Tootsie Frickensprinkles

It's not just the 45 million uninsured, but the ex millions more not very well insured also, or those that have it pulled out from under them.

I've seen first hand as well as read enough to know I get better all round care than a whole lot of people in the US and I dont have the additional stress and financial concern that comes with it.

Sticking my finger in the air I would guess about 20% of folks in America actually get "better" care in anyway whatsoever and tbh it certainly doesn't seem to produce better survival rates in any catagory at all. Plush cushions, valet parking and sat TV does not save lives as we have argued many, many times.

Take away the NHS if you like, look at any of the other universal healthcare systems in the world that statistically hold up better than the UK. The one common denominator is govt run insurance, private insurance companies are the problem even if you and half of america cant see that.

As folks from social democracies we are not arguing an issue with you though, we are fighting an entire belief system with you and there really is no point. Which is why I gave up months ago

fatbrit

No they don't -- unless you've swallowed the Kool Aid.

Tracym

I have NEVER EVER said it wasn't. Cripes.

And please stop with the kneejerk thing. I am being polite. But frankly, I am getting very unimpressed bye people saying things like that, anytime they are disagreed with. I have thought about this issue more than I fankly even care to - I could be insulting and call yours "kneejerk responses" as well - but I don't. Please extend me the same courtesy if you want a discussion.

Lack of healthcare for any reason, in any system, is a problem. Waiting until you will die of a condition because of wait lists is a problem. Suffering in pain for months or years while waiting is a problem. Not getting care because you are uninsured is a problem. Etc.

People on here talk about the WHO study like it's the bible. It's one study. There have been others, which rank the US above the UK (but then we hear "who cares about studies?")

Rankings, personal experiences, etc. all have their place. None (including that study) are the all-in-all definitive measure of everyone's situation.

So frankly, at this point I don't really care about the WHO study.

Tracym

I don't know where the numbers are. I think the articles were quite clear that insurance was not required to pay for it, until it was approved for that use.

A university doctor said it was commonly used for breast cancer - I suppose she knows more than me. But I suppose there's no guarantee she's right.

I'll have a hunt, and see if there is anything I can find about it.

The drug is not cheap no matter what, but if you look for the manufacturers website, I think you'll find something about discounting it.

Giantaxe

Noone who is sick with cancer should have to go thorough what she did:- not only delays, but also a $100k+ bill she couldn't pay, reliance on charity and the need to pursue legal action at the same time in order to assert her rights. To reply to this that "delays happen under socialized medcine" is a classic kneejerk response in that it completely ignores factors in her situation that would be irrelevant under "socialized medcine".

fatbrit

Well I can't blame you with all that terrible methodology.

This one looks better -- rates us 19 out of 19.

Tracym

Here's something about Europe:

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=31217

April 02, 2007 Avastin approved in Europe for first line treatment of women with metastatic breast cancer

Interestingly, in that article:

David Cameron, medical oncologist, Lothian University Hospitals NHS Trust and Clinical Lead for the South East Scotland Cancer Research Network, welcomed the news: "It is devastating for a woman to be diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. Despite all the improvements in treatment that have already been made, the remarkable effect of Avastin in prolonging the time to progression of metastatic breast cancer will be welcomed by patients - this time gained is very precious

Tracym

Have your own kneejerk - and I hope you hit yourself in the chin with it.

Obvioiusly that was deliberate - so get lost.

Giantaxe

Why compare just against the UK? Plenty of studies to indicate that other countries are way ahead of both the US and the UK in healthcare outcomes.

How "convenient".

fatbrit

Ash UK/US

I think most people that post here (me included) are speaking from personal experience... most of us have experienced health care on both sides of the pond and base our opinons on that knowledge.

Giantaxe

Ah the sign of person bereft of an argument. Oh well. Didn't you promise to disappear two pages ago before you got angry?

Btw, you're a classic example of why it's so difficult to make progress any progress at all on heathcare in the US. Any and every criticism of the US system ends up sooner or later with a kneejerk "well, blah can happen in socialized medicine..." Little or no attempt to actually analyze the issue and prpose rational solutions to the problems diagnosed.

Been here over 20 years and the amount of progress on healthcare access has been negiligible outside of the medicare drug benefit. Not holding my breath that things will improve in the forseeable future. In the meantime the number of uninsured and underinsured just keeps growing...

fatbrit

And--generally speaking--we are not a particularly poor lot. I''d wager that the household income on these boards is above the average. And so we should be the first lot to acknowledge the great benefits of the US system. How strange that we don't!

RoadWarriorFromLP

I'm having difficulty finding any studies that support the position that the US outperforms other industrialized nations. I've seen some conservative and libertarian commentators claim (vociferously, and without data) that the US system is lovely, but I see no actual proof.

This is one area in which there isn't much ambiguity. The US has tens of millions of people who can't get care and there are millions more who won't receive it in the worst case scenario because they will lose their "coverage" if they get to the point that they actually need it. There's no great way to explain this away -- this just kinda sucks.

We also know that the US life expectancy rates are mediocre compared to other industrialized nations, even though the US spends more on health care than does anyone else. The bang-for-the-buck factor isn't there, which tells you that somewhere in the system, we are losing out. Also not good.

The problem is fairly obvious, when you think about it -- the cost of medical technology, coupled with the insurance system, puts American consumers on the wrong end of the negotiation table.

In a free enterprise system, customers receive benefit because businesses have to compete to serve their customers best. Those who provide poor products and services will eventually lose, and customers can switch if they are dissatisfied, so it usually works well. This is good for consumers.

But this doesn't apply to health insurance, because the rules of the game are different. First, you pay in advance for the product, as the insurer takes your money. Because most of us won't need much of that cash back in the form of services, the average consumer won't have to see that relationship put to the test, and these healthy consumers contribute to much of the insurer's profit.

But if things don't go well, the circumstances become different. As a consumer, you have little to no leverage -- you've already spent your money, the cost of buying the health care without the insurer's participation is high, and no one else has an incentive to step in to give it to you. Whereas most businesses try to avoid having too many unhappy customers, your insurance company won't care because it is a certainty that a gravely ill customer will never be able to pay enough in premiums for the insurer to ever recoup the money. As you are now a costly customer to service and your money has already been taken from you, the insurer's incentive to kick you to the curb is high.

With the high cost of pharma, medical devices and R&D, there is no way to make up for this situation through the free enterprise system alone. At the very least, insurers would have to be heavily regulated to such a degree that there is near-absolute assurance that policies cannot be canceled, service must always be provided, and that policies must be provided at reasonable prices to all who want them. And those are changes that you can be sure would not be welcomed by anyone in the insurance industry.

Xebedee

Oh, come on.
Thats an illusion - the argument that floats the insurance based system.

If you are working for a firm who doesn't offer insurance and you haven't the money to buy it you don't have a decision because you have no option. Honest, guv. I've seen a fair few of these people in the US. Maybe not in richy rich suburbia, but it does happen.

Then there is the fact that it is the insurance company who really makes a decision on what, who and how you are treated. Rarely the quack.