I
can’t claim to be any kind of authority on different types of health care provision, especially not US healthcare, having only ever experience of the UK system. I was born into Universal Health Care and have never known any other. I can say that I wouldn’t change it for the world.
I have very few complaints with the NHS and I don’t understand why the right wingers in the US baulk at the idea of “socialised medicine.” I read blog posts and articles about that bogeyman and I really don’t
get that point of view.
In many ways I would like to understand, even if I might still disagree. I have a
theory that the right wing pundits take their cues from the insurance companies, but I could be wrong. I’d be glad of the discussion in the comments section!
I am not going to write much about the US Congress Health Care plan for that very
reason, but what I will say is that what I have read about it, it seems very inferior to the proposals which then – Senator Clinton was making during the Primaries in 2008.
That is just my opinion, I followed the primaries closely and her plan made sense to me. The current proposals do not.
It seems to be a mess. At least 5 versions of a healthcare bill exist! and I haven’t seen anything to back up the claims that any of the proposals are from President Obama. Obama doesn’t seem to have a Health Care plan of his own.
Correct me if I’m wrong!
But I said I wouldn’t talk about it much …
I would like to share my experience about Universal Health Care in Great Britain -
that is the National Health Service. Not to say it is better than the US. There are probably pros and cons, but honestly, some of the things I have read in American papers and blogs about the NHS simply don’t ring true. I couldn’t imagine having to worry about whether I could afford my medical bills.
Before I finally move on to that I would like to explode the myth that “socialised medicine” automatically means increased costs.
The United States spends almost twice as much on Health care as a percentage of
GDP compared with the UK.
UK – 8.4% of GDP
USA – 16% of GDP
OECD average – 8.9% of GDP
So why isn’t everyone covered already? Or is US Health Care really twice as good?
I ask because its either quantity or quality, and if neither then why is the US one costing twice as much comparitively? Not being a US Citizen, I can not know this for sure. I only have my American friends experiences to go on, and some seem happy enough while many others don’t.
According to the World Health Rankings of 2000 (the last time they published the
list) the USA was placed 37th while the UK was 18th best health care system. So it seems that there is a long way to go to see value for money with US healthcare.
I personally believe that the NHS has improved vastly in the last decade, due mainly to greater investment, yet still comparatively small compared to the US as a percentage.
WHO World Healthcare Rankings 2000
Incidentally, France was #1 in the list, ranked as the best national health care
system. As of 2009 France spends 11.0% of its GDP on health care.
France has a single-payer system, which is similar but slightly different from the NHS.
In the UK, we too need healthcare reform, but nothing drastic is needed. It has
changed for the better over the last government, with more choices available to the patient, and I believe on the whole the NHS is very good.
Formed in 1948, the NHS is the world 3rd largest employer. I don’t know if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I put it there for reference. Here’s my own experience anyway. I don’t wish to go into personal details so some of this will be vague, but accurate.
Whenever I have needed medication, treatment or surgery, its there – free at the
point of use, and depending on the urgency of the situation, I have been able to see a specialist within days or weeks. If it is a minor ailment, I go to see my doctor, and if necessary she refers me to the appropriate specialist or gives me a prescription. If I need tests they are usually on the same day, and increasingly in recent years it is usually a very quick process at the hospital or clinic. There used
to be longer waiting times, but there has been more investment in the NHS from this government and there has been much improvement.
The most important and reassuring thing for me is that I am safe in the knowledge that no matter how ill I ever get my healthcare will continue to be free at the point of use. I will never receive a letter telling me that I owe thousands of pounds for medical costs. I pay for this privilege through tax, and if I am ever too ill to work,
or if I get a recurring illness, my provider will not refuse to cover me, because my provider is not an insurance company, but the National Health Service. I have no complaints with this system, because I think we get good value and good service.
It is not all free, we do pay for prescriptions, those of us who can afford to do
so. People on benefits for health reasons or unemployment, pregnant women and the elderly get them free. There are also exemptions for some serious health conditions. Prescription medication is the same price regardless of the price of the medicines. It is £7.20 per item at present.
Two women who are close to me have had breast cancer, and both have had very
successful treatments. Both were over 60 at the time. In the most recent case, from finding the lump to surgery was within a week. Post – surgery, several treatments of radio therapy and regular check ups have made sure of a full recovery, in the most recent case within 3 months of the initial diagnosis, and in both cases, thankfully these women are now fit and well.
