UK: Patients forced to live in agony

[auditor0007]

I suggest anyone interested in how UK subjects view their NHS visit a message board in the UK. I have and asked those who live in the UK how they feel about the NHS. The responses were 100% in support. Of course there were and are problems, but each response I received supported their system and condemned our profit driven system.

I'm not sure that most Brits can comment with authority on the U.S system without experiencing it personally. Both systems have their good and bad points.

What is interesting is that while the British system has it's problems, its costs are so low in comparison to ours that many of its problems could be addressed with additional funding. And this additional funding would leave them still paying much less than we do. And because there system is set up as a one payer system, any additional funding would go directly to healthcare whereas for every dollar extra that we spend, only $.65 to $.70 of every dollar goes directly to healthcare while the rest goes to administrative costs.

Because our system is already unrealistically expensive, trying to improve it will only make things worse without a complete overhaul of the entire system.

 

[tigerbob]

I suggest anyone interested in how UK subjects view their NHS visit a message board in the UK. I have and asked those who live in the UK how they feel about the NHS. The responses were 100% in support. Of course there were and are problems, but each response I received supported their system and condemned our profit driven system.

I'm not sure that most Brits can comment with authority on the U.S system without experiencing it personally. Both systems have their good and bad points.

What is interesting is that while the British system has it's problems, its costs are so low in comparison to ours that many of its problems could be addressed with additional funding. And this additional funding would leave them still paying much less than we do. And because there system is set up as a one payer system, any additional funding would go directly to healthcare whereas for every dollar extra that we spend, only $.65 to $.70 of every dollar goes directly to healthcare while the rest goes to administrative costs.

Because our system is already unrealistically expensive, trying to improve it will only make things worse without a complete overhaul of the entire system.

I agree the US system needs to be overhauled. Strange thing is that, despite the "low cost" of the NHS, British taxes are already higher than almost any other Western democracy, leaving little room for maneuver. When more money is pumped in, it is inevitably followed by stories in the press about the scandalous way it is being spent.

BBC NEWS | Health | Billions for the NHS

NHS spending has gone through the roof since the early 2000s (see link), but this very thread is about cutbacks. Why? Much of the money has gone into management, consultancy, and 'housekeeping' issues such as achieving Government targets, not into front line medicine. In addition, much of the promised investment is double counted (already announced, then announced again, giving the impression of twice the level of investment). It really is quite scandalous. But then, the terms "scandal" and "NHS finances" are old friends.

 

[Coyote]

poor old bobo pig.

Well....looks like you're another one of them that can't take what they like to dish out. Poor baby.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure that most Brits can comment with authority on the U.S system without experiencing it personally. Both systems have their good and bad points.

What is interesting is that while the British system has it's problems, its costs are so low in comparison to ours that many of its problems could be addressed with additional funding. And this additional funding would leave them still paying much less than we do. And because there system is set up as a one payer system, any additional funding would go directly to healthcare whereas for every dollar extra that we spend, only $.65 to $.70 of every dollar goes directly to healthcare while the rest goes to administrative costs.

Because our system is already unrealistically expensive, trying to improve it will only make things worse without a complete overhaul of the entire system.

I agree the US system needs to be overhauled. Strange thing is that, despite the "low cost" of the NHS, British taxes are already higher than almost any other Western democracy, leaving little room for maneuver. When more money is pumped in, it is inevitably followed by stories in the press about the scandalous way it is being spent.

BBC NEWS | Health | Billions for the NHS

NHS spending has gone through the roof since the early 2000s (see link), but this very thread is about cutbacks. Why? Much of the money has gone into management, consultancy, and 'housekeeping' issues such as achieving Government targets, not into front line medicine. In addition, much of the promised investment is double counted (already announced, then announced again, giving the impression of twice the level of investment). It really is quite scandalous. But then, the terms "scandal" and "NHS finances" are old friends.

But isn't that much the same with the money that currently goes to private insurance through our premiums? What does that pay for? So, whether it's through taxes or premiums - there isn't much of a difference is there?

 

[tigerbob]

What is interesting is that while the British system has it's problems, its costs are so low in comparison to ours that many of its problems could be addressed with additional funding. And this additional funding would leave them still paying much less than we do. And because there system is set up as a one payer system, any additional funding would go directly to healthcare whereas for every dollar extra that we spend, only $.65 to $.70 of every dollar goes directly to healthcare while the rest goes to administrative costs.

Because our system is already unrealistically expensive, trying to improve it will only make things worse without a complete overhaul of the entire system.

I agree the US system needs to be overhauled. Strange thing is that, despite the "low cost" of the NHS, British taxes are already higher than almost any other Western democracy, leaving little room for maneuver. When more money is pumped in, it is inevitably followed by stories in the press about the scandalous way it is being spent.

BBC NEWS | Health | Billions for the NHS

NHS spending has gone through the roof since the early 2000s (see link), but this very thread is about cutbacks. Why? Much of the money has gone into management, consultancy, and 'housekeeping' issues such as achieving Government targets, not into front line medicine. In addition, much of the promised investment is double counted (already announced, then announced again, giving the impression of twice the level of investment). It really is quite scandalous. But then, the terms "scandal" and "NHS finances" are old friends.

But isn't that much the same with the money that currently goes to private insurance through our premiums? What does that pay for? So, whether it's through taxes or premiums - there isn't much of a difference is there?

Yes, it is much the same - one of the reasons the issue is so fraught with problems.

 

[Wry Catcher]

By JESSICA GRESKO, Associated Press Writer Jessica Gresko, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 32 mins ago
MIAMI – The U.S. government and Swiss banking giant UBS AG have reached an agreement in a case seeking names of some 52,000 suspected American tax evaders with billions in secret Swiss accounts, but details may remain under wraps until next week, officials said.

GOOD! I hope fines, interest payments and penalties as well as restitution to law enforcement are included along with JAIL.

 

[veritas]

By JESSICA GRESKO, Associated Press Writer Jessica Gresko, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 32 mins ago
MIAMI – The U.S. government and Swiss banking giant UBS AG have reached an agreement in a case seeking names of some 52,000 suspected American tax evaders with billions in secret Swiss accounts, but details may remain under wraps until next week, officials said.

GOOD! I hope fines, interest payments and penalties as well as restitution to law enforcement are included along with JAIL.

???? that is good to know....but is it EMPIRIC?!

Empiric treatment is specifically for treating infections with antibiotics. Throw the heavy duty broad spectrum hammer at it and then go do the microscope deal and find out exactly what you are looking for and then tailor the antibiotics for that particular organism.

This would be an acute situation. Chronic back pain would not. I suppose most low level antibiotic treatments are empiric. I don't remember my dentist culturing my infection before a root canal, she just handed me some tablets of penicillin and a cup of water and a scrip for a week's regimen of the same. Using Neosporin on your boo boo is empiric.