.

Man I want to take you up on that offer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The point I was trying to drive at is that it's hard to truly compare and contrast things like healthcare between countries.

That's why sebster drives me bonkers.... he talks from a well reasoned, rational standpoint regarding our healthcare debates... but, it's acedemic. Why? Because just like it's unfair to trash the NHS or AU's Healthcare system... it's just as unfair to trash the US' without having experienced both.

But my point about the US system isn't about which system is the nicest to experience. My point has always been about what you pay, compared to the outcomes you get.

It is well established that the US system costs about twice the average of other industrialised nations. And in terms of outcomes, the US is pretty much the same as the rest of the developed world*. I think most people, once they realise they've just paid $50k for a car that was almost identical to a car that is selling for $25k they'd feel ripped off.



*There's a lot of studies that rank the healthcare outcomes of different countries, and the US is pretty consistently middle of the road in all of these. But the bigger story is you look behind the numbers and you'll see that rankings actually mask extremely small differences in performance. All developed countries have live baby numbers are fairly close, have life expectancy figures that are pretty close, and variations in malpractice are almost all due to legal differences, not the actual quality of care provided. There are differences in one technique or another from place to place, but across the whole you're getting more or less the same experience.

 sebster wrote:

Honestly, I think from a purely economic point of view, the US system could benefit from massive reforms just by doing one thing - tax employer contributions as if they were income (this is actually in the recently released Republican proposal, and is honestly the best thing to come out of the Republican party since Bush's proposed removal of double taxation on dividends). That subsidy costs billions in federal govt revenue, and so you can take that money and build a really healthy income assessed subsidy scheme, similar to what's in place now but far more extensive (so it could effectively replace the medicaid expansion).

Not really in favor of that...This is basically a huge tax rise for the middle class/working poor while hardly a tax rise at all for the upper class. Granted, doesn't affect the really poor who don't have employer-provided health care.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I remember some of the lies and scare stories that the Republicans peddled about healthcare in the UK. God, that made my blood boil, and made me want to fly over there and put my boot up some Republican backsides!

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the extraordinary things claimed about the UK and Canadian healthcare systems. And France to a lesser extent.

Poor Australia, we always get missed when people in the US make up weird political claims. Unless its gun control, then we get some awesome nonsense

Some of the more lunatic fringe of the American right were claiming that Stephen Hawking would have been killed by the UK style health service in the USA, until Hawking himself dismissed it as nonsense and defended the UK health service for saving his life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whembley, there's a reason why I don't criticise gun owners in the USA anymore, and it's not because I'm scared of getting a hail of lead my way

but because I respect the cultural aspect and of course, your country your rules. I take this viewpoint because the ignorance of some Americans towards health care in the UK, made me see things differently. The UK health service is a major cultural thing in our society, just like your guns. We don't like foreigners attacking it, and I emphasise with Americans who resent being lectured by foreigners on gun control.

Whereas in Australia, they would have joined him with a large simple fellow, and the two of them would have run Bartertown...

Frazz, mad max has been rebooted. Barter town is gone, that timeline is gone. Get with the times

Incorrect, there will always be the Aussie Parliament - aka Thunderdome.

"Two MPs enter! One MP leaves! Thunderdome!"

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/climate-change-2016-presidential-campaign/index.html

This could get interesting. The Pope is about to release an official statement in support of fighting against climate change. I wonder how the various candidates will respond to this.

Even if you don't believe in global warming and such, I'm sure we can all agree that spewing all sorts of crap into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the earth we grow our food in certainly isn't good for anybody's health.

I thought the Hillary logo was pretty terrible, until Jeb! appeared. Truly we are in a dark age of political logos if these two are the standard. I think there really is no option but a nation wide political boycott until both parties commit to producing logos that don’t make us fear for the future of human innovation.

 skyth wrote:
Not really in favor of that...This is basically a huge tax rise for the middle class/working poor while hardly a tax rise at all for the upper class. Granted, doesn't affect the really poor who don't have employer-provided health care.

Just look at the basic structure. Right now you can have a guy working for himself, he makes $60k over the year, and so he he pays taxes on $60k and then has to find his own healthcare. Another guy works for a company, he gets $55k, and then get a $5k medicare package on top of that. His real earnings are $60k, but he only pays taxes on $55k.