I know that not everyone is so fortunate, and it depends on the illness. Sometimes it depends on location. There is some regional variation and I realise that some people do have longer waiting times. That’s not my experience though. I believe the NHS is improving all the time and we are very lucky to have it.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The National Health Service (digitaldoorway.blogspot.com)
- What do we want from the NHS? (telegraph.co.uk)
- The NHS investigated: keep the politicians out of it (telegraph.co.uk)
- The One Reason We Need To Pass Health Care Now! (lockergnome.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=693c813d-7596-44d3-8cd3-a7d18412db8d)
- posted on 23/07/2010 20:18:52
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
#1 by Social-Psyche on October 17, 2009 - 7:10 pm
Do you receive enough time and attention from the doctors there? In the U.S., we’re lucky to confer for 3 minutes with a doctor before being interrupted, left hanging, or handed the bill.
#2 by Kathryn Cann on October 19, 2009 - 3:28 pm
hi Social-Psyche
Yes, we usually get enough time and attention. GP (General Practioner) doctors allocate each patient 10 minutes which is usually plenty. If it is something of a serious nature they will sometimes take longer, but keeping within the timeframe ensures that there is not a long waiting time for each patient as you get given your appointment time and it is usually about right. I never feel rushed (unless on occasion there are several things I want to discuss, in which case I say the list when I first go in)
In my doctors I very rarely have to wait in the waiting room for more than about 5 minutes. They space out the appointments at 15 minute intervals as far as I can tell.
It is one of many things I like that doctors bills are never mentioned!
#3 by Social-Psyche on October 19, 2009 - 11:16 pm
Kathryn, you had me wondering for a moment if most Americans would be willing to pay a little “extra” tax or surcharge, if that money could buy us a quick, 5-minute wait for medical services!
But your article already gave me the answer and it’s at the heart of the problem: for years we’ve been paying plenty extra money to doctors and to the insurance, hospital, and drug corporations, but we’re just not getting what we’re paying for.
In the other sense of the word, a lot of us aren’t getting that there are in fact Americans who will suffer and die today because medical care is not affordable or available to them, period. The gaps are miles wide, and the Americans who fall through are not weird exceptions.
#4 by Black Raspberry on October 17, 2009 - 7:56 pm
Kathryn, I will put more stock in what you say, from your personal experience, than all the sarky commentaries about the NHS from people who’ve never even lived and worked in your country.
You say, “If it is a minor ailment, I go to see my doctor, and if necessary she refers me to the appropriate specialist or gives me a pre$cription.”
American doctors over-expose us to antibiotics because they write too many such drug pre$criptions in the dark. For about half of their antibiotic pre$criptions, they don’t know if the illness is actually caused by a bacterium. They don’t even know if the antibiotic will be fully effective against whatever bacterial infection the person does have. They often don’t know if the person has other conditions or drugs that might lead to a negative interaction with the new pre$cription.
Are antibiotics used excessively in your country, and btw, what choices do you have if you want a certain drug but your doctor must prescribe another because it’s approved by the NHS?
#5 by Kathryn Cann on October 19, 2009 - 3:44 pm
There are several different types of antibiotics. I am not an expert on this. They do get given on prescription but I don’t think I would say excessively. They are not a catch all and I think most doctors know this. Having said that of course, some doctors are better than others!
If you have a choice for a certain drug you can discuss it with the doctor. There are usually several different drugs for each ailment which are approved by the NHS, so if there is an alternative choice you can discuss it, and if it is NHS approved you will be given your preffered choice (If the doctor agrees that it is the right thing to do depending on medical reasons)
When drugs are not approved by the NHS, it is usually because they have yet to pass certain tests and to have had their side-effects fully analysed. Sometimes it is because it is not available yet, and will be in the near future when it has been fully tested.
If you don’t agree with the assement you would still have the choice of buying it privately though this could be expensive. The number of drugs which are not NHS approved is very small, but sometimes they do get publicised because of the nature of the illness that they relate to. I know that they do run very stringent tests on medications before they approve them, and this is why sometimes they are not on the list yet.
One thing I would say is that we always get asked to fill in questionairres to tell if we have had adverse reactions to certain medications in the past, including antiobiotics, and those go on your record so they know what you are allergic to. They will also ask with the patient at the time of prescribing them to make sure there are no known allergies
#6 by Allergic 2 Doctors on October 19, 2009 - 11:38 pm
I’m with Black Raspberry on his/her point about antibiotics being way over-used in this country!
I’m not allergic to any antibiotic that I know of, but I once suffered some horrible side effects when a 2nd, new drug, an antibiotic I had never taken previously, interacted with a different type of drug I was already taking, and which the doctor definitely did know about.
That kind of bad interaction isn’t an allergy. It’s probably more common than allergies and often more serious. No, it’s not surprising at all, when you toss in a 3rd or 4th drug into the mix of one person’s body, which happens to a lot of women once they reach a certain age and their doctor thinks it’s easier to just prescribe Yet Another Drug Again– Yada Yada Yada– without much concern for how a woman will react, given her size, her resistance, and her financial struggle to pay for the stuff.
I’m allergic to every physician who assumes drugs are the answer to everything that ails ya.