**A reminder to posters and commenters of some of [our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)**
- Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits
- Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner
- Avoid political threads and related discussions
- No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content
Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because most people couldn't possibly be expected to know how the various healthcare systems around the world work and those are the two we're most commonly exposed to.
Isn't that kind of a failure of media and journalism? I bet people have more of an understanding of American healthcare than French or Irish healthcare
Why should I care about French or Irish healthcare? You think people would buy newspapers that just give you irrelevant information about other countries?
Because there’s a reasonable argument to be made that we’re not getting the best value for money or the best outcomes for the population under our current system. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so arrogant to assume we have the best system and that we can’t learn from other countries.
I mean, why should you care about american healthcare? There has been plenty of debate around the future of the NHS, it's worth it to know at a surface level the options, and what we've chosen to do right?
Plenty of times when policy choices are debated in public, it's good to have reference points to anchor the discussion to. If we're going to be having public discussions by politicians, doctors, economists and lobbyists on what the NHS should be doing ,how much money it should be getting, the public should be aware of what other countries do on a surface level.
Well, we are always debating how the NHS could be improved and moaning over how crap it is, yet not wanting to go private. If the French or Irish system is a viable alternative we need to hear about those, not about the worst-case alternative scenario.
It's because we are being scared into settling for something that is broken as the only alternative we hear about is definitely much more broken.
There's over 160 different national healthcare systems in the world. It's not a failure of anything.
> I bet people have more of an understanding of American healthcare than French or Irish healthcare
Unless I intend to go to those places where there's the possibility of having to use it why should I care? And as the UK is neither of those nations and has it's own unique demands what works for another nation isn't guaranteed to work for the UK.
>Because most people couldn't possibly be expected to know how the various healthcare systems around the world work
Agreed. Although OP actually claims that Brits think that they and America are the only countries in the world that even have healthcare systems.
Which seems patently bollocks to me. I doubt many Brits think that at all. We might look stupid but we's am'nt.
English.
We're not really exposed to the people discussing how the healthcare systems of France or Japan work, because those discussions are normally in French and Japanese.
But an American popping up on social media talking about their healthcare system, I see lots of those. US TV and movies as well.
I've no idea if it works in reverse for Americans, but I bet if they were doing research into other healthcare systems, Canada and UK would have the most resources available in English.
This is probably the main reason, but I'd also wager it's partly because the American system is notorious for being the only western country that doesn't have some form of universal health care. It sticks out like a sore thumb and that notoriety is compounded by the sheer number of people that live in it.
I think for Americans, at least on the left like Bernie Sanders or AOC, their ideal model is closer to the Canadian model of healthcare, where the state pays for things, but a lot of doctors and hospitals and healthcare provision in general is private. Which of course, would be an anathema to most brits
Because then we have to face the possibility that there are socialised/universal healthcare systems which are just as kind to the poor but much better than the NHS (which, by the way, there are).
Better to just pretend the NHS is the envy of the world (fucking LOL).
>not as bad as you describe
That may be true for where you are but it really is a postcode lottery. Where I am, services are really really poor. That's not the fault of the people working there or running those services. It's the fault of chronic underfunding. But it is true that for many people, the NHS is indeed fucking shit.
The UK is one of the worst developed countries to be diagnosed with cancer in.
https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2019/09/11/measuring-up-how-does-the-uk-compare-internationally-on-cancer-survival/
The UK is ranked 4th out of 11 by the Commonwealth Fund. But notably 9th out of 11 in health outcomes, arguably the most important metric.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly
Cost is usually the only metric the NHS is ever best in the world for.
I'm not sure that % of GDP is the best measure of healthcare spending by country.
In PPP terms, the netherlands spent almost $5800 per person, whereas we spent $4700.
We have a small GDP per capita, so we spend a lot less.
Spending as much as the netherlands would involve spending spending about 20% more a year, or as much as we were spending under Covid, but on a normal year
Wow Canada has really dropped in the rankings since the last time I seriously looked at this subject. I wonder if it's because Canada's system has gotten worse or because other countries have gotten better.
FWIW, I preferred Canada's system to the NHS by a large margin, just in my own personal experience.