It's a basic unfairness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Whereas in Australia, they would have joined him with a large simple fellow, and the two of them would have run Bartertown...

Say what you like about the brutality of Bartertown, but they found jobs for everyone.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Charles Rampant wrote:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/an-american-uses-britain-nhs-2015-1?r=US

An article, which I first came across a few months back, with an anecdotal comparison of the two services. I can say that, having repeatedly escorted my wife to the hospital for an ongoing health concern, that it sounds correct to me for the British side.

Not bad...

How is the NHS paid for? Is that spelled out on your paystubs?

For frame of reference: I paid effective federal tax rate of 27%. (state about 11% from memory). Part of those funds the Medicare (over 64 yo) "single-payor lite system" and Medicaid (State insurance for the needy). I don't use those systems.

But I pay for part of my insurance premiums... here's a breakdown out of my bi-weekly paycheck
I pay Medical: $117, my employer pays $363
I pay Dental: $18, my employer pays $13
I pay Vision: $6

So, per pay check, I pay $141 for my various insurances (and my employer pays $376).

The insurance plan is solid, in that it's covers just about every non-elective things.

What gets pricey for me are the elective stuff.

:shrugs:

Keep in mind, though, that your insurance plan is essentially chosen by your employer. They may offer you more than one choice, but if you want your employer to chip in on it, then you gotta go with what they have decided on. Sure, good employers will offer good plans, but not all of them would. I pay about the same as you do for a very good plan, but my wife didn't get anywhere near as good options in her job as a schoolteacher.

True.

Philosophically, it's part of your overall compensation package. I don't think many folks try to make that distinction.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
<way past your bedtime? 3am in Perth?>

Wife was having a movie sleepover at her sisters, I was looking after bubby so I got wild and posted on the internet until like 3.30am. Life in the fast lane

I want the German model. (not to familiar with Australia's)

The German model is actually pretty damn expensive for what you get. I think any model that drags in employers is going to be, just because you end up adding a stakeholder who isn't a provider or beneficiary. But it has lots of strengths all the same (insurers as not-for-profit, coverage determined by technical committees) and it's probably the best system that the US could reach from where it is today. But if people freaked out about ACA, imagine trying to get the insurance companies to basically convert to not-for-profit organisations

The Australian model is quite similar to the German one, but ours is a lot messier on the split between private and public.

Honestly, I think from a purely economic point of view, the US system could benefit from massive reforms just by doing one thing - tax employer contributions as if they were income (this is actually in the recently released Republican proposal, and is honestly the best thing to come out of the Republican party since Bush's proposed removal of double taxation on dividends). That subsidy costs billions in federal govt revenue, and so you can take that money and build a really healthy income assessed subsidy scheme, similar to what's in place now but far more extensive (so it could effectively replace the medicaid expansion).

I should also add when I say "I want the German Model™"... I also mean: How clinics and hospitals are operated.

Here, in the states, everything is so specialized. You barely see your attending physician. It's the Nurses, Respiratory Therapists, Lab tech, Radiologist, etc...

Physician are becoming more like, research analyst than actual caregiver. In Germany, your doctor is very immersed into your care.

It's a cultural thing I guess...

As to taxing the employee insurance as income, I'd be alright with that... but, not in a vacuum. There's a feth ton of other "easy" thing to incrementially fix.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It's a worthless anecdote, I'm sure, but it's all I have to go by.

Worthless anecdotes? I've got one of those!

When I honeymooned in the US we booked our travel insurance, and depending on where you go you get a risk rating. Europe, Japan and all the other first world places get put together as the cheapest insurance... except the US. The US gets lumped in with Africa and South America. This is because if you get sick in the US the bill is astronomically higher than it would be anywhere else.

This is one area, that's easy to tweak... allow insurance to offer catastrophic insurance for super cheap. IE, cheap premium, high deductable... but protects you from financial ruin. (ironically, the plans on the PPACA function like these plans).

Someone from dakka needs to *use* the NHS or Australia's System... then, move to the US for a bit and try ours out and give a good report.

The issue here is that the comparison is going to come down to personal factors more than an overall view of either system. Whether a condition is easily identifiable and treated and stuff like that will determine your experience with the medical system far more than any real difference between countries.

