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.

 thekingofkings wrote:

for Joe average it can mean a lot. especially as these advances cause costs to drop, my own cancer medications have dropped costs considerably over the years. That I am even still here with it is a big change in care.

I would wonder if the costs of your meds dropped more due to the patents expiring allowing you to get cheaper generics, rather than due to any medical advances.

When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.

And the American health insurance companies never say 'no, we just don't want to pay for that, even if it will save your life', do they?

Oh, wait... yes they do. - willing to define a liver tansplant as 'unproven', to save a bunch of wanga.

I mean, it's not like there have already been hundreds of liver transplants, right?

The Auld Grump

She didn’t get treated at the ER. But she got a $5,751 bill anyway.

Anderson, Moschetti & Taffany, Personal Injury Lawyers wrote:
How Are My Medical Bills Paid After Falling on an Icy Sidewalk at The Mall?

These two articles tell the British everything they need to know about the US health system.

In the UK, if you fell over at the mall and got hurt, you would be taken to A&E and treated and the cost would be £0. Admittedly you might have to wait to be treated, depending on the extent of your injuries.

Even as a non-EU citizen you would be treated for free, and in theory you would be charged afterwards but usually it isn't done. As an American you of course would have got travel insurance to cover possible medical expenses, so it would be fine.

However I feel this is all rather off-topic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She didn’t get treated at the ER. But she got a $5,751 bill anyway.

Anderson, Moschetti & Taffany, Personal Injury Lawyers wrote:
How Are My Medical Bills Paid After Falling on an Icy Sidewalk at The Mall?

These two articles tell the British everything they need to know about the US health system.

In the UK, if you fell over at the mall and got hurt, you would be taken to A&E and treated and the cost would be £0. Admittedly you might have to wait to be treated, depending on the extent of your injuries.

Even as a non-EU citizen you would be treated for free, and in theory you would be charged afterwards but usually it isn't done. As an American you of course would have got travel insurance to cover possible medical expenses, so it would be fine.

However I feel this is all rather off-topic.

Oh man. Referring to that upper article: We had a ton of people with fainting/syncope as initial problem coming into the ER I worked at last month here in Germany. It is absolute standard here to take blood samples, do an ECG, a blood gas analysis, a physical examination, thorough anamnesis and then after all of this still recommend either being admitted to the cardiology or neurology ward for further diagnosis of a first-time syncope to rule out malign arrythmias, cardiomyopathies and newly present neurological issues OR at least do all of this in ambulant practices.
And here... a young person leaving the hospital in fear of medical bills she can't pay, even when she might have a serious life-threatening reason for the sycnope or also epidural or subdural bleeding after hitting her head, and then STILL being billed a feth ton of money...Sorry, I just can't wrap my head around it.

Capitalism at all costs I guess.

It's indefensible. I hope someday you guys get to have a more humane system.

 Wolfblade wrote:
Capitalism at all costs I guess.

Well, to be fair, once they started wiping out all pollinating insects in the name of profit, it showed just how short sighted they are.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-44103081

More Treason from Trump, he's promising to save Chinese jobs in an effort to create a rival for US tech firms.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-44103081

More Treason from Trump, he's promising to save Chinese jobs in an effort to create a rival for US tech firms.

So the people who want to punish their European allies for legally trading with Iran under the Iran deal want to save a Chinese company convicted of illegally trading with Iran and North Korea? Just when you think it couldn't possibly get weirder.

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.

Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.

Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.

Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.

the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.

You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.

I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.

I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.

And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.

that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.

again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.

 thekingofkings wrote:


that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it,

Well I actually did the math when I was offered a permanent position in the US instead of just spending 8-10 weeks a year there, and the results were the opposite.

My private plan here + taxes cost less than just the regular plan most colleagues in the US got (which was pretty comprehensive but nothing top tier)

I'm speaking about 10 years back but if anything the numbers will be worse now... plus now I have a son with a very expensive condition (ASD) that would cost upwards of 30K a year to properly treat un the US (schools, speech specialists, neuropaedatricians, etc) cost here is less than 100 euro a month for the extra private sessions, and I don't even have to worry about that affecting my own insurance policy.

Difference is, as someone that’s been repeatedly spazzed up throughout my life (including being an induced labour, and shortly after a very serious life threatening condition), the NHS doesn’t cost me anymore than someone that’s enjoyed absolutely perfect health throughout their life.

And if it wasn’t for my job, I wouldn’t have to negotiated labyrinthine terms and conditions and exclusions of private medical plans.

