‘Socialist’ NHS best healthcare system in the world

Britain’s healthcare has been lauded as the best out of 11 of the world’s wealthiest countries, following a far-reaching study by a US-based foundation. In a report entitled “[FONT=&quot]Mirror, Mirror on the Wall[/FONT],” the quality, efficiency, cost and performance of the US health system was compared to Canada and nine other countries in Europe and Australasia. Conducted by The Commonwealth Fund, the report ranks the UK first overall, scoring it highly for its quality of care, efficiency and low cost at the point of service, with Switzerland coming an overall second. The US came last, as it has done in four other editions of “[FONT=&quot]Mirror, Mirror[/FONT]” since 2004. Utah people



Interesting that the NHS which many on the American right call socialist as an insult turns out to be number one with the US coming out last.

 

The list is -

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

 

Sure, they have great healthcare, but can they own and bring assault rifles to family restaurants? Didn't think so.

 

No surprise to me.

 

Who thumbs that shit down? This has been known for years. I guess it's pretty scary to think about an efficient system that would actually help people. "I ain't wanna pay fer nobody else's problems,"is the usual bleat. The ignorance and fear of anything that is socialism --even if it has been proven to be better for all citizens--is indicative of the Randian devotees lack of common sense and lack of empathy. And they run this place!

Insurance companies need to GO! Cut back on the machines of war and the waste in government and "git ér done."

 

If you look at the US and UK economies, neither is in very good shape. But I think America is probably in a worse position than we are, relatively speaking in terms of percentage of debt to GDP, rate of economic growth etc.
So having a healthcare system that's free to anyone hasn't brought us to financial ruin. I'm not sure what the average relative levels of tax in America and Britain are, but I doubt we're paying a much higher percentage than Americans.

We had democratic socialist government after WWII who brought in the health service as well as other social welfare benefits.
We didn't turn communist, we didn't behead the Queen, we remain capitalists.
That government elected in 1945 under Clement Atley, did more for the British people than any other government in history, before or since. It was the heyday of a belief in social progress which now has sadly all but disappeared.
But we still have our precious NHS, and much as some neo-libs would like to, it's almost impossible for any government to mess with it, other than tinkering with the organization and finances.
It's one of the very few achievements of modern Britain of which I am proud.

 

'murca

I think the US govt spends much more on healthcare than countries with a national health care plan, which just makes no fucking sense

 

Surely not per capita, but the drug companies do spend and make a lot of money.

 

The US spends about twice what Canada does on healthcare per capita, but has worse health outcomes. Adopting a single payer system would save the government and private citizens a significant amount of money.

 

^
Maybe so, but how would private companies make profits off of people's illnesses? Answer me that!

 

Under the UK system, the NHS buys drugs from pharmaceutical companies. So they get their profit. But sometimes, expensive drug treatments can be deemed too expensive and don't get approved.
A lot of other private firms do work for the NHS too. Lab testing and so on. Manufacturing medical tech. So actually, having a national health service provides profits for private enterprises.

 

Any health provision provides profits to somebody doesn't it?

 

But here's the thing, as long as no laws exist barring private individuals pursuing and buying direct lab testing, and direct drug sales, having a National Healthcare System, doesn't and shouldn't screw any individual who can afford the treatment they want.

A good compromise would be this, with the government and citizens of that government acknowledging that in private to private sales, liability and "approval" for certain drugs, just won't be offered from an NHS, but one could still do private businesses between customer and firm and thus the product or service/treatment can still be available on the free market.

Where's the problem?

 

But if you have the money, you can have private health care here!
You can buy private healthcare insurance, or just pay if you need treatment. There are many private hospitals and doctors who will treat you privately. They can get you any drug that is on the market, any treatment that is available.

So yeah, where's the problem?

But I hope I didn't give the impression that NHS treatment is not top class, because it is. The cases I mentioned of expensive drugs they wont approve applies only to a very small number of drugs for not very common conditions.

