fluffy666 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 First take away point is that there is nothing dramatic about UK expendature. Second is that moving towards a US-style system - with the combination of private profit and the public requirement not to let people die on the street - ends up inflating costs through the roof. Link here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) First take away point is that there is nothing dramatic about UK expendature. Second is that moving towards a US-style system - with the combination of private profit and the public requirement not to let people die on the street - ends up inflating costs through the roof. Yes, US is totally out of control. You may wish to add the lawyers to the list of cost inflater though. Edited March 6, 2012 by easy2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'lud Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 But, but, america is awesome people keep telling: me with low taxes and you just take care of yourself and you can carry guns and shoot people and criminals go to prison for ever, and if you don't work you starve but it's your own fault because you just have to want to be a winner Honestly, the more i read about the states the cr@ppier it looks if you're not an elite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57percent Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 America's a mess. Their education is a pyramid scheme, that underpins most of these costs. The doctors and lawyers have to be paid so much, so they can pay back what they owe to the lectures/universities. At the top end, there's no question that their health service is better. Possibly even justifying twice the cost, but at the middle and lower end it's very, very poor. The fact that (as a proportion of GDP) their govt spends more than the UK is amazing! If it wasn't for the fact they're still many steps ahead of everyone with technology, I'd really worry about their future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vested Disinterest Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 (edited) The original article didn't immediately convince me that paying for the uninsured makes it twice as expensive per capita in the US. Then I scrolled down and lost the will to live... So here's my 2p after NRTFA Cheap credit for once may not be the culprit (like it is in higher education). It must be something to do with the hospital knowing that the insurer will pay the full asking price. I know the insurance companies negotiate a big discount off the "list price" but who makes up those prices? I reckon all approved tests are run for every relevant patient just to satisfy the lawyers. The resources (scanners etc) must be available to handle this load. In the UK, doctors probably think "little Johnny doesn't really need a MRI scan and I know they have a backlog at the moment so I'll wait a day and reconsider" - this common sense approach must save money..? Edited March 6, 2012 by Vested Disinterest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'lud Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 The original article didn't immediately convince me that paying for the uninsured makes it twice as expensive per capita in the US. Then I scrolled down and lost the will to live... So here's my 2p after NRTFA Cheap credit for once may not be the culprit (like it is in higher education). It must be something to do with the hospital knowing that the insurer will pay the full asking price. I know the insurance companies negotiate a big discount off the "list price" but who makes up those prices? I reckon all approved tests are run for every relevant patient just to satisfy the lawyers. The resources (scanners etc) must be available to handle this load. In the UK, doctors probably think "little Johnny doesn't really need a MRI scan and I know they have a backlog at the moment so I'll wait a day and reconsider" - this common sense approach must save money..? And save on unnecessary/overly invasive procedures. This was touched on briefly in another thread about doctors sometimes doing a 'wait and see' And their was also another thread about how pet insurance has skyrocketed the cost of pet treatment - i guess the same's happened in human treatment in the states Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 The most ironic bit is that the 'privatized' american healthcare system still has more govt funding than the so called 'socialized' models. Out of all those, Japan has the longest life expectancy, although thats more down to eating healthy compared to the fat americans and brits than healthcare spending. I guess at least the yanks now have cheap housing to free up money. We might get free at the point of delivery healthcare, but we still have to shell out silly amounts to put a roof over our heads. So its swings and roundabouts overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Share Posted March 6, 2012 The most ironic bit is that the 'privatized' american healthcare system still has more govt funding than the so called 'socialized' models. Out of all those, Japan has the longest life expectancy, although thats more down to eating healthy compared to the fat americans and brits than healthcare spending. I guess at least the yanks now have cheap housing to free up money. We might get free at the point of delivery healthcare, but we still have to shell out silly amounts to put a roof over our heads. So its swings and roundabouts overall. The problem with healthcare is massively dimishing returns, but very high stakes. Basically, you don't need vast amounts to get to western levels of life expectancy; but from then on, marginal improvements can mean things like experimental chemotherapy, major surgery, intensive care, neonatal units.. things that are very expensive but progressively more marginal in their overall effects. Of course, those individuals who happen to respond well to the particular treatment would disagree. So.. a private system can end up fantastically expensive - after all, some may say that the logical thing to do when ill is to spend yourself to bankruptcy to try and live longer. Now.. if we only had cheap housing as well.