That's so very true.

Another local anecdotes... my company can *see* that there's more insured folks walking in the door (something like 7% increase), however, we're seeing 10% increase in ED visits (the most expensive delivery).

My VP anonymously sat in the ED waiting room for 3 weekends in a row to talk to the patients (and the staff).

You know what he found? Even though some of them have insurance for the first time... they STILL go to the ED because "it's the best in the area".

O.o

How do you answer to that?

That is one reason why we, as in the US, must do a better job in providing cheap/accessible clinics. The hospital systems can't do that by themselves... they'd need at least the State to pitch in somehow.

Complex layers.

Just like our gunz. Come visit... we can show you a good time.

Man I want to take you up on that offer.

Either that, I'll knock on your door one day. Truthfully, visiting Australia and New Zealand is on my bucket list.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The point I was trying to drive at is that it's hard to truly compare and contrast things like healthcare between countries.

That's why sebster drives me bonkers.... he talks from a well reasoned, rational standpoint regarding our healthcare debates... but, it's acedemic. Why? Because just like it's unfair to trash the NHS or AU's Healthcare system... it's just as unfair to trash the US' without having experienced both.

But my point about the US system isn't about which system is the nicest to experience. My point has always been about what you pay, compared to the outcomes you get.

It is well established that the US system costs about twice the average of other industrialised nations. And in terms of outcomes, the US is pretty much the same as the rest of the developed world*. I think most people, once they realise they've just paid $50k for a car that was almost identical to a car that is selling for $25k they'd feel ripped off.

*There's a lot of studies that rank the healthcare outcomes of different countries, and the US is pretty consistently middle of the road in all of these. But the bigger story is you look behind the numbers and you'll see that rankings actually mask extremely small differences in performance. All developed countries have live baby numbers are fairly close, have life expectancy figures that are pretty close, and variations in malpractice are almost all due to legal differences, not the actual quality of care provided. There are differences in one technique or another from place to place, but across the whole you're getting more or less the same experience.

Okay... my bad. I took it as the quality of care suffered.

You're absolutely right that we pay through the nose here. The ironic thing here is that it isn't the insurance industry driving up the cost. IT's the Fed/State regulations, combined with our patent laws and malpractice environment are the biggest overall costs.

Because of that, when you go to the hospital... everything is nothing more than a shell game. It's a bloody mess.

Hence why I'm pining for the German (or Canadian) system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/climate-change-2016-presidential-campaign/index.html

This could get interesting. The Pope is about to release an official statement in support of fighting against climate change. I wonder how the various candidates will respond to this.

Even if you don't believe in global warming and such, I'm sure we can all agree that spewing all sorts of crap into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the earth we grow our food in certainly isn't good for anybody's health.

Interesting.

We need more comprehensive strategy ( the kitchen sink ) imho. However, I still question how much of climate change is truly man made vs the natural order of things.*

*Don't get me wrong, I don't want to needlessly pollute the planet... it's just that, I don't agree with doing things like instituting Carbon Tax on the economy on something that we don't fully understand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
I thought the Hillary logo was pretty terrible, until Jeb! appeared. Truly we are in a dark age of political logos if these two are the standard. I think there really is no option but a nation wide political boycott until both parties commit to producing logos that don’t make us fear for the future of human innovation.

Dear lord they're both horrendus.

I did watch Jeb's announcement speech.

He ain't nothing like his brother... Jeb comes off very cerebral here and works the crowd really well.

He's not my first choice (nor my 2nd or 3rd!), but... if he's the nominee... I'll vote for him.

 whembly wrote:

This is one area, that's easy to tweak... allow insurance to offer catastrophic insurance for super cheap. IE, cheap premium, high deductable... but protects you from financial ruin. (ironically, the plans on the PPACA function like these plans).

That's basically all health insurance in a nutshell, in theory.... In reality, if people want to be actually protected in the event of a catastrophic emergency, or a catastrophic diagnosis, they NEED supplemental insurance. Much as I disagree with the "need" for separate insurance, it's the way things have gone in the US.

