Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x 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%

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The UK hands down and for the reasons that have already been mentioned. But, as has already been mentioned, I would say that were I a millionaire or something akin to that (which will happen ) then I would opt for the US.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the nhs spent hundreds and thousand of pounds treating me a few years back, so i would say nhs forever.

    i have a frind who lives in the US and she has bipolar disorder. paying for the drugs and the treatment to keep her condition under control has put her into thousands of dollas worth of debt.
    she said to me if she gets ill again within the next 10years (amount of time it will take her to pay of her healthcare debt) that she cannot afford to pay her insurance and because of that she will get very bad treatment that will end up her getting worse. it is difficult for someone with bipolar to stay stable for that length of time.

    it must be awful in america if you have a genetic illness because your health care bills will burden you for the rest of your life. i imagin it would be fine for generally healthy people who have ok jobs because you will prob rearly have to seek medicial treatment but for thoes with life long illnesses it mush really be hard.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Megatron)
    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?
    yeah, it does sound bloody selfish. this is peoples lives that we are talking about, this isn't just any other economic transaction or public good or whatever, this is something that I think is an extremely worthwhile place for our taxes should go.

    and although the taxation levels do change with different income levels, they are reasonably similar and therefore everyone is paying for themselves.
    my stepdad lost his job due to the recession, and about a month later was diagnosed with cancer. had he still been in work, he would have received full medical insurance, but he wasn't. if we were in the states, we would have had to remorgage the house, but we weren't. I really do this the NHS is fantastic, and the millions of people without medical coverage in the richest country in the world really does disgust me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think the UK would win.

    Yes, we have to pay up via our National Insurance (once we're earning), but I like the fact that if I get rushed into hospital, I'd get a decent level of treatment at point of need rather than the idea of stabalise and kick them out attitude I've heard about in the US.

    Plus, you've got to think, everything is subsidised or free in this country. Yes, you have to pay for medication, glasses and dental treatment (except for those under 19s, over 65s, in possesion of a HC1, and certain other catergories), but compared to how much they'd cost privately, we don't do too badly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hippysnake)
    I suppose they are, but this is an argument 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.
    How would a doctor know if the drug in question would have a "definite benefit for the patient" ? (getting a bit sidetracked)

    Yeah, I do think that there would be a pressure doctors in the USA to make maximum financial gains. The question is would I rather be a patient in the UK or the USA.

    Ultimately, if money was no object, I think you would get a better choice of treatments in the USA. Some of these treatments may not be appropriate. My reasoning would be that I would rather have the choice than not - as may be the case in the UK.

    (Original post by WackyJun)
    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.
    For sure, NICE and PCTs play a huge role in rationing; but doctors do too. GPs being the "gatekeepers to the NHS", for example, may have to decide to send you off to see a specialist for a scan on that dodgy knee. They would probably be more reluctant to do this in the UK than the USA.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    UK.
    I've got Hemiparalisis complicated by ******* dystonia (or something to that effect) and have experianced the full benifits of a NHS:
    Physiotherapy untill I left school (as well as any booster sets of physio I will need in the future), MRI (to find a cause/any other areas which may be effected; Stroke ar around birth was tiny aswell ), Botox in the effected side, alot of splints, gate analysis, Serial casting in year 9 to streach my leg muscles out & someone to back me up when I told the PE department that I can't do Hocky.

