Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Heres 911 (naughty naughty) reasons to hate the US

    http://www.exile.ru/137/feature_story.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I like this summary found in a recent letter to the editor in NY Times (responding to an article on European work hours):

    To the Editor:
    How sad that the Europeans are beginning to emulate American work hours (front page, July 7). In aspiring to American-style gross domestic products, they may just find themselves with more American-style problems, like increased incidence of depression, obesity, youth crime and breakdown of family relationships -- all of which place an increasing burden on the economy.
    American economic prosperity may enable the average American to enjoy more comforts and luxuries than the average European. But for all that, Americans don't necessarily have a higher standard of living than other (developed) nations -- just a higher standard of ''having.''

    DIANA B. AUSTIN
    San Rafael, Calif., July 8, 2004
    Published: 07 - 12 - 2004 , Late Edition - Final , Section A , Column 5 , Page 18

    In response to the discussion over health care in the US, I confess that I'm a proponent of a nationalized health service. Having lived in Australia (w/nationalized) and the US (obviously w/out) in terms of the general welfare of ALL citizens, the national systems excel.
    Yes, the US does have excellent health care- IF- one can afford it. I don't have any stats on the number of Americans w/out any health insurance, but the amount is staggering.
    And, our insurance certainly isn't free. For instance this year, I have $35 taken out of my pay check a week (my employer supplies a further $35) for the insurance. However, the insurance doesn't start covering any of my doctor's visits or other medical expenses until I've reached the $500.00 deductible. So, by my calculations, I will pay $2,320.00 before the benefits of my health plan even kick in. One of the few advantages is the prescription discounts: Instead of paying $100.00 for medication, I pay only $30.00. Somehow, the 6 GBP I will be paying for prescriptions in the UK sounds much better. But, I am unaware as to the percentage of an individual's pay check that is deducted for the NHS. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
    However, although I complain about the cost, at least I have health insurance. There are millions of Americans who don't and as a result they often end up bankrupt if they require any medical procedures, or simply avoid going to the doctor. By this avoidance, they decrease their access to preventative medicine, which increases the likelihood that they will require more expensive and difficult procedures in the future. This alone causes a great strain on our economy.
    A word about Medicare/Medicade. I don't know much about these programs, as I am fortunate enough not to require them, but in my estimation, they pale in comparison to socialized medicines. The wage requirements to qualify for these programs are disgraceful. As far as I know, if one makes even close to a 'living wage' their likelihood of qualifying is close to nil. While all Americans contribute to these funds out of their paychecks, the percentage is laughable. Roughly 2% of our wages are contributed to Medicare. How on earth can there be a strong and sustainable program with this sort of abysmal funding?
    Perhaps I will have a different view of the NHS after waiting all day to see a doctor, but I favor the more egalitarian system in the UK.
    So healthcare and standard of living doesn't even breach the vast differences between the two countries... but I'm tired and am going to bed... so the debate shall undoubtedly continue....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiaussieuk)
    To the Editor:
    How sad that the Europeans are beginning to emulate American work hours (front page, July 7). In aspiring to American-style gross domestic products, they may just find themselves with more American-style problems, like increased incidence of depression, obesity, youth crime and breakdown of family relationships -- all of which place an increasing burden on the economy.

    American economic prosperity may enable the average American to enjoy more comforts and luxuries than the average European. But for all that, Americans don't necessarily have a higher standard of living than other (developed) nations -- just a higher standard of ''having.''
    ....
    well, thats rubbish but carry on...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    well, thats rubbish but carry on...
    americans consume more than any other country in the world hence they make a lot of rubbish you're quite correct
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    well, thats rubbish but carry on...
    Im not sure it is, I dont think anyone would deny that they have the largest consumption of goods in the world and yet they do not have the highest standard of living - theres several European countries ahead of them...which part do you dispute?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cossack)
    Im not sure it is, I dont think anyone would deny that they have the largest consumption of goods in the world and yet they do not have the highest standard of living - theres several European countries ahead of them...which part do you dispute?
    "In aspiring to American-style gross domestic products, they may just find themselves with more American-style problems, like increased incidence of depression, obesity, youth crime and breakdown of family relationships -- all of which place an increasing burden on the economy."

