Turn on thread page Beta

The Inaugural Medical Debate: Would you rather be ill in America or the UK? watch

  • View Poll Results: Would you rather be ill in America or the UK?
    America
    2
    9.52%
    UK
    19
    90.48%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Currently, the medical forum is almost exclusively just a place for applicants to ask questions. This thread aims to redress that balance by providing a place for people to discuss some interesting medical issues.

    Anyone can join in, whether you're a medic, applicant or just a member of TSR who's randomly stumbled into the thread. However, bear in mind that if you are not as informed as you could be on the points you raise, it's likely you'll get called out by someone who is.

    The topic for the current debate is:

    Would you rather be ill in America or the UK?

    The idea is, if the thread proves to be popular, to change the topic frequently (around once per week) to keep things fresh. A couple of days before the topic is due to change, a poll will be added to see which side of the debate is the more favourable.

    Thread Rules
    1. Stay broadly on topic.
    2. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
    3. All usual forum rules apply.
    4. Don't spam.
    5. Reference articles where appropriate.
    6. Stating opinions without backing them up is not encouraged


    Happy debating!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well i'll get this started.

    If i'm skint i'd rather be here as it'll be 'free at the point of contact'.
    However, if i'm going for some non-urgent procedures and have the money to spend i'd probably still stay here and go private
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If upper class then america + Japan

    If working - middle class than UK
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather be in the UK - medical insurance is a bit of a joke in america. The US system is so flawed and expensive its not worth bothering with.

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather be ill in the UK.

    At the end of the day, the healthcare in the UK is not as bad as most people make it out to be. The media jump on the negative aspects of the NHS because that's what attracts viewers. They know people are generally idiots and will believe anything they see on TV if it may give them cause for concern.

    In the US, am I wrong to think there is more of a financial incentive for doctors to diagnose and treat as opposed to taking a hollistic approach to healthcare?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'll follow Hawking's example and say UK, the NHS is pretty good.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hippysnake)
    I'd rather be ill in the UK.

    At the end of the day, the healthcare in the UK is not as bad as most people make it out to be. The media jump on the negative aspects of the NHS because that's what attracts viewers. They know people are generally idiots and will believe anything they see on TV if it may give them cause for concern.

    In the US, am I wrong to think there is more of a financial incentive for doctors to diagnose and treat as opposed to taking a hollistic approach to healthcare?
    Possibly, yeah.

    Do you not think that, in the NHS, doctors may possibly be under more pressure to prescribe a less effective treatment because it's cheaper or may not be the best treatment in terms of benefit to the society as opposed to benefit to the individual?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Kinda of question is this bing?

    The UK hands down.

    But ta, there's a new method in the private sector within the state and local where a hand full of investors are placing free-healthcare clinics to all who fill out 10 pages worth of contracts.
    There's a catch to this, and i think it's a very good and necessary catch-- you must lose a peculiar habit by attending your health issues' cause, unless it's due to peculiar habits that contribute to the issue.
    If you, for example, if you are a druggie during the time you subscribe to the medical plan, you either go to rehab and stay in the program, or you don't and get booted.

    Of course there's going to be some taxes being deducted, but nothing more than the feds are taking from the progressive taxation here that NOBODY understands.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hippysnake)
    In the US, am I wrong to think there is more of a financial incentive for doctors to diagnose and treat as opposed to taking a hollistic approach to healthcare?
    On a similar point of view, if they can charge alot for it, they're more likely to go for risky experimental operations
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onychophagia)
    Possibly, yeah.

    Do you not think that, in the NHS, doctors may possibly be under more pressure to prescribe a less effective treatment because it's cheaper or may not be the best treatment in terms of benefit to the society as opposed to benefit to the individual?
    I suppose they are, but this is an arguement that can't really be won can it? Some cancer medication can cost upwards of £30 000, money which can be utilised in so many other ways and provide treatments to many more patients. But suppose it was your mother? You'd think it was £30k well spent, but if it was some stranger's mother, would you think it's a sound investment? Doctors maybe under pressure to prescribe cheaper medication, but I truly doubt that any doctor would not prescribe a slightly more expensive drug for a patient if there is going to be a definite benefit for the patient.

