I can go anywhere.

I have NEVER heard of any US doctor office making appointments based upon what insurance you have...and making Gov't health plan wait longer. I have Medicare and don't wait any longer for an appointment then someone with private insurance. Something tells me this practice wouldn't even be legal (discrimination).

I think that some doctors limit the number of Medicade patients they see, so in that case one might wait longer, but I don't think it's the way you described above.

Hi Neuroproblem,

I do not wish to seem to disagree on the Forums, but I must ask where you get your information from? You state that "the NHS has horrible service". We have JUST had a General Election here where the Care/Protection of the NHS was a major Policy. Millions of us voted for those we think will best protect this great Institution. Would we bother to fight, would our Politicians campaign, if it was "Horrible"?

Your Quote:
even if you have insurance here in the states, the type of medical facility you can go to is determined by the policy of your insurance.
Quote.

What a terrible way to live, I have seen this portrayed on tv - No Insurance/Wrong Insurance, ship them out asap.

Here, I can go to ANY NHS Hospital in the Country for emergency and continuous care, then be transferred to an Hospital near my home if condition and space allow. If I, or my GP, chooses I can be referred to ANY Consultant or Clinic from Land's End to John O'Groat's. If I am away on holiday (I wish) and have a non-emergency illness, I can access a local GP.

There is also the non-emergency NHS111 phone number, where you can access a Nurse Practitioner on callback within a few hours. They can give advice, diagnose, accelerate the call to a Doctor, alert a Paramedic/Ambulance (also free on the NHS). This is available 24/7, 365 days a year.

Many Private Hospitals/Clinics now bid to perform NHS treatments. I have this with my Lidocaine Infusions, a local Private Hospital carries out the procedure under the NHS, freeing up money, space and personnel for other things. Would the Private Sector bother trying to outbid Inhouse Clinics if the NHS was bad?

Further, because of the NHS, and reciprocal agreements, if I am travelling in the European Union and become ill or have an accident I can use local Healthcare as I use the NHS.

You say that those on Welfare are entitled to free care (at selected Hospitals and Clinics), well that means Tax dollars are already being spent on Healthcare. From the figures I have seen on the Forums of Member's Insurance Premiums and Prescription Costs, I can guarantee the NHS costs less per head than your system. And Service/Treatments are on a par - if not better, my Local Politician doesn't tell me what I can take for my severely painful conditions. The two BEST Oncology Centres in the Country, Liverpool and Castle Hill, are NHS. I was lucky enough to have my ongoing treatment and checkups at Castle Hill.

You say you access Welfare Healthcare, so you have to wait? Here, you would be treated equally if you were a millionaire using the NHS. It is not about status or money, it is about need and being human.

From Psychiatry to Podiatry the NHS looks after all equally. Sure, there are failures (but Neuros are all over the World), and there is waste. There are treatments I would not provide and charges I would levy. There is a drive for fewer Managers and more Consultants/Doctors in charge of everything - I would increase this and accelerate the process. I do not think an 18 week wait for a Consultant appt is excessive. Of course, Cancers and the like are MUCH quicker, and emergencies are near instantaneous.

What would YOU expect from the NHS?

Dave

Kitt and en bloc,

Thanks for that, I have to compose externally and copy/paste across.

I always thought this portrayal heartless, and done for effect. Stabilize the emergency patient, then ship them to another Hospital!

I would still much rather live with my NHS, it has saved my life, physically and mentally, more than once - we have a Bond.

Dave.

Dave and others
Couldn't agree more about the benefits of public health system. Having lived under both the US and NZ health systems (also sampled UK & Aust.) I've experienced the differences first-hand. In terms of quality of care - in most situations there is little difference between the two systems. In terms of cost to patient the public system wins hands down - the costs are shared by the whole population. Private unaffordable medical access just adds to misery and restricts patient care for low income. The major difference seems to be in timely access for non-urgent treatment.

As a brief example of the cost difference - 1990's in California, a co-worker had a hand injury - 4 stitches $400.00 US. A few years later back in NZ I had a very similar injury - 6 stitches $16.00 NZ (under our Accident Compensation scheme this was my co-pay). I was frequently told part of the high medical costs in the US is due to legal liability insurance which is part of all medical billing. This additional expense is not a major portion of health costs under public systems.

…And then this evening we have this in Newsbot's stories:

http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/thread220119.html

Theft from employees/employers by Medical Insurers. Where there is one…

Dave.

Just for giggles, I'll mention the state of my medical insurance here.

Monthly premium: $296
Annual Deductible: $5500

For my $3600 a year, I get an annual physical with blood work and an annual gyn visit with mammo and pap smear. Oh, and of course I'm also charged less by docs because I come in with insurance.

Beyond that, I have to pay $5500 out of pocket before my insurance will start covering anything.

Janieg,

Come join us - it is so much easier over here

Dave.

Yes thats how insurance in the states are managed, and these is one of the main problem with our system. before i turned 26, i was under my family insurance plan with an HMO(health management organization, with a group called Kaiser), Basically they only allow you to see doctors that are from kaiser, hospitals,medicines are only from kaiser and not out of network doctors, let say from another insurance group.
Then there are some insurance in our country, depending on what region you are in. The insurance may or may not cover some procedures,medication, treatment, hospital visits, or they only cover part of it. It depends how much preniums you are paying.
Some services i heard were very poor the: the insurance drops your network doctors, or other services and they never tell you.
Without insurance, unless you are under a government plan or homeless, you are stuck with whatever bill the hospital charges you with.
a few years ago i read a magazine, TIME, on the cost of using private hosptial equipment, Using a few gauzes, or having an interpreting read you a result will cost you several hundred dollars alone.
Furthermore, most people wont seek medical care, because its too expensive or it makes them look weak, when they do get sick they end up paying alot because thier disease or symptom have become chronic or an emergency. The wait time for government based healthplan is considerabally long. I havnt looked at MEDICARE system, but i thought it was an insurance based format.

Insurance here in the states like thier system: have alot of healthy young people who are not chronically ill, or go to the doctors frequently, while paying thier preniums/deductibles monthly or yearly. This way they have a profit and be able to cover the cost of people who have chronic diseases:cancer, HIV,autoimmune diseases, diabetes, obesity.
Most of our tax money goes to the government, and a large part goes to "defense" as in the military and country security. Taxs dollars practically pays for the healthcare (100%) of the military and you know how big our military is, about more than 1million people are in there, and 10s of thousands ready to join each year.
The cost is the biggest issue for healthcare in the USA. You would think better technologies and techniques would lower a cost, but is exploited for profit instead. Private hospitals can charge alot more than public ones.

Kaiser only represents less then 3% of the population and one of very few (if not the only) plan that requires you to use ONLY their facilities. Many plans (including HMO's) have a list of network providers to chose from in your area, whereas others allow you to see who you want.

English Dave,

This is not a adequate representation of US healthcare. I'm not saying it's great...it has many flaws, but it certainly isn't as neuroproblem portrays for most Americans.

I would definitely say the NHS is more cost effective and less expensive for people overall, but the wait times are far greater then here for services in many cases (according to people posting). But I assume that once you are 'in the system' with a certain doctor, that you can get appts more easily...as it is here.

There are pros & cons to both systems...as there is to everything in life.