I personally think the US system as a whole is much worse than ours (but I normally try not to say so too bluntly since as a foreigner it isn't my place to criticise), but for those who do have access your medicine is probably better in most fields and the service is better by miles. If our palliative care is better then that is telling, since it is a field of medicine that is largely outside the NHS and under the charitable sector. Palliative care in NHS hospitals is something everyone who knows fears, with good reason.
As far as I am aware there are no other advanced western countries that have access as poor as the US, but most people in the UK assume that every other country is like the US and that there is only the binary choice between the two systems - there isn't, there are many other better alternatives to both our systems.
Beyond the simplistic issue of access there are complex issues about how health care is funded, about how it is supplied and managed and about how it is rationed. The NHS has a different set of answers to all those questions than practically every other country, and those answers are outdated and inflexible which is why so many aspects of it are so bad. In one or two areas it is better than other countries, but those advantages seldom outweigh the disadvantages. Theoretical access may be good but that is irrelevant if the rationing system results in poor outcomes, and regardless of what you have read, access is by no means universal. Conditions range from horrible to horrific, staff morale is at rock bottom, and the number of avoidable deaths is truly frightening. But the population still prefer blissful ignorance and a rose tinted belief that the NHS is the pride of the world rather than acknowledge to themselves that the system is flawed. Even when the evidence is flung in their faces they somehow manage to ignore it. I sometimes feel like I am the only person with my eyes open (although there are of course plenty of others).
the UK's health insurance plan
It isn't a health insurance plan. That was actually my original point - there is no insurance, there is no pot of money saved up for each person, it is called National Insurance but the name is a lie, it is paid for entirely out of current taxation. It is a ponzi scheme. That is part of what makes it such a structurally disastrous system that will always be underfunded. Anyone in the US who wishes to copy our system needs to understand that and understand why it is such a bad idea. There are several much better ways to fund universal access - look at almost any other country for examples, but for heaven's sake do not look at the UK.
That's what I was doing above, making fun of these idiots.
It was unclear which model you yourself preferred so hard to pick up on which ones you were mocking. But my original comment was simply trying to correct the mistake about the nature of the UK system.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2017-07-28 07:37 pm (UTC)As far as I am aware there are no other advanced western countries that have access as poor as the US, but most people in the UK assume that every other country is like the US and that there is only the binary choice between the two systems - there isn't, there are many other better alternatives to both our systems.
Beyond the simplistic issue of access there are complex issues about how health care is funded, about how it is supplied and managed and about how it is rationed. The NHS has a different set of answers to all those questions than practically every other country, and those answers are outdated and inflexible which is why so many aspects of it are so bad. In one or two areas it is better than other countries, but those advantages seldom outweigh the disadvantages. Theoretical access may be good but that is irrelevant if the rationing system results in poor outcomes, and regardless of what you have read, access is by no means universal. Conditions range from horrible to horrific, staff morale is at rock bottom, and the number of avoidable deaths is truly frightening. But the population still prefer blissful ignorance and a rose tinted belief that the NHS is the pride of the world rather than acknowledge to themselves that the system is flawed. Even when the evidence is flung in their faces they somehow manage to ignore it. I sometimes feel like I am the only person with my eyes open (although there are of course plenty of others).
It isn't a health insurance plan. That was actually my original point - there is no insurance, there is no pot of money saved up for each person, it is called National Insurance but the name is a lie, it is paid for entirely out of current taxation. It is a ponzi scheme. That is part of what makes it such a structurally disastrous system that will always be underfunded. Anyone in the US who wishes to copy our system needs to understand that and understand why it is such a bad idea. There are several much better ways to fund universal access - look at almost any other country for examples, but for heaven's sake do not look at the UK.
It was unclear which model you yourself preferred so hard to pick up on which ones you were mocking. But my original comment was simply trying to correct the mistake about the nature of the UK system.