You haven’t produced anything to contradict the report or provide any information beyond “nuh uh”. You’ve dismissed the report as "problematic You haven’t even attempted to address the NHS data on delays. So yes, I would take the data from NHS and a report from someone who is a Professor of Primary Health Care over your opinion.
Again, why are you even arguing this when the NHS shows the delays.
…why did you choose to look at those particular statistics? (and can you refresh my mind: what exact statistics are you talking about?)
How did you find those statistics? What combination of words did you use to when you went to search for those stats? Why did you start with these statistics, and not others?
So what? I’ve asked you to start with an open mind. I think its clear you’ve started with assumptions and are retroactively finding evidence to confirm your assumptions. That you’ve used figures only from the UK is logical as the OP specifically asked that this thread be about the UK. (That you’ve consistently ignored the OP is beside the point. But that doesn’t show that you’ve got an open mind on the topic.
Appeal to authority again. We can’t see all his figures. He’s keeping them secret. They aren’t peer reviewed. Its 2018. Five years after the channel 4 report. When the NHS looked into it, what did they find? Have Jarman’s figures been independently verified?
There is no “angst” over the numbers the NHS posts. There is “angst” over how your are interpreting the numbers. You are cherry picking.
But you don’t have socialised healthcare for the low and middle incomes.
we have it for the poor and the elderly. two different programs. Everybody else pays it out of pocket or through their employer versus paying it through their taxes. We also have it for veterans and if you’ve read the news there was a big scandal there because of delays involved.
Here’s another statistic for you: Americans declaring bankruptcy due to medical bills: approx 643,000 annually. Britons declaring bankruptcy due to medical bills: nil.
As I understand it, veterans care in the US is limited to conditions suffered while in service.
So you admit you have nothing for those who need it most: the younger workers, the tradesmen, the self-employed, etc. Having UHC allows Britos to take care of issues before they become serious and thus keeps them contributing to the Exchequer via taxes. I’ll note that the UK spends half (as a percentage of GDP) what the US does. UHC saves money.
…I don’t need to produce anything. You cited the NHS response to the report. I’ve quoted from the NHS response. To characterize my posts as “nuh uh” is disingenuous. I’ve done much more than that.
Yep.
Whats to address?
You’ve claimed the average wait time for average wait was 7.4 weeks for Cardiothoracic Surgery. (you didn’t link directly to that data by the way, just to a whole lot of links, and I’m not going to hunt around to confirm what you say. I’m going to assume the figures are correct for the purpose of debate, but I haven’t verified them) Is that an unreasonable delay? You haven’t made an argument that it is. If the surgery was urgent, then it would get put to the front of the queue regardless of ability to pay.
So what is it you want me to address? Would it be nicer if it was quicker? Probably. Is it preferable to have a delay like this and ensure everybody has access to the same surgery without having to pay at point of service? In my humble opinion yes it is.
Would I prefer to move to a system where either having money in the bank or if I pay expensive insurance on top of the taxes I pay (meaning you pay at least twice as much) you get moved to the front of the queue, but if I don’t have money in the bank you just get my leg chopped off? No I wouldn’t.
Do you consider your question addressed?
Another appeal to authority?
Data from the NHS is meaningless without context. A report from a Professor of Primary Health Care without any data and without peer review really isn’t a report worth bothering with.
Show me the data.
Because “delay” is a relative term.
You’re the one dismissing them. It’s on you to back up your claims they’re not valid.
I picked something that directly related to me for comparison. I also randomly picked a few to look at to see if this was an anomaly and they all had delays. If you think that’s cherry picking then pick any aspect of health care that NHS keeps numbers on and we’ll just have a look. Pick a bunch of them if you like.
You can start with the cancellation of operations because of a lack of beds due to the flu. from the BBC.
…I’ve backed up my claims. Can I suggest you go re-read my posts? Did you read the critique I linked too? Did you actually read the NHS response that you cited? Why should we trust data that we can’t see? Why should we trust data that hasn’t been peer reviewed?
Yet you’ve ignored me when I directly challenged your basis for comparison.
“Randomly picking a few things” is a very poor statistical technique. And “delay” is a relative term. Everything is delayed. So of course everything you looked at had delays. The UK system keeps very good track of statistics. They can track delays. Is this something that is consistent across America? Is there a single authority that will produce consistent metrics from state-to-state?
Delay is a relative term. What are you comparing it too? How are you determining a delay is too long?
Its nice of you to finally catch up. A cite from 2018! Well done you!
You’ve found a cite that echos everything that all the UK dopers have been telling you throughout the thread.
