Well, that's an interesting point... but I don't think it's really true. I think the reality is that, if you look at how much money is spent on health insurance in the US, that it would be possible to have the same quality of health care for the people that are getting it now PLUS cover at the same level for those with no cover at all. The reason is that there is massive bureaucracy in the US system which revolves around sending/receiving invoices, handling insurance issues, etc. which simply aren't there... in the UK system in particular. For example, I moved about 4 years ago and registered with one of the local doctors. I could have chosen one of about 3 or 4 in my locality. If I am sick I go and see the doctor and he makes me well again, even if that means sending me to a hospital or a specialist. There ARE greater inefficiencies in the UK system than there used to be because the tories brought in the 'internal market' so that doctors and hospitals now have to send/receive invoices between themselves but, because there are vastly fewer of them than patients, the inefficiencies aren't as great as they would otherwise be. Interestingly, the NHS also covers mental health which, bearing in mind we're talking about the British, is probably a good thing. The cost on an individual basis is difficult to calculate because it's all lumped together with the National Insurance contribution of about 22% tax, (between $150-1150 a week... nothing above), but that includes the state pension as well so, like I say, it's difficult to quantify. What I'm reasonable certain of, however, is that we spend VASTLY less than the USA on health overall measured by % of GDP, whatever.
I was reading through the WHO report, and the "Overall Health System Attainment in Member States" table (pg. 196 lists) Uncertainty Rank Interval Name WHO Index Uncertainty 1 1 Japan 93.4 92.6-94.3 2 2-8 Switzerland 92.2 91.2-93.3 3 2-6 Norway 92.2 91.4-93.1 4 2-11 Sweden 92.0 91.1-93.0 5 2-11 Luxembourg 92.0 91.0-93.0 6 3-11 France 91.9 91.0-92.9 7 4-14 Canada 91.7 90.8-92.6 8 4 – 15 Netherlands 91.6 90.7 – 92.5 9 6 – 13 United Kingdom 91.6 90.9 – 92.3 10 6 – 18 Austria 91.5 90.5 – 92.4 11 7 – 21 Italy 91.4 90.5 – 92.2 12 7 – 19 Australia 91.3 90.4 – 92.2 13 7 – 18 Belgium 91.3 90.2 – 92.3 14 8 – 20 Germany 91.3 90.4 – 92.2 15 7 – 24 United States 91.1 89.9 – 92.3 16 10 – 23 Iceland 91.0 90.0 – 92.1 17 9 – 23 Andorra 91.0 90.1 – 92.0 18 9 – 23 Monaco 91.0 90.0 – 92.0 19 12 – 23 Spain 91.0 90.1 – 91.8 20 13 – 24 Denmark 90.9 90.0 – 91.8 So, Japan kicks all our asses!!! In reality, this indicates that there is very little real difference in the rankings.
Don't know. The source is WHO and I can't think of a more reliable source. In the actual document there's a lot of tables where ranking differs a lot though I think that the overall results (and tables) should be the best indicator. The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance edit - And btw Morocco is 29th (Overall health system performance)
Wouldn't he be paying higher in taxes otherwise? For me and my family, the US model works. I have been to Europe and do not like the clinics there, for serious operations you most likely are put on a waiting list, often times people die on these lists. I think if given the choice, most Americans would choose the US model but agree that it needs reform.
I say that because I think the typical american is ok with the current model and would complain once the inevitable waiting lists were introduced to the mainstream. I do think many uninsured people would love universal health care, but they are heavily outnumbered by the soccer moms who are ok with it. Universal Health care was introduced to congress in a limited form by Hillary Clinton and Democrats and Republicans both shot down the idea. If there was ever a referendum set to the American public, I think you'd find the current system would win out.
I been to Europe many times, I still remember when two of my kids had to be treated on the emergency rooms, on two different occasions, they took my two sons both born in the USA with great care, from the doctor's and nurses, when I ask for the bill, they refused, was nothing, I went to my car and pick up a box of cigars, just to say thank you, they just said in English go home in peace. meanwhile in the USA, my son got a bleeding nose at a Soccer game, they rush him to the hospital waited 3 hrs to be attended, and I got a bill for $500.00 for doing nothing.
you are making the fundamental mistake of equating the uk with the rest of europe! as much as i like the principle idea of the british nhs, i'd go home to germany if there'd be anything seriously wrong with me. there i wouldn't have to wait for an operation for half a year or more....