    one assumption, to another assumption, to another assumption.

    in terms of your reference to standard of living, which of these, and im guessing at, lets say, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, are aspiring to American-style gross domestic products?

    or do you plan to compare the EU against the US?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Which in all fairness is up to the American public. It is just that I personally like having the NHS and it is one of the key reasons that I wouldn't want to live in the USA. If the system works then fine I don't have a problem with it. It is just not for me which is all that many people have said that the American system may work fine but the prefer the british one.
    Well, I've been to your hospitals and I think this discussion boils down to this question:

    What would you rather have, poorer quality and universal coverage or the world's highest quality care and a few uninsured people?

    I was in a state of shock when I entered one of your hospitals. You might think you have good quality health care, but, for most of you, socialized medicine is all you know.

    Here's an article from the telegraph that compares the 2 systems:

    NHS is left trailing by the Americans
    By Nicole Martin
    (Filed: 18/01/2002)

    THE Government's belief that the NHS is more efficient than most other health care systems in the world is challenged today by an independent study.

    Comparison with a similar non-profit health organisation in California found that NHS patients received inferior care, including longer waiting lists and fewer specialists, than Americans being treated for a similar price.

    The authors of the study, published in the British Medical Journal, said the findings challenged the view that Britain's poor medical record was the result of years of underfunding.

    They compared the costs and performance of the NHS with those of Kaiser Permanente, which caters for 6.1 million people in California and eight million across America.

    After adjusting for age and socio-economic differences, they found that the health costs per capita, per year, were similar - £1,269 for the NHS and £1,404 for Kaiser.

    But American patients received more for their money than NHS patients including longer GP consultations and better access to expensive treatments.

    Kaiser had twice the number of obstetricians and gynaecologists per 100,000 of the population - 8.3 compared with 4.1.

    It also had three times the number of cardiologists - 2.4 compared with 0.8, and almost twice the number of oncologists - 1.7 compared with 0.9 in the NHS.

    The result was that waiting lists for the Californian patients were shorter. In America, not a single patient had to wait more than five months for surgery after seeing a consultant, compared with a third of NHS patients.

    Ninety per cent of the American patients were admitted to hospital within 13 weeks, compared with only 41 per cent in Britain.

    GP consultations in California lasted for between 10 and 20 minutes, compared with only nine minutes in the NHS.

    American patients also had more access to expensive procedures such as angioplasty, which is used to treat people with blocked blood vessels.

    The authors said this showed that Kaiser was not more effective than the NHS because it denied its patients costly care.

    Richard Feacham, professor of international health at the University of California, who co-wrote the study, said: "If an NHS patient moved to Kaiser they would be delighted with the experience, and if a Kaiser patient moved to the NHS they would be horrified.

    "It is certainly true that the experience of the Kaiser patients in terms of access to care, the quality of it, and the friendliness and responsiveness of nurses is very much better than in the NHS."

    He said the key to Kaiser's success was that patients spent a significantly shorter time in hospital.

    Only 270 days were spent in hospital per 1,000 of the population in America, compared with 1,000 in the NHS.

    The NHS could save 40 million hospital days or £10 billion a year if its patients spent the same time in hospital as those in America, Prof Feacham said.

    In the NHS Plan published in 2000, the Government said: "The NHS gets more and fairer health care for every pound invested than most other health care systems."

    Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, conceded that the study "exploded" the myth that the NHS was "remarkably efficient".

    But he added: "In America, roughly 40 million people are either uninsured or under-insured. The idea that a whole, huge chunk of the population would be cut out from health care is unthinkable in Britain."