    Do you not think that in the US, doctors may be under pressure to fully exploit those with first class health insurance and ignore those with substandard or no insurance? In this case, it's got nothing to do with the individual or society, it's purely financial.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    uk, for the reasons already mentioned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Seeing as th choice has een unaminous with the UK so far i'll throw some things out there (i do think i'd rather be in the U.K.):

    The American system of training doctors/surgeons incorporates 4 years of pre-medical study in most majors that a person could choose to take that is used to apply for their places in medical School, this process could sort out people who are more motivated as lots of people will already have a degree that they can go on and get a good job with, does this make them more motivated doctors than British ones?

    The American system takes 8 years to complete, does this mean that doctors who come through the training who, chances are, will be older than their British counterparts be more mature with the medical profession and be able to uphold a higher standard od patient care?

    If you have solid health insurance in the States, wouldn't you rather be under the care of doctors who are paid to help you instead of people who have a lack of insurance?

    If you have solid insurance, as selfish as it sounds, poorer people won't have access to the healthcare that you can access so as less people may have access (as oppossed to the British system for anybody receiving healthcare) the doctors will be able to spend more time with you?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Considering I've had tens of thousands of pounds of dental work done for free, including a maxfax op which would have cost me $20,000+ in the US, I'll forever remain loyal to the NHS.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    NHS all the way. I've been in and out of hospitals for years, and whilst sometimes waiting lists can be so long, if I had to pay for my meds I wouldn't be able to afford food! I'd rather have doctors focusing on diagnosing me than order test after test or prescribing certain drugs to make themselves a little bit extra money. The NHS has its flaws no doubt, but I don't know where I'd be without it.

    I had one asthma attack in the US and even though we were insured and everything it seemed like they were more interested in getting my money then making sure I wasnt about to die.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onychophagia)
    Do you not think that, in the NHS, doctors may possibly be under more pressure to prescribe a less effective treatment because it's cheaper or may not be the best treatment in terms of benefit to the society as opposed to benefit to the individual?
    As far as I can work it it out as a non-doc, doctors aren't pressured into taking the cheapest option. The nasty business of 'rationing' is left to NICE and trusts. They will work out a list of treatments available to the country/trust and then give it to the doctors. The doctors then use what's given to them and hand out treatments based on what they think will benefit the individual patient without having to worry about the wider impact.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    if you arent a ******* tramp who has to get other people to pay their way - USA
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hippysnake)
    I suppose they are, but this is an arguement that can't really be won can it? Some cancer medication can cost upwards of £30 000, money which can be utilised in so many other ways and provide treatments to many more patients. But suppose it was your mother? You'd think it was £30k well spent, but if it was some stranger's mother, would you think it's a sound investment? Doctors maybe under pressure to prescribe cheaper medication, but I truly doubt that any doctor would not prescribe a slightly more expensive drug for a patient if there is going to be a definite benefit for the patient.

    Do you not think that in the US, doctors may be under pressure to fully exploit those with first class health insurance and ignore those with substandard or no insurance? In this case, it's got nothing to do with the individual or society, it's purely financial.
    quality vs quantity

    In america, there isn't just 'private sector', there's HMO's that provide healthcare for low-income people (something called "pay as you go") , this form of healthcare is pay for on the local level, however, their focus is mainly on getting as much patients in-and-out as possible for the sake of their income. This would give doctors the incentives to careless for patients, and more for others who aren't in as critical condition. In many local clinics, these medicare plans for seniors (govt. pay healthcare like NHS) are required to save the hospital money by not administering unnecessary treatments/operations unless the family decides to cough up some extra $ for it, whereby they transfer the patient to a private hospital for these special treatments.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I despise the idea of paying for basic healthcare tbh.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The UK, by far. There are a lot of problems with the NHS, no doubt. But when push comes to shove, they are fantastic. My brother was very ill a few years back and the treatment he received was excellent. There are a lot of things to sort out, no doubt, but overall, I much prefer the UK system.

    My argument can loosely be gathered from this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGEdmFvyHIU#t=2m30s
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Considering I would not be anywhere near being one of those uninsured or medicare people then from a selfish perspective, it makes very little difference, in fact if we superficially ignore the questionable health effects of american over-testing, then I would fare better in America. Morally however, my loyalties lie with England, where your healthcare as a child is not the result of your parents.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 21, 2010

University open days

  • University of Warwick
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
  • University of Sheffield
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
  • Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 20 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.