NHS ranked 'number one' health system

[Teleros]

Oh, you mean when healthcare was not readily available to the majority of people

Not actually true. But w/e, who cares about facts when you can just state stuff?

a huge quantity of lifesaving procedures and medications were costly beyond the reach of the privileged?

And this is different from today... how exactly :P ? I mean, it's sure as heck the same if you're "lucky" enough to have to use the NHS.

Still, let's look at your general point. When mobile phones came out, only the wealthy yuppie types in the City had them. Same sort of thing with computers, and cars, and all the rest. A new thing comes out, the rich get in early, and thanks in no small part to their money, it becomes widely available.

At least, it does in a free market system. If government had gotten into the car industry like it got into the health industry, we'd be riding bikes and using trams whilst government officials zipped past in cars that went 10 miles to the gallon at best.

Or the obvious conclusion your magical free market healthcare system has failed in practice and government has always had to step in because of people dying.

Did you know that propaganda, rhetoric, and perceptions matter in politics? It's shocking, I know, but if enough people believe a lie, they can actually get their government to act based on that lie. Incredible!

Here in the US when elderly mortality rates were through the roof, government stepped in because the private sector was failing and instituted medicare and medicaid saving millions of lives.

Sure they did.

When the private sector was failing our veterans the VA was created and so on and so forth.

And look at how that turned out !

You are just like our republicans here talking about a magical free market healthcare while sitting pretty on their own government insurance. Why don't you move to the US and free yourself from the NHS since you seem to think it is such a horrible system.

Being a WASP, the US immigration system is rather harder on me, you know. Plus, there are plenty of other reasons not to live in the USA, or to prefer living in the UK. I'm a staunch monarchist for one, I've no desire to live in a country on the verge of civil war, and I far prefer the UK countryside. Shocking as it may seem, the local healthcare system isn't the primary determinant in where I choose to live.

Oh the horror of having one of the best healthcare system in the world if only you could rank like the US and have the same results as third world countries

If you recall some of my earlier posts, I noted that:

1. Different countries measure infant mortality differently. The US counts very premature births as live births, whereas other countries count them as stillborn. This obviously hurts the USA's rankings.
2. If you have the super-duper best stuff for treating (for example) cancer, you're going to get all the hopeless cases flocking to your country in the hopes you can cure them. This boosts other countries' scores and knocks down your own, because obviously even the best stuff in the world won't save all those patients, and then if they're too ill to go back home, they end up dying on your watch.

Looking at the final score is easy. Understanding why the final score is the way it is requires a little thinking .

[Draco-Onis]

Did you know that propaganda, rhetoric, and perceptions matter in politics? It's shocking, I know, but if enough people believe a lie, they can actually get their government to act based on that lie. Incredible!

Being a WASP, the US immigration system is rather harder on me, you know. Plus, there are plenty of other reasons not to live in the USA, or to prefer living in the UK. I'm a staunch monarchist for one, I've no desire to live in a country on the verge of civil war, and I far prefer the UK countryside. Shocking as it may seem, the local healthcare system isn't the primary determinant in where I choose to live.

Oh the irony

If you recall some of my earlier posts, I noted that:

1. Different countries measure infant mortality differently. The US counts very premature births as live births, whereas other countries count them as stillborn. This obviously hurts the USA's rankings.
2. If you have the super-duper best stuff for treating (for example) cancer, you're going to get all the hopeless cases flocking to your country in the hopes you can cure them. This boosts other countries' scores and knocks down your own, because obviously even the best stuff in the world won't save all those patients, and then if they're too ill to go back home, they end up dying on your watch.

1) Even adjusted for that we still rank below every country with single payer.
2) Those people are the super rich and don't account for a lot in the metric not many people can afford the most expensive healthcare treatments in the world.

Looking at the final score is easy. Understanding why the final score is the way it is requires a little thinking .

Or maybe you should stop being ignorant of the facts.

[Teleros]

Oh the irony

If Scotland decides to go, Scotland will go, there won't be a civil war over it - at least not south of the border :P .

On the other hand, immigration to the USA is at a point where civil war is all but inevitable.

1) Even adjusted for that we still rank below every country with single payer.

Given that the study in the OP didn't bother to adjust for this... yeah whatever.

2) Those people are the super rich and don't account for a lot in the metric

Hardly super-rich, unless you're talking globally (ie, in which case you mean "anyone from a Western country" :P ). Desperate people all over the place scrape together any money they can to save their loved ones' lives, if that's what it takes.

