Scotland's healthcare system doesn't suck!

[Rolfe]

That is odd. The news here has consistently stated that there are only five adult beds in Britain, and they are in Leicester. There must be crossed wires somewhere, or poor communication.

Rolfe.

 

[Camillus]

Poor communication. I suspect the referring hospital didn't realise that although there are only five beds at the national specialist centre there are several intensive care units that have the facilities to do it. The consultant I was talking was saying they'd already had one patient on ECMO this year and were expecting to do more.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, this is Kilmarnock we're talking about!

Rolfe.

 

[gtc]

Are there differences between the US and the UK for treatment for routine ailments like a throat infection?

How long would it take to get to see a doctor, how much would it cost for antibiotics?

In Australia I can make an appointment to see a GP of my choosing (which might mean waiting until the next day) or I can turn up to a surgery of my choice and take my chances on waiting (I have been turned away once or twice for turning up too late in the day and have waited anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours). Some GPs stay open until 10pm or midnight but none in my area but there is a hospital nearby.

GPs recieve a fixed payment from the government for seeing patients which gives the dodgier ones an incentive to churn through patients as quickly as possible. Some GPs charge an extra fee on top of this but none do so in my area and from my perspective it, oddly enough, doesn't seem to affect the quality of their care.

Antibiotics have cost me up to USD25 or 15 pounds but usually less and usually much less for the generic brand. Prices seem to vary by neighbourhood as competition between pharmacists is somewhat limited by government regulations.

 

[Darat]

Are there differences between the US and the UK for treatment for routine ailments like a throat infection?

How long would it take to get to see a doctor, how much would it cost for antibiotics?

In Australia I can make an appointment to see a GP of my choosing (which might mean waiting until the next day) or I can turn up to a surgery of my choice and take my chances on waiting (I have been turned away once or twice for turning up too late in the day and have waited anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours). Some GPs stay open until 10pm or midnight but none in my area but there is a hospital nearby.

GPs recieve a fixed payment from the government for seeing patients which gives the dodgier ones an incentive to churn through patients as quickly as possible. Some GPs charge an extra fee on top of this but none do so in my area and from my perspective it, oddly enough, doesn't seem to affect the quality of their care.

Antibiotics have cost me up to USD25 or 15 pounds but usually less and usually much less for the generic brand. Prices seem to vary by neighbourhood as competition between pharmacists is somewhat limited by government regulations.

Apart from the "extra fee" that is as it is here. There has been a big push recently to get more GP surgeries to provide more evening and weekend appointments. (There is a legal obligation for all GPs to provide an out-of-hours service, most choose to out-source this and use (wait for it) a for-profit private company.)

As for the antibiotics, the maximum anyone in the UK pays for any drug would be £7.20 but the majority of people in the UK pay nothing for their NHS prescribed medication.

 

[Architect]

What Darat said, subject to the caveat that there are no prescription charges in Wales IIRC and Scotland is shortly going the same way.

 

[lionking]

Further to gtc's post, Australia has a very good basic UHS, but if you are needing elective surgery, including things like hip replacements, prepare to be put on a waiting list. True emergencies will always be treated free of charge (well, apart from the 1% medicare tax levy).

I choose to take out private health insurance as well, which currently costs $A250 a month. This covers my family for "queue jumping", private wards, dentistry, orthodonty etc (the etc, sadly, includes homeopathy).

A universal basic system with insurance for extras is fine by me.

 

[Francesca R]

Generally, it's as Lisa said. What happens is the doctors say, "Do this, now" and it happens, then the bills get sorted out later.

Does anyone not agree that this situation is massively inferior to "Do this now and there will never be a bill later"?

I can't really reconcile what heights of paranoia of free-riders are required to prefer it the first way.

 

[Rolfe]

Does anyone not agree that this situation is massively inferior to "Do this now and there will never be a bill later"?

I can't really reconcile what heights of paranoia of free-riders are required to prefer it the first way.

I'm not sure how well thought-out the paranoia is. Many of the group who declare that they don't want their money paying for dead-beats to have medical treatment, at the same time hotly deny that they're comfortable with the idea of leaving the poor to suffer and die without treatment.

It's irreconcilable, but that's their stance. I think they want to feel that there's a bill there, even though it can never be paid.

Rolfe.

 

[Leif Roar]

Many of the group who declare that they don't want their money paying for dead-beats to have medical treatment,

What I don't get is why they're fine with the fire departments being funded centrally. Shouldn't they be arguing that fire departments should work in the same way as ER, with the departments mandated to answer calls within their district and putting out any fires / assisting at accident scenes, and then billing the house-owner or accident victim after the fact?

 

[Chaos]

I'm not sure how well thought-out the paranoia is. Many of the group who declare that they don't want their money paying for dead-beats to have medical treatment, at the same time hotly deny that they're comfortable with the idea of leaving the poor to suffer and die without treatment.

It's irreconcilable, but that's their stance. I think they want to feel that there's a bill there, even though it can never be paid.

Rolfe.

I think the idea is that charity will take care of that; at least that´s what I recall from my conversations with Shanek. Meaning, of course, that the greedy free-ride at the expense of those stupid enough to donate to the charities that clean up the mess the greedy leave.