And I can counter with a different opinion. Being from Ireland and now living here in the US, I have experienced both. It does cost more money here but given the choice, I'd rather be sick here than sick in Ireland. The standard of care is crap in Ireland. I visited my uncle who was in hospital over there a few years ago with my american born wife and she was astounded by the poor facilities. I don't know how other European countries work but there are long waiting lists for lots of precedures. When I mean long, I mean years. Recently a friend of mine's daughter in Ireland who is 2 1/2 was diagnosed with Autism. To get started on the proper therapy, they would have had to wait 2 years if they chose the national health care system route. They did research themselves and are having the therapy being provided privately using their private insurance. Information on therapies that can help with autism is very hard to find there. I know this doesnt have anything to do with health care systems but I went to my local Barnes and Noble the day I talked with him and picked up 5 books on the subject. The best research on autism is being done in the US. BTW, the doctor they are seeing now who specializes in autism is american. So as I said earlier, based on my experience, I prefer the US health system even though it has many flaws.
The US system is great for those that have access to it. The problem is that too many people don't. However, those 'too many' people don't have enough - or any - political clout to get things changed. As someone else pointed out, soccer moms love the current system. Their employer-paid coverage hides most of the the financial realities of healthcare from them and they - generally - get excellent care.
I think the difference is that while Frank Cunha is talking about emergency care, you are talking about autism and esthetics of the hospitals. Also here where I live there is still one hospital I'd avoid to go because of the fact the building is too old... they can restructure it how much they want (and they do) it still is ugly. But the professional quality is the same as the other ultra-modern comfortable places. Here going private or pubblic is mostly only a matter of wanting to be alone in your own room, wanting to be cured when you want etc. The doctors are exactly the same. And long waiting lists is generally speaking (there could be still exceptions) a thing of the past. In the end, if you have no problem to spend approximately how much you spend in the US, you will have beautiful single room and you will wait very little to be cured even if your illness is not an emergency. Of course I don't know about Ireland.
Not in Canada. My Aunt needs knee surgery and they told her the earliest they could get her in is the end of May, 2005. It's not something that's minor either, she currently need crutches to walk. Her doctor told her that she's better off going to a private clinic and paying for the procedure, she called the doctor and made an appointment for next week. If you need surgery and it's life threatening it's common to be put on a list that could take mothsto get taken care of.
Maybe I know the reason why http://www3.who.int/whosis/health_personnel/health_personnel.cfm Physicians per 100,000 population Italy 554 (1997) Ireland 219 (1998) 2 other interesting tables here (pdf) measured levels of expenditure on health, 1997–2001 measured levels of per capita expenditure on health, 1997–2001
Which is 100% of the population. No one is refused emergency care in the US. Yes, you might get a bill afterwards, which you can take time to pay off, but in the meanwhile your life was saved--without having to wait in line for YEARS.
The overall health of US is bad. It is outrages the hoops you have to jump through to get a physical even if you have health insurance. It cost money to get physicals or drug in the form of copays. However if I had a major illness or disease I would went to be operated in the the US because of the opportunity that is present in US hospitals
fiuuuu... That is really not good. My old dad had a diagnosis of cancer in the intestine (about 2 years ago) and 2 weeks after that he was already recovering from surgery.
Noone waits in line if it's a matter of saving your life, surely not in italy, but I guess it's the same anywhere in Europe. Sure you could wait a bit if you broke an arm and even more if you're going there because of an headache. Usually in italy a nurse asks you soon as you arrive, depending on your disease, he/she gives you a different level of priority. Those who are in danger don't even stop they go in directly.
How blinkered can you be in a four line post? There's rather more to a healthcare system than emergency care and too many Americans don't have access to it. Additionally, noone waits in line for emergency care in countries with dreaded 'socialized' medicine. And finally, inability to pay health bills is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.
Link, please? Edit: Never mind. I could only find your assertion backed up on one site, but most sites i hit said Medical bills are the #2 cause of personal bankruptcy.
Actually I think I may have mistyped something. In Canada if you have a life threatening illness or emergency and need immediate surgery you will get it. If it's not life threatening or immediate you'll wait. Cancer is not considered immediate. My father also had kidney cancer, actually it came back in the other kidney so I guess you can say he's got it again, and from the day he found out he had cancer it took one week to the day that they removed the kidney and cancer. When he was diagnosed the second time he had a number of options and was ultimately put on interpheron within the week, they then presented him with the option of going on an experimental medicine. He was on it within a few weeks. My father lives in the US. It's not as bad as some people state. If you're dirt poor and you have an emergency you WILL NOT be refused treatment, in many cases Medicaid or Medicare will pick up the tab for you.
There's no getting around the fact that we spend far more on health care than Europeans and still don't cover 20% of the population. There's also no getting around the fact that our mortality rates are much higher. There really is nothing to debate, our system is a failure.