At the same time, and it really pisses me off, is that during the lead-up to the passage of ACA, so many people were like "my insurance doesn't cover doctors visits!"... when in reality it does, you just don't like having to pay a $50 co-pay at the door. To put it like this, and this is exactly how I phrased it to clients buying insurance from me: do you call up Allstate, or GEICO (usually I ask who they have) for their car insurance so that they can pay to get their oil changed? No, and THAT is exactly how health insurance works in the US... YOU as a person are still responsible for maintenance and upkeep (part of that is annual or semi-annual check ups)



And like you whembly, I would honestly prefer the German system as well. In the bit of experience of it that I did have, things worked so much better than any of the healthcare I got directly from the army, or through a "regular" american doc.

 sebster wrote:
His real earnings are $60k, but he only pays taxes on $55k.

It's a basic unfairness.

Medicare is funded by way of taxation (FICA), and it is fair given that most US citizens are forced to pay into it.

 sebster wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Not really in favor of that...This is basically a huge tax rise for the middle class/working poor while hardly a tax rise at all for the upper class. Granted, doesn't affect the really poor who don't have employer-provided health care.

Just look at the basic structure. Right now you can have a guy working for himself, he makes $60k over the year, and so he he pays taxes on $60k and then has to find his own healthcare. Another guy works for a company, he gets $55k, and then get a $5k medicare package on top of that. His real earnings are $60k, but he only pays taxes on $55k.

It's a basic unfairness.

The self-employed person can write off the health insurance costs.

*Really loud, pretty annoyed throat clear*

From page 60:
Just a heads up for the thread. Much as I had to say in the UK politics thread, this is a US politics thread. US. If you want to discuss UK politics, create your own thread. Cheers

And now from page 65:
This is a US politics thread. If you want to do UK politics and the UK politics thread from the election is dead and done, then start a new one, political junkie UK edition 2.0 or some such. I've removed the OT posts. I'm aware that talk about the NHS and such may have muddied the lines, but that seems to be always discussed in terms of its relation to the US healthcare reforms, and the effects of those reforms, rather than the politics behind the NHS, if that helps clear up any confusion about why that is sweet but other posts about it aren't.

So... Trump formally announced today.

Trump v. Clinton

There isn't a political junkie alive today who wouldn't want to see this.



But, man... Trump just like to hear his voice. o.O

Oh god, trump. He's so ridiculous, it's hilarious.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Oh god, trump. He's so ridiculous, it's hilarious.

Just wondering how much $$$ he's going to make by running...

Maybe for future political favors?

The rest of the contenders need to tightening the Hell up and step up their game and commitments.

 Jihadin wrote:
The rest of the contenders need to tightening the Hell up and step up their game and commitments.

And I for one would like to propose pugil sticks in a sawdust pit instead of lame ol' debates where they spit out 15 second soundbite type talking points.

The DNC's troll game level?

Masterful!

Our statement on Trump: pic.twitter.com/8I8ilMzwUh

— Holly! Shulman (@HollyShulman) June 16, 2015

I've just found a way to circumvent the mods' ban on British politics being mentioned in this thread.

Today, First Lady, Michelle Obama, visited London, and met with the Prime Minister David Cameron, met Prince Harry, toured the house of commons, and listened to some debates. One of those debates was about...ok I won't push my luck

Anyway, my question for Americans is this: will this visit improve Anglo-American relations?

Thank you Mrs Obama for visiting London.

Back OT.

I was watching Donald Trump's speech today, and although a lot of it was garbage, he did make a point about the American dream - how the elites have pulled up the ladder behind them, and why another Bush as president would be bad for the USA, as dynasty it something that should be frowned upon.

Anyone else agree?

If Trump gets it. Can only imagine Trade negotiations going our way (US)

I doubt it, Trump's an attention wanting fool.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I was watching Donald Trump's speech today, and although a lot of it was garbage, he did make a point about the American dream - how the elites have pulled up the ladder behind them, and why another Bush as president would be bad for the USA, as dynasty it something that should be frowned upon.

Soooo..... he's saying almost the exact same thing as Bernie Sanders, just in a more "Trump" kind of way. Granted, Sanders hasn't really touched the whole Bush thing that I know of.... But calling out the "elites" of the country? You betcha, that's been his number one thing to talk about.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/climate-change-2016-presidential-campaign/index.html

This could get interesting. The Pope is about to release an official statement in support of fighting against climate change. I wonder how the various candidates will respond to this.

