Canadian, British and American healthcare

[billc]

Here is another good set of columns on the NHS and the Canadian health service. One is by Mark Steyn and there are two others here that address healthcare in these other countries.

http://socglory.blogspot.com/2009/08/careless-nhs-kills-again-by-mark-steyn.html

From the Deroy Murdock article:


Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.’s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America’s. This may correspond to angioplasties, which were only 21.3 percent as common there as here.
The U.K.’s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million). “The consequences of the NICE decision will be devastating for thousands of patients,” Dr. Jonathan Richardson of Bradford Hospitals Trust told London’s Daily Telegraph. “It will mean more people on opiates, which are addictive, and kill 2,000 a year. It will mean more people having spinal surgery, which is incredibly risky, and has a 50 per cent failure rate.”

Are these stats accurate? If the last one is, that is called rationing, and if it is happening in the NHS over there, how can it not happen over here?

 

[Tez3]

Ok so now it's turned into a Brit bashing thread? shall we swap 'horror' stories that aren't really horror stories? The funny thing is that if you turn up at a hospital that doesn't have a maternity ward you will get sent to another hospital that does, it's your reponsibility to turn up at the correct hospital, you usually have a few months to get that right.

I don't know why you are bashing the NHS as whatever system you have it won't be the same, no system is ever going to be perfect, you are always going to get mistakes and human error because, well, people are human and make mistakes.

You are quoting firugres about breast cancer for example without knowing anything about it, the same for heart patients. Unless you are a qualified doctor I think you should probably not bother bombarding us with figures unless you can actually can explain them. Expecially when figures are over five years old, even the articles you post up are years old and quoted by a consrvative newspaper when we had a Labour government, I bet you'll find the figures differently reported now when we have a different government.

We are due to have a shortage of beds in maternity in my area in a few months but the NHS is working on it, well when you get a few thousand soldiers away on deployment what do you get when they come back? Not for the obvious reasons either, watching mates being killed, being shot at etc hits a switch with many who feel they'd like something to go on after them, a son or daughter. After all now it's the New Year they only have a year to go before they are in Afghan again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2009/09/22/selly_oak_hospital_feature.shtml


You'll note they say they fulfil their NHS obligations as well as those to the military.


You should be discussing your own system not trying to disparage ours because whatever you end up with it's won't be the same as the NHS.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Overview

Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries. This report—an update to three earlier editions—includes data from seven countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on dimensions of care. Compared with six other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2010/Jun/Mirror-Mirror-Update.aspx

NHS Critisism

Criticism

Although the NHS has a high level of popular public support within the country, the national press is perceived to be highly critical of it. This may have affected perceptions of the service within the country as a whole and outside. An independent survey conducted in 2004 found that users of the NHS often expressed very high levels of satisfaction about their personal experience of the medical services. Of hospital inpatients, 92% said they were satisfied with their treatment; 87% of GP users were satisfied with their GP; 87% of hospital outpatients were satisfied with the service they received; and 70% of Accident and Emergency department users reported being satisfied.[57] When asked whether they agreed with the question "My local NHS is providing me with a good service” 67% of those surveyed agreed with it, and 51% agreed with the statement “The NHS is providing a good service." [57] The reason for this disparity between personal experience and overall perceptions is not clear. It is also apparent from the survey that most people believe that the national press is generally critical of the service (64% reporting it as being critical compared to just 13% saying the national press is favourable), and also that the national press is the least reliable source of information (50% reporting it to be not very or not at all reliable, compared to 36% believing the press was reliable) .[57] Newspapers were reported as being less favourable and also less reliable than the broadcast media. The most reliable sources of information were considered to be leaflets from GPs and information from friends (both 77% reported as reliable) and medical professionals (75% considered reliable).[57] On many occasions, however, the uncovering of a scandal leads to changes which improve the service in many ways, and sometimes unexpectedly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)#Criticism

 

[billc]

I bring up the NHS because the advisors to Obama are big fans of your system. The new head of Medicare loves the NHS and Zeke emanuel is also a fan. They want your system here, I don't think that is a good idea. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the most unbiased source available. My sources are partisan, but you can tell where they come from. Wikipedia has a feelig of neutrality but I don't think that it does.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Wikipedia is on average as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannia.
That said, it's 1 source that's easier to pull from. The articles have extensive references in most cases for deeper digging which is encouraged, as Wiki frowns on research.

Bottom line on all of this:
British systems been in effect and been repeatedly tweaked for 60+ years.
Canadian system's been in effect and tweaked for 25+ years.
Neither are perfect, however both have aspects the US should consider if the goal is to really provide real health care to it's citizens. Both have problems that the US would want to avoid, especially given our larger population and larger scale implementation needs.

