But they have private dentistry there, too, don’t they? I thought they had a combo system, with national care for everyone and bonus care if you could afford it. That a wealthy family chose not to have their son’s teeth cared for to Wealthy American standards reinforces my notion that it’s cultural - or at least, his family’s choice.
Sure…as long as you accept that in the UK people are under-diagnosed and under-prescribed and not getting treatment they might need. I can see that.
We most certainly do - and private hospitals as well. I pay for my own dentistry; while I’m not Stinky McFilthy-Rich, it’s hardly extortionate, at least for stuff up to and including a gold crown or root canal.
I suspect that it’s related to the American smile. In my experience Americans routinely smile in such a way that you can see their whole teeth. Here only axe murderers and motivational speakers do that.
Seems to me the braces would’ve been slapped on straight away. I knew lots and lots of kids with braces growing up. I even knew a 20+ year old with braces. (What a hottie. And she wanted a threesome with me and my girlfriend (her coworker) at the time and my GF didn’t want to do it. Which made three missed threesome opportunities in a year and a half, at the time. God Damn she was cute. Sigh.)
Depends on your age and what sort of dental insurance your parents had and if they didn’t have good dental insurance, what they were willing to spend.
No one in my family ever had our less than perfect teeth straightened (I’m 41, the ‘baby’ is 34). They aren’t horrible, but we all have teeth that could have been more attractive with braces. My parents didn’t have dental insurance - so we just had cavities filled and teeth cleaned - unless it was health impacting, it wasn’t done. I have one that slightly overlaps in the top front - and I’ve had dentists suggest braces as an adult.
IANA dentist, but I believe that the situation with a removal of a tooth under the NHS would only also get you a bridge or a replacement if the gap would otherwise cause further complications. NHS dental provision is for medical need, not cosmetics. Of course, this is a complicated situation, with orthodontics available where they are a preventative measure against future complications, and cosmetic dentistry for serious cases, e.g. after a major injury.
Brynda, while you’re right that there’s many flaws in the NHS (although I don’t accept that they’re an inevitable part of universal healthcare provision), none of them point towards the avoidance of diagnosis which first got us talking in this direction. That a diagnosis doesn’t always get someone the treatment they need is undeniable, but it’s not the same thing.
Infectious mononucleosis (“glandular fever” - sounds like something cows get) is common in the U.S., Canada and Europe.
Histoplasmosis has a worldwide distribution. Not to dampen Tennessee River valley pride, but the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys are notoriously endemic areas often cited in the medical literature. Radiologists in these areas see lots of lung and mediastinal lesions on X-rays in healthy people which are manifestations of old, healed histoplasmosis (which in many cases were asymptomatic).
I think doctors are human, with the same flawed thinking we all possess. I can’t imagine why they would be taught about or look for conditions that they are unlikely to treat. Why would anyone? To use my example, why diagnose rosacea if you aren’t going to treat it?
To eliminate the possibility of it being something else that may be either treatable or life-threatening or both?
You’re saying that British medical schools are in on it, too? 
You yourself also offered the much simpler (Occam’s Razor?) explanation of why rosacea is less known here, and I agreed with you on that one. But if the NHS are supposedly avoiding treating it, you might have to explain this. (And reading through that, it appears that most of the first-stage treatments are simply prescription medicines. So a GP isn’t going to be the slightest bit concerned about cost. And I’ve had some of the same ones prescribed in the past, to treat acne.)
Now you’re using conjecture to come up with a strangely specific fantasy about British medicine. Can you not take the people who live in that system for their word?
Although this is getting away from the topic a little, it’s one of those things that’s bugged me. Would the correction (considering that my bottom teeth are not visible) have been done out of some sort of feeling that if it’s possible to make it ‘perfect’ it should be done, a concern for mental well being (unlikely since my bottom teeth don’t show and it’s a minor imperfection), financial gain (“hell, the insurance pays for it, why not?”) or cultural (“everyone else has it done”)?
I’ve spent about 6 months in the US (2 x 3 month periods) and I don’t think the Holywood “used car salesman” smile is really all that prevalent, although this was about 10 years ago so things may well have changed. I know there are a lot of jokes back and forth between the Brits and US about teeth, but the differences I noticed were negligable.
It seems to me that a lot of elective procedures are done in the US perhaps because it’s thought that you should use the money you are paying into the insurance every month or perhaps it’s a cultural thing again (“can’t be less than perfect”).
I didn’t realize that the NHS was such a sacred cow. It isn’t like I critized Guinness or steak and kidney pie, you know. Even I know better than that. 
Maybe I am wrong. To me, it seems logical that the health care system affects all aspects of medicine, including diagnosis. I have worked in the American health care system for many years, and have seen how so much depends on the individual physician. Medicine is part art and part science, which means that the diagnosis you get depends on more than just the symptoms you present. If you complain of fatigue, for example, one physician might advise more rest and dismiss it, another might order blood work, another might have just read a study on fatigue, another might think of a medicine a drug rep just gave you, etc. I have seen patients where three physicians have three different opinions. Not in the obvious cases, of course, but sometimes. So having seen that kind of variability and chance in one system, and then being exposed to lots of differences between the systems, my conclusion is that yes, the medical system makes a difference. Economic forces can affect diagnosis.