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 First take away point is that there is nothing dramatic about UK expendature. Second is that moving towards a US-style system - with the combination of private profit and the public requirement not to let people die on the street - ends up inflating costs through the roof. Link here Talk about spin. What the chart actually shows is that the hated American system spends twice the amount of money on health care as does the NHS. Perhaps this is why cancer survival rates as an example are so much higher in America. The problem with the NHS is not the amount of money spent on it, but the fact that so much of it is wasted which is clearly illustrated by the appalling level of clinical outcomes it manages to achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Talk about spin. What the chart actually shows is that the hated American system spends twice the amount of money on health care as does the NHS. Perhaps this is why cancer survival rates as an example are so much higher in America. The problem with the NHS is not the amount of money spent on it, but the fact that so much of it is wasted which is clearly illustrated by the appalling level of clinical outcomes it manages to achieve. So why is average life expectancy higher in the UK than the US, if treatment is so appalling? Worldwide, UK ranks no 36, UK ranks 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'lud Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Talk about spin. What the chart actually shows is that the hated American system spends twice the amount of money on health care as does the NHS. Perhaps this is why cancer survival rates as an example are so much higher in America. The problem with the NHS is not the amount of money spent on it, but the fact that so much of it is wasted which is clearly illustrated by the appalling level of clinical outcomes it manages to achieve. Really? comparing apples with apples Stats? What does your statement encompass - survival rates so much higher for the richer individual or across the board, population wise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Talk about spin. What the chart actually shows is that the hated American system spends twice the amount of money on health care as does the NHS. Perhaps this is why cancer survival rates as an example are so much higher in America. The problem with the NHS is not the amount of money spent on it, but the fact that so much of it is wasted which is clearly illustrated by the appalling level of clinical outcomes it manages to achieve. the NHS is regarded as one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world. what you get effectively is a good healthcare system for the least amount of cost. what you dont get is the very best level of service, or much choice on an individual basis, but the overall system is highly effective. its the only system in the developed world where the wealth of the individual has no bearing on the quality of the care. in other countries there is a direct correlation. unfortunately it means even if you want to spend lots for better service on a personal basis you dont really get that choice, but thats just the way it is. service is based on necessity not wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 The problem with healthcare is massively dimishing returns, but very high stakes. Basically, you don't need vast amounts to get to western levels of life expectancy; but from then on, marginal improvements can mean things like experimental chemotherapy, major surgery, intensive care, neonatal units.. things that are very expensive but progressively more marginal in their overall effects. Of course, those individuals who happen to respond well to the particular treatment would disagree. So.. a private system can end up fantastically expensive - after all, some may say that the logical thing to do when ill is to spend yourself to bankruptcy to try and live longer. Now.. if we only had cheap housing as well.. Yes, the trouble is its very hard to say 'no' when someones life is at stake. Imagine if they found some kind of rock on the moon with minerals that gave cancer sufferers an extra 5 years. The obscenely rich might be able to afford it, maybe Richard Branson would even start up a space program for it, but no one else could afford it. Obviously the moral ideologues would be outside westminster with their placards demanding we all have it, regardless of the impossibilitity of meeting the costs. IMO the govt should set a target life expenctancy, of, say 80, and plough most health resources in allowing everyone to live that long. Any health care above £1000 or so a year after age 80, you fund yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 the NHS is regarded as one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world. Depends what the metric for measuring 'efficiency' is used. In Terms of life expectancy, were pretty much average. With cancer survival we're a bit below average. Im sure there are dozens of sucess rate 'outputs' to compare with financial 'inputs', but other than baseless UNISON proclaimations, ive never seen anything to suggest the UK model is particularly efficient. People generally seem to assume the NHS is great purely on the basis the US system is a trainwreck. They dont seem to accept there are other systems than ours and the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 With cancer survival we're a bit below average. Our cancer survival rates tracked our national smoking rate almost exactly. We had a far higher proportion of smokers in the 60's and 70's than our European counterparts (apart from Denmark) - this lead to a peak of cancer deaths in the 80's and 90's. Now smoking is less common our cancer survival rate has all but caught up every other health system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Talk about spin. What the chart actually shows is that the hated American system spends twice the amount of money on health care as does the NHS. Perhaps this is why cancer survival rates as an example are so much higher in America. The problem with the NHS is not the amount of money spent on it, but the fact that so much of it is wasted which is clearly illustrated by the appalling level of clinical outcomes it manages to achieve. Lol If any post is spin its this one. You have taken one single metric of health care then spun that into vast waste and poor outcomes for anyone using the UK health care system. If I say the UK has better neo-natal and infant mortality survival rates (which it does), does that mean by extension the US health care system must be full of vast waste and have appalling clinical outcomes as you have done? Of course not, and the reverse does not apply to the UK as you have suggested either. Tbh you should know better than to post crap like that on this forum since someone is very likely to shoot you down as I have just done. And for cancer survival rates the situation is not as simple as NHS-is-bad as you have implied, for example for a non-VI, non-spun, non-agenda comparison read - http://www.robaldridge.org.uk/2010/08/comparing-outcomes-in-healthcare.html There is also this very thorough report - https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:m38lxruBFv4J:www.bma.org.uk/images/srm2011briefingpaperhealthoutcomes_tcm41-204676.pdf+us+uk+health+care+comparison+outcomes&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj2onU7-hKgGJp4h0hdKFGx4MKHwMzQKwT-INmZw_99LGQ__hMetZq_FpwLOQnippnknjMsOCzhGC2Bw6iQw_xfCoymbOMJjp7UC3C-bjFcF8ECenRNrYIlJ0updSz0zAHKXpzC&sig=AHIEtbQ7_xoCa39pjCkLK0wuhY95GeWs6g Which shows that if we exclude the issue of cost the UK does better than the US on some metrics, and the US on others. However if we do include the relative costs of the two systems anyone with any sense would choose the UK one. But that is not to say the UK health care system is perfect, it isnt, and there may be better systems than the UK one (though I have not delved that deeply into this topic). But just comparing the UK and US on an outcomes vs cost basis, which those of us living in the real world must do as we dont want it to suck up all our government spending, the NHS is vastly better than the US alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.