And...that's about it for me.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I did not take the comparison of statistics between US and Brittish medical issues as a bash on the Brittish.
I dont see why you would be so damn sensitive to think that that somehow demeans you and your "people"
Its simply facts, statistics that were provided, and you do not have to be a damn doctor to look at them and understand which is worse.
If you have statistics that contradict those provided then I would love to see them.
I know I pay about 10,000 dollars a year for medical coverage for my family of 4.
If I can get better coverage for alot cheaper then I would love to find out how.
The way I see it, from looking at dozens of conversations, and dozens of statistics provided by peopel on both sides of the issue, is that universal health care tends to be more of a smokescreen then true advanced top of the line medical care.
It seems anytime anyone who has alot of money in countries with universal health care gets something really bad going on they flee the universal health care system to doctors in other countries that are not universal health care affiliated.
That sends huge smoke signals to me that there is a problem.
I have seen different statistics on the big issues... cancers mostly and it seems the fatality and recovery rate in always alot worse in these universal health care countries, and always better in the the united states, even though we seem to have some of the most unhealthy living habits in the world when it comes to food, drink, drugs, and cigarettes, etc.etc.
you would think with all the big fat, unhealthy peopel here we would be knocking off at an ever increasing rate, yet it doesnt appear to be that way...
I just get tired of everyone thinking that they deserve everything to be handed to them.
I get sick of everyone expecting me to provide for them, and people like me to provide for them.
Universal healthcare only seems to be a valid thing to me if the population keeps expanding and getting younger, and if they exclude treatments for the most costly of illnesses and issues thus making it a profitable business, rather then healthcare. Anything else seems to just push the bill till tomorrow,and on our kids and their kids... but it seems most people dont give a crap about their own kids anyways so why would they care about mine...

 

[Tez3]

Are you readin my posts Lucky Boxers? After all those insults you sent me and saying you'd put me on ignore? Well, well roflmao.

 

[billc]

Lucky Boxer, keep in mind, if you pay that 10,000 dollars through your employer, you won't have to much longer. The fine for employers not covering employees is miniscule compared to that 10,000 dollars, so it will be worthwhile for you employer to drop your coverage and force you into the government system. Obama care is meant for everyone, not just for the uninsured, and they are going to force you into it wethor you like it or not.

The real problem with government run/socialized medicine is that it kills innovation and new advances in medicine. Most of the advances in medicine happen here in the states because of the profit motive. That is why everyone who is famous, rich or a politician in Britain, and Canada come here for advanced medical procedure's, like that one Canadian politician who needed heart surgery. He would have had to wait for it in canada, and they would have cracked his chest to do it. He came here, had it done right away, and they went through his armpit to avoid the drastic step of cracking the chest.

Those advances in medicine will diapear, as will life saving drugs. No profit, no incentive to innovate and advance. Watler Williams points out that deaths from drugs that will never be discovered are never noticed, because you will never see the victims.

 

[Tez3]

Lucky Boxer, keep in mind, if you pay that 10,000 dollars through your employer, you won't have to much longer. The fine for employers not covering employees is miniscule compared to that 10,000 dollars, so it will be worthwhile for you employer to drop your coverage and force you into the government system. Obama care is meant for everyone, not just for the uninsured, and they are going to force you into it wethor you like it or not.

The real problem with government run/socialized medicine is that it kills innovation and new advances in medicine. Most of the advances in medicine happen here in the states because of the profit motive. That is why everyone who is famous, rich or a politician in Britain, and Canada come here for advanced medical procedure's, like that one Canadian politician who needed heart surgery. He would have had to wait for it in canada, and they would have cracked his chest to do it. He came here, had it done right away, and they went through his armpit to avoid the drastic step of cracking the chest.

Those advances in medicine will diapear, as will life saving drugs. No profit, no incentive to innovate and advance. Watler Williams points out that deaths from drugs that will never be discovered are never noticed, because you will never see the victims.

Not everyone goes to America you know lol, you might think so but it's just not true.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Are you readin my posts Lucky Boxers? After all those insults you sent me and saying you'd put me on ignore? Well, well roflmao.

No I still think you are disgusting, and a hypocrite
I just was reading all the messages here before I realized I stumbled on your nonsense.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Lucky Boxer, keep in mind, if you pay that 10,000 dollars through your employer, you won't have to much longer. The fine for employers not covering employees is miniscule compared to that 10,000 dollars, so it will be worthwhile for you employer to drop your coverage and force you into the government system. Obama care is meant for everyone, not just for the uninsured, and they are going to force you into it wethor you like it or not.