Even if you don't believe in global warming and such, I'm sure we can all agree that spewing all sorts of crap into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the earth we grow our food in certainly isn't good for anybody's health.

Interesting.

We need more comprehensive strategy ( the kitchen sink ) imho. However, I still question how much of climate change is truly man made vs the natural order of things.*

*Don't get me wrong, I don't want to needlessly pollute the planet... it's just that, I don't agree with doing things like instituting Carbon Tax on the economy on something that we don't fully understand.

See, the thing is, the Rs keep arguing against climate change, when they should just be sidestepping it altogether and go for the health benefits of a cleaner environment. Compared to when I was in school 25 years ago and what my wife (a schoolteacher) tells me, it sure seems like there are far more autistic kids, ADHD kids, and kids with all sorts of substance allergies than there were "back in my day," and there's got to be a reason for that.

Anyway, found this article and thought it was funny:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/being-moody-south-carolina-2016/
Short version: when asked who the greatest president alive today is, several of them said Reagan. If I were one of them, I would have said Bill just to troll everybody.

First off, artfully dodged, well done

Secondly, is it only me who really really wants to see Sanders actually do well? Maybe even get the nomination? I mean I look at what he wants to do and I know that I would vote for him in a heartbeat if I was a yank.

 motyak wrote:
First off, artfully dodged, well done

Secondly, is it only me who really really wants to see Sanders actually do well? Maybe even get the nomination? I mean I look at what he wants to do and I know that I would vote for him in a heartbeat if I was a yank.

You're not the only one... If you look back over the past number of years I've been a member of these esteemed ( ) forums, I had traditionally been very Libertarian, and quite conservative (at least, fiscally conservative)

But, I personally see Sanders as a guy who is saying all the right things, backing up his speech, largely, with action and, unlike many political rats, believes what he says and is actually for The People. So yeah... I actually want Sanders, not just for the nomination, but for the White House.

Sanders is dreamy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/climate-change-2016-presidential-campaign/index.html

This could get interesting. The Pope is about to release an official statement in support of fighting against climate change. I wonder how the various candidates will respond to this.

Even if you don't believe in global warming and such, I'm sure we can all agree that spewing all sorts of crap into the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the earth we grow our food in certainly isn't good for anybody's health.

Interesting.

We need more comprehensive strategy ( the kitchen sink ) imho. However, I still question how much of climate change is truly man made vs the natural order of things.*

*Don't get me wrong, I don't want to needlessly pollute the planet... it's just that, I don't agree with doing things like instituting Carbon Tax on the economy on something that we don't fully understand.

See, the thing is, the Rs keep arguing against climate change, when they should just be sidestepping it altogether and go for the health benefits of a cleaner environment. Compared to when I was in school 25 years ago and what my wife (a schoolteacher) tells me, it sure seems like there are far more autistic kids, ADHD kids, and kids with all sorts of substance allergies than there were "back in my day," and there's got to be a reason for that.

Anyway, found this article and thought it was funny:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/being-moody-south-carolina-2016/
Short version: when asked who the greatest president alive today is, several of them said Reagan. If I were one of them, I would have said Bill just to troll everybody.

That's because the diagnosis over the years changed. There was a HUGE study on this at Washington University of St. Louis (the Harvard west of Mississppi)... and they've found no meaningful increase/decrease with respect to the idea that the environment is causing more Austic/ADHD/allergic kids. I'll see if I can find the public summary... stay tuned.

As to your idea of side-stepping the "global warming" debate... good call. I don't think anyone would resoundedly reject policies for cleaner environment... just be fething honest about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sanders is dreamy.

What would a Sander's Administration look like?

I honestly do not see how anyone who has any libertarian leanings can believe a socialist is the best person for President. He may say things you like to hear, but his solution will ALWAYS be the expansion of the Federal Gov't and its power. He'll erode personal freedom for the Good of Us All and use the gov't to do so. That really ought to be abhorrent to a libertarian, who by definition is supposed to think shrinking the gov't and its power is the best thing for personal liberty.

Yeah, he wants to stick it to the banks. His methods and tools to do so should scare the gak out of libertarians.