So why do you want me to “start here”? Is this a temporary emergency? The article is a month old now…are they still delaying non-urgent operations? Do you think delaying non-urgent operations was the incorrect thing to do? Do you think that you should be able to pay more and get to the front of the line?
How does this relate to an article that you plucked from google dated 2003? How does this relate to the data from Jarman that he won’t release?
No, at least have the decency to admit you are 100% wrong on this. You fund healthcare from your taxes. Everyone who is a taxpayer *also *pays for the government schemes as well as the extra amount you have to pay because those schemes don’t cover you.
Here’s the kicker, you pay more in tax per capita just for those government schemes that you can’t access than an average tax-paying, health-insured UK person.
And as you are fond of authoritative sources, here’s a more recent review. Have a read. In there you will find good news and problems, i.e. exactly what we’ve being telling you.
But…and please let this sink in…this is the system that is the very base level care delivered to every member of society. The one that everyone can access regardless of income and is based on medical necessity not ability to pay or insurance company decisions.
*That’s *the comparison to make. What is the base level of care available to everyone in the USA? what are those systems like? what do they cover? what are those waiting lists like? what bills are you left with? (which isn’t even a concept in the UK). From that same link above here’s further reading on how the USA stacks up more specifically. If you want the raw data behind that one you can just ask the publishers.
Congratulations to Magiver for continuing to ignore the OPs request:
I mean, you could have started your own thread if you really wanted to completely pursue a tangent, but hey ho.
"Key findings: The U.S. ranked last on performance overall, and ranked last or near last on the Access, Administrative Efficiency, Equity, and Health Care Outcomes domains. The top-ranked countries overall were the U.K., Australia, and the Netherlands. Based on a broad range of indicators, the U.S. health system is an outlier, spending far more but falling short of the performance achieved by other high-income countries. The results suggest the U.S. health care system should look at other countries’ approaches if it wants to achieve an affordable high-performing health care system that serves all Americans. "
US places 16th, UK places 4th
Where the WHO rates the US system in 37th place, the NHS 18th.
I’m really not sure how many times we can repeat the same chorus. Yes there’s room for improvement. Yes there are a number of challenges threatening the system. And yet it still outstrips the US system by an extent that is almost comical. You pay twice as much, but your life expectancy is lower. Infant mortality rates are shocking for what is probably the most technically advanced nation on the world. And god help you if you happen to be poor, because frankly you’re screwed.
Because you’ve misinterpreted those numbers and then used that misinterpretation to extrapolate a highly speculative conclusion directly contradicted by the experience of every single actual user of the NHS here. That’s why.
But please keep repeating “[del]But her emails[/del] But the NHS numbers…!” as if that will add any legitimacy to your argument.
did you even read through the cite? It conveniently left the US out. I grabbed 2 major diagnostic tools for comparison:
MRI’S per million
UK - 6.1
US - 36.7
CT Scanners per million
UK - 8
US - 41.9
The NHS CT median time is a little over 1 day but the MRI median delay is 20 days.
There isn’t anything to misinterpret. median times of service are delays in diagnosis. There is no spin you can put on that.
…this thread isn’t supposed to be about the US at all.
As I put it in another thread in a discussion with Bricker:
And?
You clearly haven’t read it have you? other than to cherry pick to two stats that you think support your point (whatever it is) and if you are going to quote those points then you might to also quote the part in the article that they thought important enough to place at the start.
And the USA is not left out, the very first link in that cite takes to you a very critical appraisal of the US system - why, I wonder, did you not draw attention to that?
very first paragraph in that appraisal
…unlike the spin you just put on it.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, this isn’t just a “each person goes to the back of the queue” system; there is a triage (which is already a diagnosis). Not every MRI is urgent, yet you’re treating them all equally, factoring in the waiting times for non-urgent scans with the ones for urgent ones and pretending the average is representative of the wait for urgent scans. It isn’t, and please stop implying that it is.
And sure, there is always the possibility that an MRI will sometimes reveal something hitherto unsuspected - but then you’re arguing about the rare exceptions, not the system.
Its something I wanted to mention earlier, but skipped because the OP didn’t want to bring the US into it. But since that seems to have gone well and truly out the window: For a minority of Americans, if treatment is not prioritized by ability to pay, they can’t comprehend any other way to prioritize it. There must be queues where everyone has their place in line regardless of diagnosis and urgency. Prioritizing people by medical need is a concept that seems to alien too understand.
Also, since triage is both in the discussion and in the news.
But how is that possible when they face/accept triage in every emergency room in America?