People like this for example. Ordinary Brits, they raised £1.2M to try and save their son's life.

But whatever, I guess they're secretly multi-millionaires .

[Draco-Onis]

Hardly super-rich, unless you're talking globally (ie, in which case you mean "anyone from a Western country" :P ). Desperate people all over the place scrape together any money they can to save their loved ones' lives, if that's what it takes.

People like this for example. Ordinary Brits, they raised £1.2M to try and save their son's life.

But whatever, I guess they're secretly multi-millionaires .

ROFLMAO at least you keep me amused they had to raised 1.6 million US dollars for their sons treatment and you think you don't have to be rich to be able to afford treatment in the US. You win on a technicality you don't have to be rich you just have to have some wait to raise hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars

I guess that's the free market healthcare system you adore, one where people have to resort to charity in the hopes of saving people's lives sounds amazing

[Zan15]

That rather depends on the details of the cases in question though.

Also note that after Obamacare, insurance companies are either pulling out of entire states, or raising the premiums and deductibles so high that there's hardly any point doing business with them in the first place:








.

Gee i wonder what is causing the spike after the first 3 years the rates were lower then the past 10+. could it be the healthy are not signing up because of the day in day out barrage of a particular party telling them not to sign up?

Could it be because the current administration is refusing to pay them the subsidies and risk adjustment payments this year and going forward that taxes have already been collected to pay for?

Also we act like insurance has not gone up. This is the way it always has been in the individual markets. year over year increases of 20-30-50% were normal. go back to bad flu outbreaks you had increases of 90% year over year in some hard hit states.




Even in the stable employer based market rates have gone up substantially year over year.

292% in 17 years for single coverage
313% in 17 years for family coverage





and now the cost shift, happening even before ACA





deductibles of 2000 bucks or more, look at that rate of increase. it doubled from 2009 to 2013 before ACA (7% to 15%). After ACA in the 3 years its 18-23% a much slower increase.




i could go on but the pattern remains the same

[Elegiac]

Not actually true. But w/e, who cares about facts when you can just state stuff?

Then why don't you elaborate how much better healthcare was in the west prior to the implementation of universal healthcare.

And this is different from today... how exactly :P ? I mean, it's sure as heck the same if you're "lucky" enough to have to use the NHS.

It's different in that, the US excluded, treatment for most conditions is within available reach for most people without risk of them slipping into absolute bankruptcy trying to afford it.

Still, let's look at your general point. When mobile phones came out, only the wealthy yuppie types in the City had them. Same sort of thing with computers, and cars, and all the rest. A new thing comes out, the rich get in early, and thanks in no small part to their money, it becomes widely available.

We're not discussing consumer products here, we're talking about healthcare.

At least, it does in a free market system. If government had gotten into the car industry like it got into the health industry, we'd be riding bikes and using trams whilst government officials zipped past in cars that went 10 miles to the gallon at best.

Because you say so, right?

[Teleros]

ROFLMAO at least you keep me amused they had to raised 1.6 million US dollars for their sons treatment and you think you don't have to be rich to be able to afford treatment in the US.

For the cutting edge treatment of course you do. Because, you know, it's cutting edge. So cutting edge, in fact, that they couldn't get it at all on the NHS.

I guess that's the free market healthcare system you adore, one where people have to resort to charity in the hopes of saving people's lives sounds amazing

Really not getting this dislike of charity TBH. Money, time or effort freely given by your fellow human beings is somehow worse than money confiscated through taxation... I dunno. I just don't get it.

= + =

Gee i wonder what is causing the spike after the first 3 years the rates were lower then the past 10+. could it be the healthy are not signing up because of the day in day out barrage of a particular party telling them not to sign up?

Interesting that the young & healthy are so Republican...

Or maybe they just don't see the point :P .

Could it be because the current administration is refusing to pay them the subsidies and risk adjustment payments this year and going forward that taxes have already been collected to pay for?

Those premiums would've risen before the God-Emperor's ascension.

Also we act like insurance has not gone up. This is the way it always has been in the individual markets. year over year increases of 20-30-50% were normal. go back to bad flu outbreaks you had increases of 90% year over year in some hard hit states.

So Obamacare has not only failed to get the cost of premiums under control, it's also caused huge spikes in deductibles... Woot.

deductibles of 2000 bucks or more, look at that rate of increase. it doubled from 2009 to 2013 before ACA (7% to 15%). After ACA in the 3 years its 18-23% a much slower increase.

