yes, it’s a good thread except for the giant hijack of an American* butting in with numbers he has googled. :mad:
cite?
*Muricansplaining?
Since the OP just wanted my thoughts I’ll try to keep it simple (although an occasional disgust at Trump’s appalling untruths will emerge!)
The NHS is excellent and popular (with all UK political parties supporting it.)
My elderly parents had a number of ailments (Parkinson’s disease, high blood pressure, macular degeneration) which were all treated promptly by the NHS and with no charge at the time.
When my mother was diagnosed with a life-threatening condition (by her doctor visiting her at home) an ambulance was called and arrived in 20 minutes. They kindly let me ride with Mum to hospital. Of course this was covered by the NHS. (N.B. I can’t believe that US citizens have to pay for an ambulance ride, but there you are.)
I had a bowel cancer scare recently (thankfully negative.) I had a series of tests at hospitals (which did not involve any delays.) I was very impressed by the professional and sympathetic treatment I received.
I also have an NHS dentist and NHS optician.
I shudder to think what an uninsured US citizen would have to pay for what I get.
P.S. The subject of private health insurance alongside the NHS has been raised. In my case, my employer offered it free (which I think covers a lot of UK citizens who have it.)
Not only that, but both Labour and the Conservatives had the NHS in their 1945 manifestos.
I think you’ll find the people overwhelmingly wanted the NHS and to oppose it would have been election suicide.
The numbers “googled” were straight from NHS.
For the poor we have Medicaid
The US has the same components as the UK system. Both have a tax based government health system and both have a private insurance component. The same benefits and problems exist within each component.
Both systems involve some kind of financial oversight. That oversight directs the availability of care. In other words, there’s a budget that goes along with the money collected. The availability of care dictates a broad mix of components such as primary care, hospital bed space, number of trained personnel, and diagnostic equipment. And again, all that has to fit within a budget.
Availability is measured in time, and success rates. Time is measured at each level of medical service. If you are delayed a week at your doctor, or a diagnostic test, or specialist, or surgeon then that all adds up. Any or all of those can be a choke point. It’s subjective to measure the failure rate based on delays but there cannot be disagreement that delays increase health risks. It all comes down efficiency and how much money is available.
Success rates are harder to measure (IMO) because each case is unique. It takes more than a handful when comparing numbers. But here is an article that says NHS death rates are 4 times higher than in the US..
*
The most seriously ill NHS patients were seven times more likely to die than their American counterparts.
Experts blame the British fatality figures on a shortage of specialists and lack of intensive care beds for post-operative recovery.*
The article then went on to mention what I’ve been talking about, delay time.
They also suggest that long waiting lists mean diseases are more advanced before they are treated.
In my own example I wasn’t in any obvious danger. My leg hurt. It stopped hurting if I didn’t walk on it. There was no outward sign of anything major. But if I took a day delay in ANY of the 10 medical events leading up to surgery then severe damage would have occurred. I would have had the same medical care available to me in the UK, but I seriously doubt I would have gotten it in the same time frame. I don’t know what the medical tax rate is in the UK but I’m sure I pay more.
How you measure the success of any healthcare system is always going to generate a great deal of discussion. If the private health care available in the UK consists of additional medical care separate from the national system then you have the best of both worlds. The lowered waiting time is paid for out of pocket and the individual has more control over their health care.
Note three things: firstly that cite only concerns those in need of major surgery. Second, it excludes UK patients in private healthcare. And third, it only includes those American patients in healthcare.
Did you only read the title?
…would you stop randomly googling for cites? Most of what you will find on the internet will lack context. Like the cite you’ve just found.
The cite you’ve grabbed off the internet is problematic. The first problem is the date. Did you notice there is no date on the article? That information is from 2003. It is old information. The Daily Mail article is virtually identical to the Telegraph article but they have different authors. We can’t tell what information was taken from the study and what information is editorial comment. Since the study has been out for fifteen years now, would you care to provide us with a direct link?
It compared information from only two hospitals: Mount Sinai Hospital, Manhattan, Queen Alexandra Hospital, in Portsmouth. Mount Sinai is consistently ranked one of the best hospitals in America. Queen Alexandra seems to be a pretty bog-standard hospital. Why did the study decide to compare these two hospitals? Do you think its a fair comparison? If you were to compare Mount Sinai with a hospital in the United States that wasn’t “consistently ranked as one of the best hospitals in America” how do you think the second hospital would rate?
You don’t have to be a statistician to be able to be able to know that you can’t extrapolate the data from a single hospital (especially one of the best hospitals in the world) and apply that to the entirety of the United States. And then use that data to compare it to a (relatively normal) hospital in the United Kingdom, and then extrapolate that data to make it representative of both countries. There is something wrong here. And I suspect that there isn’t anything wrong with the studies: the problem is the way the data that was gathered was portrayed by the Mail.