My own experience with the NHS has been very good. I do have health issues, and I feel they are being treated very well, and I wouldn't get better treatment if I paid.

That said, I did actually pay a private lab for a Vit D level test recently.

 

I'd say so. But that creates problems as well as profits.

 

Specialist doctors tend to make the most money while austerity forces the government to spend less on public property, beds, and facilities for individual care. I don't know. With the existing state of bias for cutting away the expense of public wealth by the Right anyway for reasons of balancing the budget... then what is the self-expense of Health going to cause for or against productivity. :biker:

 

The Right here, ie the British Conservative party, want to privatize more and more bits of the NHS. There's also closures of hospitals, A&E departments, and generally a lot more pressure on the health service, and interference from outside the clinical side.

But - as much as they might like to abolish it, they can't. It's one thing the British people would not stand for, in the name of austerity or anything else. It would be political suicide for any party here to talk openly about privatizing or abolishing the NHS.

In the future, it will all depend on what direction things take. If we move further and further into a kind of neo feudal society, one day the health service will almost certainly go. By then I will be dead. And probably have been seen off, so to speak, by the NHS.

 

Wow I actually understood this post of yours. I think that's a first.

All GB, has to do to look at hte problems caused by pure private healthcare systems is look at the USA, and the problems privatizing healthcare has on a nation:

1. Impacts on the federal budget

2. Impacts on overall healthcare spending

3. Impacts on the epidemiological statistics of various diseases

4. Impacts on vaccine efficacy because of lack of herd immunity, and the budget value of vaccines for the country at large given the reduce collective immunity.

5. Impacts on housing foreclosures caused by healthcare expenditures on families.

6. And related to #5, because housing sales are a main economic indicator for economists, and the national and global economy, how does the ripple effect on home sales, affect the ENTIRE money flow of the economy from a micro-economic standpoint?

---

I have limited knowledge about UK's politics, so I will withdraw from that debate and learn from people here who want to talk about what's going on there.

I can only speak for the USA, and right now I don't understand why the USA's right wing politicians can't go with the flow and scapegoat-demonize countries with NHS systems just for political arguments sake.

If anything politicians would know it would help the economy at large as well as business and jobs in the healthcare sector for the USA to run a duel-private-public system.

 

I appreciate the points in the first part of your post.

As a Brit, I'm obviously not fully aware of the situation in the US, but I've read a bit about it, and to me it all seems a bit crazy in terms of healthcare.

It's probably a question of lobbying by private healthcare interests in the USA that is the big stumbling block to change. That's how it looks to an outsider.

America came closest to socialism under FDR (someone for whom I have a certain respect) back in the days of the new deal.
I don't know why any measure with any socialist type overtone is disliked so much in America. Maybe the old days of fear of communism etc have had some effect on the collective American psyche?
Or is it just the vested interest of corporations that calls the shots regardless of the American people?

The US was founded on liberal principles, it was built up by hard work and enterprise. But I'm sure Jefferson himself would see the benefits of a national healthcare system in the context of our times.

To me, America is a fascinating place. But I wish I understood it better.

 

The issues are complex.

A few years ago I made a US Healthcare forum post here, perhaps you'd like to dig that one up and read through it.


As I diagnosis the problem the issues are three fold:

1. Access (so either outpriced or blacklisted from purchasing a plan) to healthcare insurance plans are inadequate in coverage (or were Pre-Obamacare)


2. You were covered in a plan, but then the hospital bills were so expensive they swallowed a family in debt leading to foreclosing, and the suffering of children. (Issue addressed in Obamacare)


3. The hospitals are charging inflated prices on services and hospital supplies on customers and insurance companies for pure hospital private profit. (this problem is not solved or addressed much by Obamacare)


----

A side issue, that is going on and just settled and ruled by the US Supreme Court, was issues about certain medical treatments (birth control methods) one's religion/faith a private for-proit business can/cannot/must/must-not provide to their employees on the employer's health coverage plan.

The Highest Court in our land said, employers aren't forced, but it was a very split vote among the Justices, and happened along party lines.