    Edit: and a probable hip replacement when I'm around 30-40, if I'm eligable.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Depends on how much money I had/ what I had and what treatment would be best. At the current moment being a student, definitely here in the UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miranda-ae)
    and although the taxation levels do change with different income levels, they are reasonably similar and therefore everyone is paying for themselves.
    Thats an absolute lie. Granted, incapacity benefit and the like are not as high as the daily mail would have us believe, but it is still a significant cost to the taxpayer. Do they somehow get money from other than taxes? Furthermore I am pretty sure I have taken less out of the system (health and education, since I have never had any state assistance in the latter) than my parents have put in and alot less than what I suspect I will have to put in. I have no problems supporting others through my taxes, it is the duty of the fortunate to support the weaker, if only because I might end up with two stupid children who cannot manage finances etc. However it is very naive to think that everyone pays there way. I suspect less than 50% of adults aged between 18-65 pay there own way in taxes.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I would say the UK for most things, although from what I've seen I think I would rather be in the US for anything serious which required extensive rehabilitation or innovative surgery (e.g. some neurosurgical procedures for spinal injury) because some hospitals over there tend to lead the way in some fields with the massive investment they have behind them.
    Other than that I think the NHS is great though. After travelling around many countries and having to use health care in other countries, the NHS doesn't seem half as bad as it would to the average News of the World reader.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i think it depends on what condition I have, if its an condition where time is of an essence, then I think I would rather be treated in the US where I'll probably get seen by a specialist and be treated a lot quicker than I would here. I think the main problem with the NHS here is its just so sloooow

    but if its a chronic condition esp if Im going to be faced with costs that are spiralling out of control and at a time when I might not be able to work aswell, then I would rather be treated here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone seen "Sicko" the documentary? It's highly relevant to this discussion, worth checking out.
    http://video.google.com/googleplayer...=en&autoplay=1
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ignoramus)
    Anyone seen "Sicko" the documentary? It's highly relevant to this discussion, worth checking out.
    http://video.google.com/googleplayer...=en&autoplay=1
    I'll watch it later
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onychophagia)
    For sure, NICE and PCTs play a huge role in rationing; but doctors do too. GPs being the "gatekeepers to the NHS", for example, may have to decide to send you off to see a specialist for a scan on that dodgy knee. They would probably be more reluctant to do this in the UK than the USA.
    The only reason I can think of for this happening is pressure from above. If this is happening is it reasonable then to suggest that NICE and the PCTs are seriously not doing their job properly? Anyway, provided that everyone is doing what they're supposed to do, the NHS would be better I think. One could look at it the other way and say GPs prevent patients from wasting their time by taking tests which will not benefit them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ignoramus)
    Anyone seen "Sicko" the documentary? It's highly relevant to this discussion, worth checking out.
    http://video.google.com/googleplayer...=en&autoplay=1
    This actually makes me want to cry.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMV)
    This actually makes me want to cry.
    Yep, it made me pretty angry when I first saw it tbh. :yep:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I live in Spain and never had any experience in the American or UK health service but from what I know about them I would prefer being ill in UK because you have the NHS and your money is not as important as in the USA. I don't think being ill in Americal will be an advantage in term of medical knowledge because even though lots of research occurs there, I don't think the NHS is far behind from the American doctors.

    I would also like to add that, if I was given the choice of any country in the world in whcih to be ill I will choose Spain because there is an excellent Social Security Programme where everyone has the right of receiving medical attention even if they are just here on holidays.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I felt Sicko was a bit poor in its representation of socialist medicine, I mean it is definitely better than private insurance schemes, however they seemed to skirt around the problem with both of them; that people will only spend a certain amount of their resources on healthcare, thus rationing will always have to occur. Moore also seemed to present NHS care as 'free', now that is simply not true, it is 'free at point of service', unless we are all expected to work for a bag of penny sweets a day. I have to agree with the french doctor who said such a socialist system would not work in America. America is a very 'me, me, me' country, people would be very happy to take from the system but very reluctant to give into the system, hence why Michael Moore banged on about how mothers could get six months paid leave off and that french mothers got some sort of slave to puree carrots for their child.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry, forgot to add the poll last week! Added now and will be open til Sunday when we'll try to post a new debate.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Probably the UK...

    Where would I prefer to work though?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miranda-ae)
    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?
    What about the flipside to that...is it fair that a taxpayer should pay for a serial boozer/IVDU/obese bla bla bla patient? The proponents of the American healthcare system that equity is delivered when each person pays for their own issues and doesn't prop up anyone else.

    (Just a catalyst for debate ps )
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 21, 2010
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.