I'll assume the figures are adjusted for inflation - even though your chart doesn't say. All you're doing there is showing how much that segment of the market grew... we don't actually know from your information what limits there are to its growth, etc.

I also note that after the first one, your charts don't show anything about the individual market, only stuff for employees. Hmm...



Don't worry, I'm sure everyone can afford to pay the first few thousand bucks no problem .

CNBC article on deductible hikes:

That said, this year, "deductibles are rising much faster than premiums, almost six times faster than wages," said Altman.

Altman said that those statistics reveal "a shift in what insurance is for most Americans, from what is comprehensive [coverage] to what is skimpier coverage, with more skin in the game" for workers.

Great job, Obama!

= + =

Then why don't you elaborate how much better healthcare was in the west prior to the implementation of universal healthcare.

You do realise the difficulty of this given the advances in medical science from early 20th century onwards, right?

Still, this paper has some nice tables on p25 showing infant mortality rates in the bad old days of all-private healthcare in England & Wales:

1891-1900: 153.33
1901-1910: 127.55
1911-1920: 100.43
1921-1930: 71.86 (Penicillin discovered 1928, published 1929)
1931-1940: 58.57
1941-1949: 44.64 (NHS founded 1948)
2015: 3.7 (Google result)

That's a pretty damn impressive reduction if you ask me (prosperity + science = health). An average 78% decline decade-on-decade. The trend actually slowed after that, as the second image HERE shows.

Similarly, look at this:


That's a pretty steep decline in the years prior to Medicare, Medicaid and all that, particularly after 1930, which is when you'd first start seeing antibiotics come into play. It's only when it's basically bottomed out that socialised healthcare starts making an appearance in the US.

It's different in that, the US excluded, treatment for most conditions is within available reach for most people without risk of them slipping into absolute bankruptcy trying to afford it.

So basically, science has advanced, but you're going to thank government healthcare for it. 'kay.

We're not discussing consumer products here, we're talking about healthcare.

And the principle is different because...?

I mean, the same applies to such basic necessities as food and means of communication or travel, and they're hardly just "consumer goods". Almost everyone in a Western country can afford to eat meat on a regular basis, communicating with the other side of the world costs virtually nothing... yet the one area where government has really meddled is still astonishingly expensive, and far more so than it used to be. Huh.

Because you say so, right?

Well I think the evidence is on my side, although obviously we've no mirror universe we can pop into to confirm anything. I suppose you could always check out such brilliant nationalised car manufacturers as we had in the UK though, and see how they did compared to Ford et al :P ...

[Logwyn]

The notion that the American healthcare system looks anything like a "free market" is just downright absurd. Whether a free market is a particularly good idea for healthcare or not, it's surely not the perverse system that the United States has managed to create.

To get a true free market you are going to have to get rid of medicare and medicade. Good luck with that though.

[kevins]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253



This has to be a joke. When i had to use it couple of times, this fucking shit for my son it was a disaster. Worst experience I have ever endured.

this is a joke... Germany, Japan, and Switzerland have VASTLY superior healthcare systems than the UK.

[rogoth]

Ok you are not british, don't fucking speak for brits. EVER!!!

i'm British, i think the healthcare system as a whole is an amazing thing and needs to be protected, yes it needs reform, but the way the tory morons have butchered it and the financial constraints it is working under make it a monumental task to keep to the base promises laid out while trying to keep the level of care the same or better, instead of spouting shite try getting some perspective.

[Floopa]

The organisation that created this 'ranking' or 'comparison' (or whatever you wish to call it) are tied to a lobbying group in the US which are pushing for a single payer health care system (a system, in essence, akin to the NHS). That is why their results seem (and definitely are) skewed. If you look at health organisations with 0 ties to lobbying groups/external companies vying for bias, the NHS ranks between 11-15 in the world, the US is typically 30-35~ but this includes all matters. If you are looking purely at certain criteria, US healthcare is mountains above everyone else in the world - cancer, namely. The UK's best criteria, unsurprisingly, is cost-effectiveness. The NHS manages to compete with some of the best healthcare systems in the world despite being completely underfunded - to the degree of 25-40% less expenditure in terms of GDP than countries in Scandinavia and France.

If the NHS had the additional £40-50bil it desperately needs (NHS England report a £25-30mil funding gap that needs to be filled and NHS Wales/Scotland would obviously receive their equal weighted donations as per the Barnett system), and Brexit wasn't on the horizon, the NHS would actually be the best healthcare system in the world.