Now, some might chime in with ‘why should I pay for someone else’s medical care’ is showing a frankly staggering level of ignorance as to how insurance actually works. Because it’s absolutley no different in structure to my taxes and national insurance paying for the NHS.

See, when an insurer sets their premiums, they work on a Reserve basis. The Reserve will depend on the average cost of all claims in the past year (often longer). That’s then worked into the premiums, to ensure they’re bringing in enough premiums to cover their expected outgoing. Plus of course, their desired profit margin.

The trick there is to balance it just right, so you make a decent slice of profit, without pricing yourself out of the market. It’s essentially a gamble - a gamble that the majority of users won’t use their insurance in a given year. And the minority that do don’t break the bank.

So entirely contrary to what the desperately uninformed would like to believe social or private, you’re already paying for someone else. The only difference is that with the NHS, ropey and underfunded as it is, is that nobody can point to paragraph 53, clause 174, and say ‘tough luck buster, we’re not paying for it’. Or indeed jack up the prices Because Greed.

Now, consider relatively trivial, but disabling ailments. For every person that needs a new hip, but can’t afford the insurance or surgery, that’s someone not working. They may also require a family member as a career, taking them out of the work pool as well. Increased welfar costs, reduced tax income. Rinse and repeat across an entire populace, and hopefully you’ll see the idiocy for what it is.

Now, the NHS isn’t perfect. Around 21 years ago, a rush job by my local GP caused blood poisoning. See, turns out I had Glandular Fever. Bellend did an exceptionally cursory ‘tongue out, say ahh, penicillin and bugger off’ examaniation. Of course, the medicine and the disease reacted, resulting in Blood Poisoning. I was so weak, I could barely get to the lavvy when I needed.

But all the times they’ve patched me up and sent me on my way? Totally outweigh that. Let’s see....there was my difficult birth, the stomach operation at two weeks old, removing that Playmobil spear from my ear, the wee stone from my nose, stitching my arm when I went through the window, the surgery to fix the tendon after that, popping out my ruptured appendix, stitching my lip (that should’ve come earlier in the list), at least two assessments for Epilepsy (runs in the family, occasional head wibbles) including EEG and MRI scans. And I think that’s it, and I’m not even 40 yet.

Yet when I hit retirement age (currently 30 years away), I’ll still have access to it, even though I’ll no longer be a tax payer. Provided the Tories don’t gut and privatise it much further, that could very well include long term care due to dementia, which runs in both sides of the family (don’t worry, I’m hoping to avoid that by partying hard. Don’t want it to happen to me).

You say our taxes are high? Yes, they are. I guess. Only ever lived in the U.K. so I’m afraid I lack a point of reference. But do tell us how much your annual premiums are for your healthcare, and post a link to your terms, conditions and exclusions, yeah? See who actually gets a better deal.

jouso wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it,

Well I actually did the math when I was offered a permanent position in the US instead of just spending 8-10 weeks a year there, and the results were the opposite.

My private plan here + taxes cost less than just the regular plan most colleagues in the US got (which was pretty comprehensive but nothing top tier)

I'm speaking about 10 years back but if anything the numbers will be worse now... plus now I have a son with a very expensive condition (ASD) that would cost upwards of 30K a year to properly treat un the US (schools, speech specialists, neuropaedatricians, etc) cost here is less than 100 euro a month for the extra private sessions, and I don't even have to worry about that affecting my own insurance policy.

depends, ACA has some really good plans. the thing is you would have options based on your needs. You might be better off not coming. Dont know how Poland's system is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Difference is, as someone that’s been repeatedly spazzed up throughout my life (including being an induced labour, and shortly after a very serious life threatening condition), the NHS doesn’t cost me anymore than someone that’s enjoyed absolutely perfect health throughout their life.

And if it wasn’t for my job, I wouldn’t have to negotiated labyrinthine terms and conditions and exclusions of private medical plans.

Now, some might chime in with ‘why should I pay for someone else’s medical care’ is showing a frankly staggering level of ignorance as to how insurance actually works. Because it’s absolutley no different in structure to my taxes and national insurance paying for the NHS.

See, when an insurer sets their premiums, they work on a Reserve basis. The Reserve will depend on the average cost of all claims in the past year (often longer). That’s then worked into the premiums, to ensure they’re bringing in enough premiums to cover their expected outgoing. Plus of course, their desired profit margin.

The trick there is to balance it just right, so you make a decent slice of profit, without pricing yourself out of the market. It’s essentially a gamble - a gamble that the majority of users won’t use their insurance in a given year. And the minority that do don’t break the bank.