The real problem with government run/socialized medicine is that it kills innovation and new advances in medicine. Most of the advances in medicine happen here in the states because of the profit motive. That is why everyone who is famous, rich or a politician in Britain, and Canada come here for advanced medical procedure's, like that one Canadian politician who needed heart surgery. He would have had to wait for it in canada, and they would have cracked his chest to do it. He came here, had it done right away, and they went through his armpit to avoid the drastic step of cracking the chest.

Those advances in medicine will diapear, as will life saving drugs. No profit, no incentive to innovate and advance. Watler Williams points out that deaths from drugs that will never be discovered are never noticed, because you will never see the victims.

um ya I decided a long time ago I was not going to work to make another man rich.

I also came to the conclusion a long time ago that there are rarely ever any real cures..
there is simply no incentive for the medical establishment to cure anything, the real thing they do is to find ways to make you live with the illness for as long as possible. They dont make cures, they make treatments. The money is in making you have to take their treatments for as long as your alive.

 

[ballen0351]

Not everyone goes to America you know lol, you might think so but it's just not true.

the point was if your system is so great why would anyone come here and pay for something they get for free at home?

 

[Tez3]

the point was if your system is so great why would anyone come here and pay for something they get for free at home?

Well tell us who of the great and good is going to America to be treated for something they can have done over here?

We didn't say it was so great, you were all saying it was lousy.

 

[billc]

Well these people have:http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients’-remedy-for-health-care-go-to-america/

I believe they mention the Italian prime minister, and I pointed out the Canadian politician. Remember, medical records are also protected by privacy laws over here so they can come over and hide what they had done.

 

[billc]

Another article on British people going abroad for treatment:

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/britons_flee_socialized_medicine

 

[granfire]

Another article on British people going abroad for treatment:

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/britons_flee_socialized_medicine

I think you should look into the system how it works from the source and not through something called 'deadfishwrap'

Considering that the British people do indeed live long lives, etc, the system can't be all that bad.

I find it troubling that in this great nation of ours a man on disablily with part time job can't afford to get his teeth fixed. Even if he had to pay a part of it, it's long been known oral health trickles down to the rest of the body.

Or you can buy insurance that covers next to nothing (had that type, was glad I did never have to find out it didn't cover the day I got sick) including the pre-existing condition of being female....

Please, do get your facts straight: A lot of working people were just rich enough to not qualify for medicate, but too poor to afford the coverage the employer did not provide.
Not to mention all the good stuff that eventually drives you into selling everything you own so you can keep paying the medical bills when your money runs dry. Even with insurance you are always just one major illness or accident away from financial ruin.

and medicate is a charmer in itself: I took a friend of mine to her clinic one time, she had the flu...the computer systems were down that day, they would not see her! Did not try to accomodate her, help her out in any way. An I am talking about somebody being visibly sick! I took her to another place of the same club. As soon as I mentioned the computer system being down they too did not touch her...

She ended up going to my doctor, not a medicate provider and having to pay for it out of pocket, but she was treated like a human being. Not to mention the visit was cheaper than what the other club billed medicate for...

No matter how you twist it, the system needed an overhaul. And it is just do damn easy to poo-poo those who do while not contributing one damn thing.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Folks, knock off the shots, insults, digs, barbs, and other crap before we have to lock this and start dealing out infractions.

 

[MJS]

Admin Note:

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful. Please use the Ignore feature, which is found on each users profile, if you do not wish to read their posts.

MJS
MT Asst. Admin

 

[Tez3]

There are people here who have gone to the States and other places for experimental treatments that haven't been licensed here yet or they have very rare conditions and we don't have any experts in it. Most British people couldn't afford to travel to America for treatment and it can't be got on any insurance policy here. The people I know that have had to have treatment in America because it's been something they can't get here ie surgery for muscluar dystrophy have had to fund raise to get the money. That particular treatment has started being done here now, it was a very new treatment until recently with, I believe, only one hosptial in the States doing the op.

The Brits who go abroad usually do so for the cosmetic surgery you cannot get on the NHS ie facelifts, tummy tucks, boob jobs that sort of thing. Many countries offer them cheaper than here as part of a holiday package. Not all are successful sadly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11784754

http://cosmeticsurgerytoday.wordpress.com/category/medical-tourism/

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As I believe I stated earlier, I know a few Canadians who went to Cuba and Belize (I think) for dental as it came in significantly cheaper than at home.

When I had LASIK, the Canadians were ahead of the US in successful procedures however, and had the greater experience, at least in my region.