    A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "These findings do not undermine the long-held view that the NHS is highly efficient compared with the great majority of health care systems."
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Chiaussieuk, I don't know if these are your words, or if it was pasted in from an article. In any case, it's more of the typical misinformation you find all over this forum

    (Original post by Chiaussieuk)
    For instance this year, I have $35 taken out of my pay check a week (my employer supplies a further $35) for the insurance. However, the insurance doesn't start covering any of my doctor's visits or other medical expenses until I've reached the $500.00 deductible. So, by my calculations, I will pay $2,320.00 before the benefits of my health plan even kick in. One of the few advantages is the prescription discounts: Instead of paying $100.00 for medication, I pay only $30.00. Somehow, the 6 GBP I will be paying for prescriptions in the UK sounds much better. But, I am unaware as to the percentage of an individual's pay check that is deducted for the NHS. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
    The costs of health care per capita are the same. We just get much more for every dollar

    (Original post by Chiaussieuk)
    A word about Medicare/Medicade. I don't know much about these programs, as I am fortunate enough not to require them, but in my estimation, they pale in comparison to socialized medicines.
    In your estimation, medicare/medicade pales in comparison to socialized medicine? How can you make a statement like that when you admit to knowing nothing about it? Under medicare/medicade, you have access to the same care as someone with private insurance. The only difference is that a private insurance company isn't paying for the medical bills.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, I think they're fairly even. For different reasons, obviously, but overall they're both quite crap really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My Aunt lives in the desert in utah for Christ's sake.
    She moved there and used to work in a hospital, pretty respected job me thinks, but once she moved to america with her husband, all her qualifications were ignored, she is now a cleaner. So on that matter, I prefer the UK.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cdm391)
    My Aunt lives in the desert in utah for Christ's sake.
    She moved there and used to work in a hospital, pretty respected job me thinks, but once she moved to america with her husband, all her qualifications were ignored, she is now a cleaner. So on that matter, I prefer the UK.
    How about the salary she is earning? I wouldn't be surprised if she is taking home more money despite working in a less prestigous position.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    NHS sucks dude.
    When I lived in the UK, all I ever saw was doctors who knew nothing.
    Doctors who did not like the fact I knew more than they did about sports injuries.
    Doctors who wanted to inflict upon me outdated procedures that would ultimately ruin my health.

    I did see some very good private doctors at great expensive though. So I aint knocking British doctors but the only good ones I saw I had to pay for.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I believe the saying is "You get what you pay for."
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 101mphfastball)
    NHS sucks dude.
    When I lived in the UK, all I ever saw was doctors who knew nothing.
    Doctors who did not like the fact I knew more than they did about sports injuries.
    Doctors who wanted to inflict upon me outdated procedures that would ultimately ruin my health.

    I did see some very good private doctors at great expensive though. So I aint knocking British doctors but the only good ones I saw I had to pay for.
    We realise the NHS is a mess. THere have been 27 programmes by the governments to get it better.

    As a note, you may quote your experience, but there are some decent NHS doctors. Someone told me that some of them work in private practice on their day off and it's not unknown to have bad doctors in private practice either, dude. There was one which involved a peer who belonged to the Liberal Democrats which happened. Her husband or someone. Anyone know? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    We realise the NHS is a mess. THere have been 27 programmes by the governments to get it better.

    As a note, you may quote your experience, but there are some decent NHS doctors. Someone told me that some of them work in private practice on their day off and it's not unknown to have bad doctors in private practice either, dude. There was one which involved a peer who belonged to the Liberal Democrats which happened. Her husband or someone. Anyone know? :confused:
    Well unfortunately they didn't all stand in line so I could pick a good one.
    I did see 1 good NHS doctor whose speciality was sports injuries. I have seen a ton of others, who needed to go back to school. The private ones were good, but I havent seen as many of them as NHS.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    Britain was once a country fit for great men and heros. Today she is only fit for the weak, the poor, who come flooding into her.

    America, for all her decadence, still has some fertility in her soil, some trace of the daring and spirited spark that formed her into an independent nation (not that she's a nation today, of course).
    Hmmm, I'm bored, was looking for a fight over vivesection (saw this STUUUUUUPID woman on 5 news earlier who pissed me off with her stupidity) then came across this.