The average British payer's tax contribution to the NHS is £1094 per year. In $ that is $1430, is that better or worse than what US citizens are able to achieve via their healthcare system (genuinely curious, unsure)? Obviously the design of the NHS is free at the point of entry for every citizen: male, female, adult, child, eldery, employed, unemployed, disabled or not, etc.

[Independent voter]

I guess Australia is up there too, probably Canada.

[Orlong]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

The NHS has been ranked the number one health system in a comparison of 11 countries.
The UK health service was praised for its safety, affordability and efficiency, but fared less well on outcomes such as preventing early death and cancer survival.
The research by the Commonwealth Fund, a US think tank, looked at countries across the world, including the US, Canada, Australia, France and Germany.
The US came bottom.
It is the second time in a row that the UK has finished top.
Three years ago, when the survey was last done, the UK was also number one.
It comes despite the NHS being in the grip of the tightest financial squeeze in its history with lengthening waiting times.
The good and the bad
The NHS was praised for the safety of its care, the systems in place to prevent ill-health, such as vaccinations and screening, the speed at which people get help and 1. that there was equitable access regardless of income.
Only in one of the five themes looked at did the NHS perform poorly compared with the other nations - 2. health outcomes. This covers general health of the population, early deaths and cancer survival among other measures



This has to be a joke. When i had to use it couple of times, this fucking shit for my son it was a disaster. Worst experience I have ever endured.

1. Take out that qualification and NHS drops to the bottom and US shoots to the top.

2. Hey Health outcomes suck but at least everyone gets the same shitty care

- - - Updated - - -

Only in your mind. Most people are greatful for not having the banktrupcy and lifelong debt slave version of healthcare, if something happens where one needs care.

You can go enjoy that system, no one's stopping you.

Nobody has to file for bankruptcy and have lifelong debt unless they are an idiot and dont sign up for healthcare insurance through their employer or buy an individual plan. I just had my gallbladder removed 3 months ago and paid a whopping $300 out of the $18,000 bill because I am responsible and pay for insurance through my employer who paid the rest. $44 per biweekly paycheck is a pittance to pay to get good healthcare

[Orlong]

I am not sure why you mentioned this, it is no different than here in the US. The only people who don't wait for CT or MRI scans are those with a lot of money, if I remember correctly we had to wait 3 weeks for my SO to get an MRI scan and there were hoops to jump through. It goes without saying that pets are not people and can't really sue you or have as many complications

Must not have any insurance (your own damn fault). Ive always been able to get same day MRIs and Im not rich.

[Draco-Onis]

Must not have any insurance (your own damn fault). Ive always been able to get same day MRIs and Im not rich.

Isn't the US #1 in everything in your alternate reality?

[Azadina]

Isn't the US #1 in everything in your alternate reality?

What he fails to mention, is that government pays everything for him. Easy to talk crap about others who don't get government to pay it all, and then say "it's their own fault for being stupid".

[Rockyreg]

As a Brit I'm interested in how much more we are taxed to pay for things such as the NHS compared to the US.

Say you earn £30k per year, you would pay £6,320.32 per annum in income tax and NI. This obviously covers the NHS and I've heard the figure that goes to the NHS is around 20-30% of your taxes which would be £1,580.08 per annum for the NHS (based upon 25% of your taxes)

Can anybody from the US in here give me an idea of the income tax you would have to pay on the equivalent salary in the US and also what you would be looking at in terms of health insurance (assume single 30 year old person that has been previously healthy)

[Independent voter]

We pay $33 a month, I was paying $19 but my gf looked over the plans, and we had like 50 plans to choose from and picked the one she likes. I can get free care at the Veterans Administration but it's a long drive and they don't have my confidence.

My employer pays the rest and I'm sure my employer deducts that from their taxes so I guess tax payers pick up the cost.

We like our government in the US but most of us don't trust our government with something like our healthcare.

[Draco-Onis]

Can anybody from the US in here give me an idea of the income tax you would have to pay on the equivalent salary in the US and also what you would be looking at in terms of health insurance (assume single 30 year old person that has been previously healthy)

In the US the government takes about 33% of your income, for health insurance that would depend on your employer. There are some employers that will pay for your health insurance others pay part of it and you pay for the rest you also may have to pay out of pocket money depending on what type of insurance and cap you have even if you are covered. Also some things are not always part of your insurance coverage depending on your employer like dental and eye care.

People who work for the government usually have the best type of healthcare and everything is covered so your experience does vary.

[Radaney]

NHS is pretttty good. Can definitely improve on the caring side though, quite a few horror stories starting to come out on that side of it.