The Daily Mail, if you didn’t know, is regarded as such an unreliable paper that it has been banned by wikipedia as a resource. They regularly post articles opposing the NHS. That you’ve managed to find one from 2003 that attacks the NHS is not a surprise.
Magiver, you’re basically doing a good impression of King Canute here. You’re arguing with people who have lived their entire lives with universal healthcare, who have lived every nuance, every change, every proposal through the decades of their lives. They don’t need 15-year old articles to explain what they have lived through.
If it helps any, here’s a video of an American woman who describes her NHS journey, from thinking of it as a nice perk to pretty much part of her identity - maybe ignore the first 30 seconds. This is what you’re arguing against: - YouTube
The Daily Mail didn’t conduct the study. It was from a report that Channel 4 disclosed in an interview. That would be the BBC. Here’s a video of the interview.
The NHSwas forced to respond to the article since it was written by Sir Brian Jarman. He was Professor of Primary Health Care from 1983−98 at Imperial College School of Medicine and President of the British Medical Association from 2003−4.
The NHS did it’s best to soft spin it but their response to the study ended with this:
*Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, told Channel 4 News that the new data will be taken seriously.
He says that he wants the English medical system to be based on evidence and such data should not be disregarded simply because it is inconvenient or embarrassing.*
This is what the NHS says is in Sir Brian’s report:
Professor Jarman notes in his report that compared with several of the other countries examined, England has:
[ul]
[li]poorer cancer survival[/li][li] longer waiting lists[/li][li] lower patient input, with only a small proportion of hospital complaints formally investigated[/li][li] lower GP out-of-hours on-call service[/li][li] lower rates of services, including lower use of diagnostic procedures such as MRI, heart surgery, and lower immunisation rates[/li][li] a lower number of doctors per bed and per 1,000 population[/li][li] a lower number of acute beds per 1,000 population[/li][/ul]
Channel 4 is not the BBC.
And I’m not going to engage on your other gotcha “points”. My mother’s recent end-of-life care was exemplary, not just easing my mum in her final days, but the rest of our family too.
A handful of people do not better represent the data provided by their own health care system. I backed it up with a study from a professor with the specific credentials to make the study.
…I never claimed the Daily Mail conducted the study.
Do you understand the difference between Channel 4 and the BBC? Did Channel 4 have a TARDIS? The report that was disclosed in this interview in 2013 was used by the Daily Mail in 2003?
I suspect you are confused. You understand none of the context, none of the nuance.
They were forced to respond? Because of Jarman’s qualifications? Really?
Why would they not take “new data” seriously? Even data that is in their words “no further methodology has been provided for England or other countries, so we can’t say whether the methods used to collect data on HSMRs over the past 10 years were appropriate.” Data that hasn’t been peer-reviewed.
Well isn’t it good that you cited the NHS saying that they would take the new data seriously then! They did exactly as he asked. The original cite was from 2003. Your current cite is from 2013. Its 2018 now. How about you tell us how this story ended?
Yes: the NHS summarised Jarman’s report. They however do not endorse the report. They can’t even verify his figures or his methodology.
You’ve started with a conclusion and now you are furiously googling to back up your confusion.
How about you start with an open mind?
Here is a critique on Jarman’s work. I would implore you to read it.
Oh okay, despite having lived with this system for generations we don’t know what we’re talking about, but the non-Brit with a 2003 google does
…where is the data? Why are you citing youtube videos?
Jarman isn’t part of the “healthcare system.” I think you need to do a better job of understanding your cites.
Anyone with “credentials” can make a study using information that they keep “confidential” and that they don’t make available for peer review.
that’s great they received good care. It really and truly is. I’m sorry to hear of your loss. I lost both of my parents to cancer.
It doesn’t change the data I pulled from the NHS or the report from a professor in the field of Primary Healthcare.
I would think a study by a Professor of Primary Health Care and past President of the British Medical Association holds more weight than your opinion as well as the delays posted by your own medical provider.
…this is merely an appeal to authority. The “report” is problematic. It relied on confidential sources, it hasn’t been peer reviewed, the results haven’t been duplicated.
As a point of comparison: Richard Gage is a San Francisco Bay Area architect of 28 years, a member of the American Institute of Architects. Do you think a study produced by him into the structural integrity of a building would hold more weight than my own opinion, where I admit I have no experience designing or constructing buildings? Would you be more likely to accept his findings or mine?
Except that as I previously pointed out, the comparison is exceedingly limited in scope. For instance, how many Americans die because they can’t afford the treatment, or die because they didn’t go to the doctor in the first place? Likewise, how many Britons avoided the need for surgery because the condition they had was caught early on and treated and cured before surgery became necessary? You can’t just take these figures in isolation.
I started with the statistics from NHS. Not from the US, or Canada or any other country. They’re direct from the UK’s medical provider. I backed it with someone with the qualifications to do so.
I’m not sure why thee’s all the angst about the numbers the NHS posts.
As I already posted, we have socialized care for the poor. There isn’t a separate hospital for tax funded surgery.