So entirely contrary to what the desperately uninformed would like to believe social or private, you’re already paying for someone else. The only difference is that with the NHS, ropey and underfunded as it is, is that nobody can point to paragraph 53, clause 174, and say ‘tough luck buster, we’re not paying for it’. Or indeed jack up the prices Because Greed.

Now, consider relatively trivial, but disabling ailments. For every person that needs a new hip, but can’t afford the insurance or surgery, that’s someone not working. They may also require a family member as a career, taking them out of the work pool as well. Increased welfar costs, reduced tax income. Rinse and repeat across an entire populace, and hopefully you’ll see the idiocy for what it is.

Now, the NHS isn’t perfect. Around 21 years ago, a rush job by my local GP caused blood poisoning. See, turns out I had Glandular Fever. Bellend did an exceptionally cursory ‘tongue out, say ahh, penicillin and bugger off’ examaniation. Of course, the medicine and the disease reacted, resulting in Blood Poisoning. I was so weak, I could barely get to the lavvy when I needed.

But all the times they’ve patched me up and sent me on my way? Totally outweigh that. Let’s see....there was my difficult birth, the stomach operation at two weeks old, removing that Playmobil spear from my ear, the wee stone from my nose, stitching my arm when I went through the window, the surgery to fix the tendon after that, popping out my ruptured appendix, stitching my lip (that should’ve come earlier in the list), at least two assessments for Epilepsy (runs in the family, occasional head wibbles) including EEG and MRI scans. And I think that’s it, and I’m not even 40 yet.

Yet when I hit retirement age (currently 30 years away), I’ll still have access to it, even though I’ll no longer be a tax payer. Provided the Tories don’t gut and privatise it much further, that could very well include long term care due to dementia, which runs in both sides of the family (don’t worry, I’m hoping to avoid that by partying hard. Don’t want it to happen to me).

You say our taxes are high? Yes, they are. I guess. Only ever lived in the U.K. so I’m afraid I lack a point of reference. But do tell us how much your annual premiums are for your healthcare, and post a link to your terms, conditions and exclusions, yeah? See who actually gets a better deal.

You know full well noone is going to post that much private and personal details on a forum like this. Hell even if I liked you and you were a close friend I wouldnt give you that information. That said, having lived in both countries, I would never return to England to live, and I still love my family there.

Why not?

It’s hardly sensitive information. If I could log in to my payslip from home, I could pull up my P60 tax form from last year, and tell you exactly how much tax and NI I paid.

I could even tell you how much work’s private healthcare plan cost me as an individual (and it’s a top tier policy, they do look after us)

And here’s a cracker. Let’s say my coach to work stacks it tomorrow, and I end up quadraspazzed as a result. I can rest assured that they’ll check my pulse, not the contents of my wallet before they scrape me up into the ambulance.

The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.

I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.

Perhaps we should start another thread, where various members from various nations post what percentage of their income they paid in taxes plus all health care expenses - insurance, deductibles, copays, and the works - for 2017.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why not?

It’s hardly sensitive information. If I could log in to my payslip from home, I could pull up my P60 tax form from last year, and tell you exactly how much tax and NI I paid.

I could even tell you how much work’s private healthcare plan cost me as an individual (and it’s a top tier policy, they do look after us)

And here’s a cracker. Let’s say my coach to work stacks it tomorrow, and I end up quadraspazzed as a result. I can rest assured that they’ll check my pulse, not the contents of my wallet before they scrape me up into the ambulance.

I know more about you already than I want to, your payslip is your business and none of mine I dont even want to know where you live. We are not friends or even acquaintances.

But you asserted that you pay less than I do for healthcare. I’d have that evidenced, as it’s massively pertinent to the conversation.

 Da Boss wrote:
The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.

I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.

you can argue expensive and ineffecient for about any system,. I dont agree with you at all on the comparison, when one system has a much higher death rate percentage than the other is that really a good thing?

 Da Boss wrote:
The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.

I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.

I wouldn't go that far, California is the only one I know moving in the direction of single payer and that;'s only been recently.

But honestly, I think it's a great move. I've seen the results of hyper-individualist "I'm an island unto myself" rhetoric and it's a few ultra-rich permanent nobles ruling over a mass of people in hand to mouth poverty. You know, like the red states here or the aftermath of the other modern post-empire, Russia.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why not?

It’s hardly sensitive information. If I could log in to my payslip from home, I could pull up my P60 tax form from last year, and tell you exactly how much tax and NI I paid.

