Pauldohert
Something in here
- Local time
- Yesterday, 20:09
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2004
- Messages
- 2,101
Is that a sincere question? Just interested.
I think the UK system has a lot of benefits, namely, no-one is denied basic medical care due to inability to pay. I also think it is not a terribly efficient system. If you were starting with a clean slate, I think there are many more cost effective ways to accomplish universal coverage. Unfortunately, we never get to start with a clean slate. Where we are is a product of where we started from.
Is the UK system better than the US system? In terms of equality in access to care, yes. In terms of total cost, yes. In terms of overall outcomes, yes. These are all quantifiable measures of a health care system, and UK comes out ahead on each. Where the US system comes out ahead is in medical innovation and access to exceptional care for a price. In other words, if you are stinking rich, you can still get better medical care in the US than in the UK.
In my opinion, it is more beneficial to a country both in terms of societal value and economic value to have equality of access to basic care than to have access to exceptional care for a few. Not everyone agrees with that values assessment, which is fine.
Absolutely - I dont know the differance exactly - ie you can be treated on the UK NHS abroad (i e not employed by the government here directly), or by private hospitals.
The stinking rich here use the NHS not entirely obviuosly - many have now to use private stinking rich or not. But that Cameron, leader of the Tories, gone to Eton, married into the family that owned Buckingham Palace, I think had his ill son treated on the NHS in this country I think says, what all social groups in the UK have to say on the NHS.
Its not perfect by any means.
I think yes US leads the way on may things, supposedly so does Cuba, but they have been embargoed.
Anyway off to drink 15 pints and smoke 30 cigs. Have to pay for the HNS some how!