My experiances were pretty cack. But I took the view that it was slightly better than the US.

Now maybe not.

Hopefully at least we will no longer have these semi religious comments in favour.

Um, I think we had it all in here.

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=785106

The me forum.

And now the us forum.

Why not?

Our experiences with both systems would have us choose NHS over the US system.

Tomorrow that could change shoukd we have new, different, better experiences.

Which is possible.

And that could also be true for you.

But you're right in one respect - it doesn't matter which is better - when you need medical care, you just want it to be good enough!!

The nice thing to have is the choice though.

With the NHS, whatever you think about it, you do have the choice to get something else.

Don't quite have that option here, so whatever you think, you're stuck with it.

Meh.

The NHS is a fantastic health system in terms of coverage and intent - if you need treatment, you will get it. However, the quality of health care it delivers can be patchy thanks to the postcode lottery and an obsession with metrics versus actual care (as in mid-staffs). But you also have the choice to go private if you can afford it.

In the US you can pretty much get excellent healthcare in most areas. However, the system for delivering it sucks to high heaven. If you haven't got the means to pay then you are reliant on charity or the ER for a very basic patch-up service.

I think the ongoing arguments over the merits of the two systems don't differentiate enough between the systems of delivery (measured in cost) versus the actual care (measured in outcomes).

With an ageing population, healthcare for the elderly is going to get much worse (in both the US and UK).

At least we are not in Japan where the Finance Minister asked the elderly to hurry up and die.

The US obviously has issues, I just object to those who praise the NHS to high heaven and have the usual excuses when reality come to light.

The UK at least seems to be taking a more direct approach.

Unfortunately it is an issue that nobody seems willing to go head on.

Yep. And praise where praise is due - both systems...

Well you know that's the next plan if the elderly get a bar from voting

Choice, it's a good thing.

Anecdotal stories though mean sod all at the end of the day.

You can bleat about how shit it is and there will be just as many people who have experiences that are the polar opposite.

I happen to think it's a good value for money service because it is there for everyone regardless of personal situations. Faults and all, it being there allows there who bitch about it to get private insurance as a top up for a pittance.

Lets not also forget all the other knock on effects of having the institution around leads to lower car insurance, much better social freedoms in movement etc, etc.

It is patchy, though, especially in rural areas. For a lot of specialists, our closest is Burlington, VT, which is a three hour drive. Yes, there is one urologist closer than that, but the practice is third world quality (standing room only in the waiting room, and a three or four hour wait to see the doc.)

I somehow don't think that would happen in the UK.

I think that's where the geography and population density works against some areas of the US. The only comparable areas of the UK would be some areas of Scotland and the isles.