Thread: British fear 'American-style' healthcare system

LA Times : As leaders debate ways to reform healthcare, politicians repeatedly tell a worried public that Britain will not turn the National Health Service into an 'American-style' private system.

Britain is now embroiled in a healthcare argument of its own, prompted by a proposed shake-up of the NHS. And the phrase on everyone's lips is "American-style," which may not be as catchy as the "death panels" that Palin attributed to socialized medicine but which, over here, inspires pretty much the same kind of terror.

For a people accustomed to free healthcare for all, regardless of income, the fact that millions of their cousins across the Atlantic have no insurance and can't afford decent treatment is a farce as well as a tragedy.

Any country that even thinks about adopting something from the American health care system should have their head examined (by an American doctor).

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Any country that even thinks about adopting something from the American health care system should have their head examined (by an American doctor).

But-but-but, it's the best in the world. Free markets! Choice! Incentives! Competition!

But seriously, my mother recently went through a serious but fairly routine heart procedure that required an overnight hospital stay for observation. Her bill: $80,000. I believe she's on the hook for something around 20% of this.

^
How can it be the best in the world when you have to pay for treatment out of your own pocket?
I have grown up with the NHS and the thought of paying anything for Healthcare is just wrong, it should be free for everyone!

I rest my case............. Any health care system that allows litigation to occur at the extreme you see in the US deserves to pay $80,000 for an operation. Do away with litigation or, at least, limit it and then you have a start. Take the insurance companies out ot the practicing medicine business and put them back in the business they started with. Just those two things would bring down health care costs in the US dramatically.

^Don't believe that litigation excuse. Got any figures re insurance premiums for the quackery?

Originally Posted by Periphiral Vision

^
How can it be the best in the world when you have to pay for treatment out of your own pocket?
I have grown up with the NHS and the thought of paying anything for Healthcare is just wrong, it should be free for everyone!

It was sarcasm dude - and I agree that Healthcare should be for everyone, but it is not in fact "free." You pay for it with taxes. So do Americans, except we give our money away to unaccountable for-profit entities that make money by denying coverage.

^
There are lots of figures if you take the time to research it. I am not going to give you any since you can do the math yourself. Protective medicine costs the US health care systems a lot of money. How do you think that money gets paid back? For every diagnosis, thousands are spent protecting a physician from possible litigation. If you know anything about healthcare in the US, you don't need to ask such rediculous questions.

Originally Posted by Bexar County Stud

Originally Posted by Periphiral Vision

^
How can it be the best in the world when you have to pay for treatment out of your own pocket?
I have grown up with the NHS and the thought of paying anything for Healthcare is just wrong, it should be free for everyone!

It was sarcasm dude - and I agree that Healthcare should be for everyone, but it is not in fact "free." You pay for it with taxes. So do Americans, except we give our money away to unaccountable for-profit entities that make money by denying coverage.

Bloody taxes! I dont mind them spending my taxes on Healthcare, I just get pissed when they spend it on Bombs and killing machines.
Get rid of all the worlds weapons and armed forces and start fighting with fists, knees and elbows!

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

^
There are lots of figures if you take the time to research it. I am not going to give you any since you can do the math yourself. Protective medicine costs the US health care systems a lot of money. How do you think that money gets paid back? For every diagnosis, thousands are spent protecting a physician from possible litigation. If you know anything about healthcare in the US, you don't need to ask such rediculous questions.

It seems you're the one being ridiculous - Malpractice litigation, while significant, is not the prime driver of US healthcare costs as you claim.

Health care costs - US v. other countries
Notably, the total impact of malpractice expenses as a percentage of US health care costs was less than 0.5%. That does not factor in defensive medicine - but even the highest estimate of the excess costs resulting from defensive medicine adds but 9% to our total costs - not enough to explain the difference in total costs between the US and other OECD countries.

New evidence shows limiting malpractice liability could cut health care spending by 0.5 percent, CBO says
So while there is now clear evidence that limiting malpractice liability can save money, it’s not nearly as much as some proponents have claimed.

The healthcare in the US is top notch if you can afford it. I mean look at Magic Johnson, amazingly this guy has survived for 20 years now after discovering he was HIV positive, meanwhile most others struggle to get the care they need and succumb fairly quickly.

I'm fairly young, but I've already had to put up with my fair share of the garbage the insurance companies put out. Every time you need something that a doctor recommends the insurance company will fight it because they don't want to pay, or they feel that there is another line of treatment that is better because its cheaper. Of course a lot of doctors are in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies but the ones that aren't struggle to actually treat their patients the proper way.

Studly, I didn't say litigation was the primary driver for cost of health care in the US. I stated if you got rid of it, then health care costs would be reduced dramatically. If you really knew anyting about the US health care system, you would see all the hidden costs associated with keeping out of a court of law. These costs will not show up in any study since no hospital or physician would confess to this practice. You need to look at the bigger picture, not just the superficial fluff.
I don't beleive your quote on a percentage and would be curious to know the exact source. They obviously do not know the interworkings of healthcare in America and it sounds like you don't either.

