scrubbedexpat099

28% sounds low, guess depends on how you define it.

Sally Redux

So which healthcare system do people think is the best in the world, as obviously it can't be the NHS?

scrubbedexpat099

Dutch, Swiss?

I would rank UK above US, just.

Not a compliment.

Sally Redux

I actually would not be averse to seeing some kind of payment system brought in for the NHS. Problems being that has administrative costs and that some of the heaviest users, from lower socio-economic groups, would be exempted.

US is simply not efficient on any marker, maybe bringing in some real competition and transparency would drag it up a bit.

scrubbedexpat099

iReminds me of the Pension issue, take the money and buy a Ferrari and enjoy it whilst you can.

Seems logical, why bother when you are old and decrepit and would just end up using it for means tested benefits?

Pulaski

There really isn't a "one size fits all" answer. In trying to come up with a over all ranking you have to rate the system based on cost, financial efficiency, treatment effectiveness, timeliness of service (waiting lists), and a myriad of other factors, such that you're not trying to compare apples and oranges so much as rank each country's recipe for fruit salad.

The NHS is likley to rate highly on cost effectiveness, and direct cost to the consumer, so is likely to be favoured by low earners and the chronically sick, but those with few healthcare needs and above average income pay very handsomely in taxes for the privilege of access to the NHS.

After several years of procrastinating, we eventually worked out a good coverage plan in the US, such that our costs are quite low, our out of pocket costs are taken care of (balance on our Health Savings Accounts) and yet we have ready access to top quality medical facilities if we were to need them.

I have little or no experience of other countries healthcare, but out of a straight UK v US choice I would take the US every time because the overall cost of living in the US is significantly lower (lower taxes more than offset the cost of health insurance by a wide margin).

hungryhorace

Italian.

hungryhorace

Maybe down South in the beautiful Carolina's it is, but here in the North East it's just as expensive to live as the UK pretty much.

Sally Redux

Same here, if not more so.

Pulaski

Like I said, one size does not fit all.

scrubbedexpat091

Or maybe the families can't afford to pay for the care? I know if my mom ever gets to a point she is no longer able to live on her own and needs care, its going to be on the government and social security to pay for it. Not because I am cheap or don't want to pay, its just not simply something I could ever pay for, nor could my sister.

You can't assume families don't want to pay, they may very well not be able to pay.

Pulaski

Understood, and I sympathize with your position. That said, what irks me is that "the heirs" seem to think that their parent's(') home and assets should be off limits when it comes to paying for nursing home care, and the British government has pandered to that view point in recent years. If Mum or Dad need residential care and have realisable assets than those assets need to be liquidated to pay for care, or at least to reimburse the state. IMO this should include putting a lien on part ownership of properties such that the value is claimed when the property is eventually sold.

scrubbedexpat099

And if they do not have any assets?

Pulaski

Well then the state pays, , ..... but I was specifically talking about when the elderly parent(s) does(do) have assets and their heirs seem to think that they have a right to inherit the family home and or their savings. In the UK the thought of forcibly liquidating the family home seemed to irritate enough potentially floating voters that the government backed down.

scrubbedexpat099

That is the problem.

Save and you are penalised.

Spend all your savings and the State pays?

So you might as well have a good time whilst you have it.