 

[Rolfe]

What I don't get is why they're fine with the fire departments being funded centrally. Shouldn't they be arguing that fire departments should work in the same way as ER, with the departments mandated to answer calls within their district and putting out any fires / assisting at accident scenes, and then billing the house-owner or accident victim after the fact?

Many of them say that's exactly how they'd like it to be. Schools should all be paid for by the parents, I don't suppose there would be a public park or a library book either in their little utopia.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I think the idea is that charity will take care of that; at least that´s what I recall from my conversations with Shanek. Meaning, of course, that the greedy free-ride at the expense of those stupid enough to donate to the charities that clean up the mess the greedy leave.

The usual continuation of that line is to imply that the other party in the discussion is a hypocrite for suggesting that anyone else should contribute unless they themselves have already given all they own to charity.

The other tack is that Republican supporters are generous to a fault, and it's only these selfish Democrat supporters not pulling their weight that causes the shortfall in charity funding. I suggested to one of these that they should be very keed on tax-funding the system then, to ensure that the selfish Democrats pay their way, and stop them getting a commercial advantage because of their lower outlay, but that didn't seem to fly either.

Rolfe.

 

[Francesca R]

I was considering this more from the perspective of patient distress.

"We will do whatever it takes to treat you, and there is no cost" [1]

is very different from

"We will do whatever it takes to treat you, and there is no need to worry just yet about the cost which might mean future financial ruin for you" [2]

In particular I wonder what strength of belief in the evils of free-riders getting away with hugely expensive unnecessarily self indulgent yet probably life-saving medical treatment is required so that one thinks that [2] is at least as good as [1] in the moment of need.

 

[kellyb]

I was considering this more from the perspective of patient distress.

"We will do whatever it takes to treat you, and there is no cost" [1]

is very different from

"We will do whatever it takes to treat you, and there is no need to worry just yet about the cost which might mean future financial ruin for you" [2]

In particular I wonder what strength of belief in the evils of free-riders getting away with hugely expensive unnecessarily self indulgent yet probably life-saving medical treatment is required so that one thinks that [2] is at least as good as [1] in the moment of need.

In their moment of need, they're just happy to be treated, period. (it's really not difficult to brush aside money worries when in the ER and faced with death.)
In the aftermath, should they find themselves in financial ruin, they just blame gov intervention for making it all so expensive in the first place.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't really know where you're coming from with that, but it looks as though you are saying [2] is really no worse than [1], and that the possibility of severe financial penalty at some point in the future does not impair patient experience (is not a social bad). Were that a correct interpretation I consider it utterly delusional.

I don't think you mean that . . .

 

[Rolfe]

I mentioned on another thread about the new car I've got on order, and speculated that I might be less inclined to stimulate the economy of Lower Saxony if I thought I might need that money for a hip replacement or cancer chemotherapy in the future. One poster replied that if I was hit that hard by healthcare costs (as an American) I'd be screwed anyway, so I might just as well get some fun out of the money before it all disappears in a sea of red ink.

I find this a completely horrendous prospect. I don't want to spend my declining years as a bankrupt, with all my assets gobbled up in healthcare costs. And yet I see that appears to be the only real option for many Americans.

I can also to an extent understand the thinking. If future healthcare costs are going to bankrupt me whatever I do, I might as well spend the money now, rather than leave it to be gobbled up by healthcare costs before the inevitable bankruptcy.

What a bloody mess.

Rolfe.

 

[Meadmaker]

I find this a completely horrendous prospect. I don't want to spend my declining years as a bankrupt, with all my assets gobbled up in healthcare costs. And yet I see that appears to be the only real option for many Americans.

For millions of Americans.

I am fortunate. My 85 year old mother is in relatively good health, and actually still works part time as a Registered Nurse, in an assisted living center. As a consequence, her and my fathers' savings will probably not be depleted completely before she dies. Also, dad helped that cause by dying relatively young (73), and suddenly, before a lingering illness could drain all of his accounts. As a result, I don't have to worry about my parents being a financial burden to me as I save for college for my son.

If you want to know about life in America, google the phrase "sandwich generation."

Meanwhile, the economic collapse of this last year has seen a lot of people in my mom's facility move out. Government doesn't cover the cost of assisted living, and many people she tended to had their life savings in the stock market, so they could not afford to live there anymore.

I wish more Americans could read this thread.

 

[Darat]

Somewhere in the bowels of this thread I asked what treatments were available in the USA (for 75% of the citizens) but not available to someone living in the UK via the NHS.

I've been trying to answer my own question and apart from experimental and clinical trials I've come across nothing so far but I thought one of the reports I did come across may be of interest to folks reading this thread: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...e-treatment-was-available-on-nhs-1301570.html

 

[Alt+F4]

Meanwhile, the economic collapse of this last year has seen a lot of people in my mom's facility move out. Government doesn't cover the cost of assisted living, and many people she tended to had their life savings in the stock market, so they could not afford to live there anymore.

That's another problem. I bet many of those people will end up in nursing homes (which they might not need) paid for by Medicare, yet Medicare won't pay for assisted living facilities even though the cost per paitent is much less than a nursing home.