    My comments on views so far:-

    1) Vienna basically says "you're all well stupid" way too much. But i always thought that

    2) Certain aspects of America do indeed scream that they have alot less 'freedom' than they like to think. Laws are a lot tighter enforced than here (cautioning is a very British thing), but then that can only be good. My view is that the way America has put Guantamino bay (i know that is spelt wrong) detainees into legal limbo is deplorable, and more akin to Chinese policies than the land of the free. But thats for another time. America has a lot of religious fanatics, but probably no more than anywhere else. Difference is they have voices there. Here they would get done for incitement. Besides, we British aren't the sort that like to rock the boat much.
    I think the same thing goes for idiots. Amerca probably has the same amount as here, but they tend to put theres into public view. Like TV. And politics.

    3) The post I'm replying disturbs me a tad. It's a bit "damned immigrants" isn't it? I'll point out now my view on immigration is that we should take in our fair share of true asylum seekers. And shouldn't worry about taking in English speaking skilled workers (like foreign medical staff, engineers etc)

    4) And for the 'Born in the USA' you were very lucky in getting medical care. Being a yank you must be aware that that is not the norm. I studied the American medical system (shits and giggles like) and was non too impressed. If you need heart surgery and can't afford it you'll get it. If you have highly debilitating Parkinsons which can be near cured to extend your life by upto a decade with surgery, then you won't get it.
    That said, in the UK because everyone would be entitled (depending on your area) then you have to wait ages.

    Swings and Roundabouts guys
    J
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why is it necessary to denigrate another country in order to feel pride in your own? Frankly this thread perplexes me. Unless you've spent a substantial amount of time in both countries are you really in a position to judge? And even then your opinion will be informed by your prejudices (and we all have them) and personal experiences.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)

    4) And for the 'Born in the USA' you were very lucky in getting medical care. Being a yank you must be aware that that is not the norm. I studied the American medical system (shits and giggles like) and was non too impressed. If you need heart surgery and can't afford it you'll get it. If you have highly debilitating Parkinsons which can be near cured to extend your life by upto a decade with surgery, then you won't get it.
    That said, in the UK because everyone would be entitled (depending on your area) then you have to wait ages.

    Swings and Roundabouts guys
    Indeed. The good old 'post code lottery'. But I though the National Institute
    for Clinincal Excellence was supposed to sort that little problem out. It would appear that it hasn't succeeded.

    Perhaps you could explain the intricacies of the medicaid system to us then. Or 'managed care'. I'd be ever so grateful.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    4) And for the 'Born in the USA' you were very lucky in getting medical care. Being a yank you must be aware that that is not the norm. I studied the American medical system (shits and giggles like) and was non too impressed. If you need heart surgery and can't afford it you'll get it. If you have highly debilitating Parkinsons which can be near cured to extend your life by upto a decade with surgery, then you won't get it.
    That said, in the UK because everyone would be entitled (depending on your area) then you have to wait ages.

    Swings and Roundabouts guys
    J
    Studying the American medical system and experiencing it first hand are two different things. I'm one of few people that have experienced both systems. The hospitals I've seen in Europe were nothing like what I read in books or magazines.
    Why do you think my experiences were not the norm? I'm sure most areas in the US have county or general hospitals that are publicly funded. These will treat you regardless of whether you have insurance or the money to pay the
    bill.
    Regarding your example of Parkinsons - can you elaborate a bit more? How is the treatment of it any different over here?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think I saw it on the news on one of the American sky channels but did you know that there is a current trend in America of people leaving the obstetrics branch of medicine. This is because insurance to protect them if they are sued has got so high. Apparently if you are working in this field and something goes wronge with a Birth you are very likely to get sued. This is one aspect of America that I don't like. That a doctor can try and save your life and still get sued for it. In fact I don't like the idea of sueing at all and I hate the fact that this trend is now moving over to the UK.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

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.