I never said cultural factors weren’t important, and of course they are. I just think economic factors are important as well.
But, again, maybe I am wrong. I certainly can’t find a multi-national study to back up my opinion and I have been wrong before and will be wrong again.
As to why I can’t take people who live with that system at their word, I am in a sort of different position here. Having worked in the medical system, I am fascinated by medicine. So when I married my British husband, I was interested in his and other’s experience with the NHS. I certainly don’t know as much about the NHS as someone who has lived in the UK. On the other hand, I know more about BOTH systems than many people. If you only know one system, you can’t compare them. It’s like when people ask if biscuits are like scones–I have tasted both in their native countries, so I have a different perspective than someone who has only had one, even if he has had lots of them.
I think what you’re missing is the fact that in most cases, the doctor making a diagnosis is not directly concerned with the overall financial implications. I suppose that yes, there’s cases where the cost of particular treatments might cause a longer waiting list, and that this in turn would encourage GPs to seek alternative options first, but this isn’t the doctor making the decision on a financial basis him/herself.
The NHS isn’t a sacred cow, but the concept of universal free-at-point-of-delivery healthcare certainly is. Telling us that problems which undeniably exist are an inevitable result of ‘socialised’ healthcare (a term never used here, BTW) can come across as an idealogically-driven argument directly opposed to our (yes, idealogically-driven) desire to keep to the principles on which the NHS is based.
Yes, all of the above. Except maybe the insurance part. Braces aren’t covered under medical plans, and not under most dental plans. (Dental plans are sold separately from medical plans, and more people don’t have dental coverage than do.) Most of the time, braces are paid for out of pocket.
Well, the problem, you see, is that after Daddy spends $4000 on your braces and you go through the humiliation* and pain for four years, if you don’t wear your retainer, and sometimes even when you do, your teeth will move back into not-perfect. So yeah, a lot of us who *had *braces have slightly-crooked bottom teeth as well. If you’re seeing us years after the braces, we probably look a lot like you anyway.
The used car salesman smile is usually due to capping or veneers, not braces.
yes, even though "everyone* else has it done," it’s still stigmatized; we are a strange people
**Okay, not literally everyone, but it’s very very common in middle-class and up social groups.
Mono is a pretty solidly diagnosable thing. It’s not an arbitrary diagnosis or anything. They do a blood smear, and can tell instantly if you have it or not.
Just FYI, it not only occurs in the lungs. It can also occur as ocular histoplasmosis - usually leading to partial or total blindness.
I know.
Interesting comments WhyNot, thanks for the insight.
The above bit that I’ve quoted…the “used car salesman” is the bling smile 
Teeth so damn white they blind you, seems to be really visible on the Holywood/Model/Popstar types. I mean teeth should be white…but…damn.
Speaking from first-hand experience, yes, likely they’d slap braces on the bottom, too, just for ships and wiggles. Dentists here in the States, IME, YMMV, want to work on you. The more, the better.
I had two sets of teeth growing at the same time. {Just call me Shark Girl.} They pulled the inside row (baby teeth) and put braces on the outside row (adult teeth)to pull them down and into place where teeth are supposed to be. {That was a sight, I could barely close my lips together for 6 weeks - first day of high school too!! Sigh.} My bottom teeth did not have this phenomenon, but I did have two molars, one on each side of the jaw, that were baby teeth that had no adult teeth under them at all. They determined this through X ray.
Now, here would be the time where Dentist should have pulled these baby molars, and slapped braces on the bottom row to pull things together over the gaps, allowing room for my already-poking-up wisdom teeth. But no. We leave those in and slap braces on anyway. After three years the braces come off - what’s the first thing dentist wants to do? Pull the baby molars. No talk of getting me a bridge at that time at all. Just go on about your business with big gaps right where your chewing teeth are. So then a few years later when my bottom teeth start to shift, I have to purchase a $2,000 bare-metal bridge, not covered by dental insurance. (Neither were the braces, BTW - those ran about $2000 back in the late 80’s)
The bridge is necessary, because when I wouldnt wear it for months at a time, my bottom teeth on each side of the gaps would move. Go to put on the bridge and I can’t even slide it all the way on, the teeth have moved so much. Then I “snap” it down and have teethache for a week, can’t chew anything for a day or so, and then I wear the bridge religiously for months. Inevitably I get slack for a few more months - and here we go again, ad infinitum.
AND, I had impacted infected wisdom teeth that had to be dug out, because the bottom jaw had no room for them. Another $1,000 out of pocket. If only dentist would have pulled those baby molars first. Hope he choked on the $$$.