I could even tell you how much work’s private healthcare plan cost me as an individual (and it’s a top tier policy, they do look after us)

And here’s a cracker. Let’s say my coach to work stacks it tomorrow, and I end up quadraspazzed as a result. I can rest assured that they’ll check my pulse, not the contents of my wallet before they scrape me up into the ambulance.

I know more about you already than I want to, your payslip is your business and none of mine I dont even want to know where you live. We are not friends or even acquaintances.

I mean...it's not like he's describing an odd-smelling rash somewhere you wouldn't expect. It's pertinent to the discussion, isn't it?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.

I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.

you can argue expensive and ineffecient for about any system,. I dont agree with you at all on the comparison, when one system has a much higher death rate percentage than the other is that really a good thing?

Define 'death rate'.

 Vulcan wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
The information required to compare the two systems exists, and the UK system provides good value for the money spent on it. The US system is expensive and inefficient, but if you can pay, you get very good treatment.

I think it's crazy that medical bills are the leading reason for bankruptcy in the US, but if you're really happy with your system, more power to ya. I suppose each state can make their own healthcare system in the end, I've heard some states have quite socialist systems.

you can argue expensive and ineffecient for about any system,. I dont agree with you at all on the comparison, when one system has a much higher death rate percentage than the other is that really a good thing?

Define 'death rate'.

easier to let you read it yourself, not sure if your one of those "you put a comma wrong, your whole argument if gak" folks or not
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/england-wales-mortality-health-medicine-nhs-death-rate-a8256931.html

As long as you include the death rate because people couldn't afford treatment.

Ermmmmm......

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274513/life-expectancy-in-north-america/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2014to2016

You’ve also got a shocking infant mortality rate for a developed country....

The NHS is currently pretty badly underfunded and so are many other forms of care for individuals at the lower end of the income scale. This always happens when a Tory government gets in. The UK pays about the same per capita as Greece does on it's healthcare but gets a lot more out of what it spends. The mortality you reference is not only to do with the hospital system (which is degrading due to underfunding and intentional sabotage by the Tories) but also problems outside the scope of the NHS to deal with.

But you keep talking about the NHS, which is a system that makes a trade off between money spent and outcomes. It's one of the cheapest systems in any developed nation. I think it would be interesting for you to compare the French system, which is very expensive but has excellent outcomes, or the German system, which is somewhere in between.

So if you’re not up for specifics, can you at least tell us rough figures?

Is your health insurance three, four or five figures? Because in total, tax wise, I paid around £6,400ish last year - give or take. That means my take home was roughly £22,600ish. At the current exchange rate, that’s around $8,664 tax, $30,700ish.

Only rough figures, but for illustrative purposes. And not including stuff like VAT, tobacco tax, fuel duty and beer duty etc of course. I’m purely talking point of pay tax (which is all done for me, which is nice. Not sure I’d cope well with self declared tax.)

 thekingofkings wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.

Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.

Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.

Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.

the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.

You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.

I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.

I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.

And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.

that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.

again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.

You got the wait time and treatment indicated for your non-fatal condition.

The US might have the best “customer service” in healthcare, as long as we are not talking about the collection department of the hospital system, but by all measures we have the worst outcomes out of any modern system.

I got all kind of anecdotes about how gakky our system is and how good the german system is. I’ve worked in private/public/for-profit/non-profit/Government hospitals during the past few decades. Our system sucks.

 d-usa wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.

Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.

Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.

Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.

the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.

You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.

I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.

I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.

And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.

that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.

again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.

You got the wait time and treatment indicated for your non-fatal condition.

The US might have the best “customer service” in healthcare, as long as we are not talking about the collection department of the hospital system, but by all measures we have the worst outcomes out of any modern system.

I got all kind of anecdotes about how gakky our system is and how good the german system is. I’ve worked in private/public/for-profit/non-profit/Government hospitals during the past few decades. Our system sucks.

it took that time to determine a diagnosis, retroactively sure it was good triage, but since they had no idea and it took 3 doctors to figure it out, thats not a good outcome.

For added perspective, I may not be a rich man, but I’m by no means poorly paid.

For someone working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage, their outcome would look be something akin to....

£16,286 income. Of that, £11,850 is tax free (not allowing for deductible etc. Just level ‘nothing special’. That means, including tax and NI, and the bog standard 1185L tax code, they’re paying in a pretty meagre £1830 or so. For complete, universal healthcare - and all the other things wot tax is spent on.