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Studly, I didn't say litigation was the primary driver for cost of health care in the US. I stated if you got rid of it, then health care costs would be reduced dramatically. If you really knew anyting about the US health care system, you would see all the hidden costs associated with keeping out of a court of law. These costs will not show up in any study since no hospital or physician would confess to this practice. You need to look at the bigger picture, not just the superficial fluff.
I don't beleive your quote on a percentage and would be curious to know the exact source. They obviously do not know the interworkings of healthcare in America and it sounds like you don't either.

The quotes I provided are linked. I don't claim that these are the final say-so on this matter, but rather that the situation is more nuanced than your conservative talking points and obnoxious know-it-all posturing.

Originally Posted by Bexar County Stud

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

Studly, I didn't say litigation was the primary driver for cost of health care in the US. I stated if you got rid of it, then health care costs would be reduced dramatically. If you really knew anyting about the US health care system, you would see all the hidden costs associated with keeping out of a court of law. These costs will not show up in any study since no hospital or physician would confess to this practice. You need to look at the bigger picture, not just the superficial fluff.
I don't beleive your quote on a percentage and would be curious to know the exact source. They obviously do not know the interworkings of healthcare in America and it sounds like you don't either.

The quotes I provided are linked. I don't claim that these are the final say-so on this matter, but rather that the situation is more nuanced than your conservative talking points and obnoxious know-it-all posturing.

The posturing comes from knowing the points I made are valid even though you tried to minimize them with poor examples. At least you admitted they are not the final say-so, which means you are somewhat rational.

There's too many hands involved in the medical industry in the states, you have both insurance companies (health and the malpractice insurance companies with their high premiums), the doctors in bed with the health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies wanting their high profits, the FDA wanting their cut and the hospitals all wanting their share as well.

Until you start cutting these out and make these people all return to doing what is good for man, rather than doing what is best for the bottom line the healthcare system in the states will be screwed up.

Do have to agree with your points drawp.

Rants about malpractice are always against the settlements and the insurance premiums - never about the carnage.

“As many as 80,000 people die in the United States each year due partly to medical malpractice, according to a study entitled “Patients, Doctors and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation in New York,” published by the Harvard Medical Practice Study.

Despite the high number of deaths and injuries, the article states that, “Only about 2 percent of those injured by physicians’ negligence seek compensation through a lawsuit, according to a 1991 article in the New England Journal of Medicine.”

My mother lost most function in her hand due to incompetence by a doctor who had a similar track record with other patients. But she believed suing was sinful and immoral.

drawp: "FDA wanting their cut"?? What does that mean?
Do you want to let pharma push whatever they want?

Originally Posted by drawp

There's too many hands involved in the medical industry in the states, you have both insurance companies (health and the malpractice insurance companies with their high premiums), the doctors in bed with the health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies wanting their high profits, the FDA wanting their cut and the hospitals all wanting their share as well.

Until you start cutting these out and make these people all return to doing what is good for man, rather than doing what is best for the bottom line the healthcare system in the states will be screwed up.

^Absolutely. Every business hand that dips into the medical system costs the patient in the end. As we all know, the US medical system is a HUGE lucrative business and as they sell more and more sickness the bottom-line of those businesses and agencies involved will grow. Everybody profits while sadly the patient can no longer afford basic care.

The system is broken and out of control and it will not be fixed anytime soon as there is way to much money involved. It will be tied up in courts for years.

^There are good, practical reasons to overhaul the US healthcare "system," making US companies more competitive and freeing up talent (people stuck in non-productive in-house jobs because they need their employer's health plan) being two of them.

I'm aged forty-six years now and I have seen the U.S. healthcare system go from excellent and affordable to dumb, stupid and unaffordable in my lifetime.

As always, the Brits and the U.S. can keep their socialized "healthcare" and I will take care of myself, as I have always; thank you, very much.

Originally Posted by robuzo

The God in the Machine - Lapham’s Quarterly
"Americans in 2007 paid $7,421 per capita for healthcare as opposed to $2,840 paid by the Finns and $3,328 by the Swedes, but life expectancy in the United States is not as long as it is in thirty other countries, among them Finland and Sweden; the first-year infant-mortality rate in the United States is higher than it is in some forty other countries, among them Slovenia and Singapore. A newborn child stands a better chance of survival in Minsk and Havana than it does in New York or Washington."

You really need to be carefull with statistics. Comparing Sweden to the US is tricky. They don't have nearly as many illegal immigrants or blacks as the US. The may sound racist, but if you remove those groups from calculations on many subjects, you will find things even out. I have noticed this on childrens performance in school, and I'm sure it would apply here as well.