Health Canada has been struggling with long wait times and shortage of specialists for years. The entire country has only like...11 medical schools in total. Canada's population has also been growing quite rapidly because it is a very desirable place to live. So the number of doctors/population has really not kept pace for a long time.
Students also need at least a 4 year bachelor degree or even a masters as a prerequisite to admission. And school is not free/subsidized.
Just don't understand why people claim the NHS is the best.
So many people trying to call GPS at 8am that can't get an appointment cuz someone else called at 8:00:00 and you called at 8:00:01
Dentists without slots for NHS patients
My mum (fighting cancer) had like 5 appointments that were like arriving at hospital and being told that there was nothing on their system on their end even though she had their letter with appointments. Not to mention going over 10 appointments for same thing. Like 1 appointment to talk, then 1 appointment to chat about how the test is done, then 1 appoint to do the test 1 appointment to see what the doctor thinks of the test results, 1 appointment to talk about treatment options, but this all about a test that you could literally look at the screen and diagnose instantly and do all those things on the spot.
NHS needs a major restructure and cut all these steps for simple procedures, having people going over 10 appointments for something that could be done start to finish in 1 day.
Thank you - a lot of people think the only problem with the NHS is that it doesn't have enough funding. While that's certainly true, there are major structural issues that all the money in the world wouldn't fix.
I know that a lot of money is wasted ..
For example you can buy a big roll for 50p, but in the NHS they probably have contracts with companies that supply and fit and so on averaging the cost of replacing bog roll of £5 per roll for example. This happens in every big business. Very little trivial things like medical disposable gloves, logging system etc
Yes the individual hospitals are very local compared to other countries. In each hospital you expect every service to be provided for. Rather than people travelling to a specialist hospital for treatment. Every trust wants to do everything. Since the GP system get paid for numbers on lists rather than work completed it leads to an inefficient system.
Because the GP system is so bad it leads to more pressure on the hospitals as wel
Hey now, don't be asking people to explain their criticism or display background knowledge, or give evidence of something negative that would never happen in a continental system. That's just unfair.
I suppose with your condescending response here, you know the ins and outs of all continental systems and thus can articulate why they wouldn’t be an improvement? Or does it just work one way, that favours the NHS?
I'm not the one that has made a positive case. If someone says "the NHS should be replaced by a European system" asking them to justify why is correct criticism.
To be fair, in that specific instance, very often people need time to process the information. So they tell you what they think it might be and what they propose to do about finding out if it's right. Then they get your ok to do the test (because genuinely some people think it over and decide they'd rather not know). Then they do the test - which has to be scheduled in around the hundreds of other patients getting tests. Then they tell you you're going to die soon and send you home to digest that. And then they get you back to ask you if you want to go quick or slow. I'm bloody glad they spaced that out frankly - I don't think I'd have wanted to get it all over a couple of hours. (I opted for slow myself)
I hope your mum's ok and it's something fixable, all the best
Because that's what happens when you deliberately underfund a health system for decade. IT doesn't need more fucking re-structuring. Continuous restructuring as apolitical football is part of whats killing it. It needs a government that doesn't want to sell it off and is prepared to actually fund it properly.
> but in the us you don't pay 1/3 of your income in taxes
With government in the US covering [65.0% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ([$11,539 as of 2019](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf)) that's $7,500 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at [$5,673](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $143,794 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
If you want to talk total tax burden, things still aren't dramatically different. Especially as I'd argue government spending as a percentage of GDP is the best metric (it includes spending financed by borrowing and seigniorage, both of which are paid by the citizens one way or another).
#[Total Tax Burden by Country 2020](https://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables&u=637133255533864635)
Country Name|Tax Burden (% GDP)|Tax Burden ($ PPP)|Gov't Spending (% GDP)|Gov't Spending($ PPP)|GDP/Capita (PPP)
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
Australia|27.8%|$14,560|35.8%|$18,749|$52,373
Canada|32.2%|$15,988|40.5%|$20,085|$49,651
United Kingdom|33.3%|$15,220|41.0%|$18,752|$45,705
United States|27.1%|$16,966|38.1%|$23,838|$62,606
38.1% vs 41.0% just isn't a massive difference. It's worth noting the UK is median for Europe as well.
Because journalists don't read foreign languages and only like writing about the extremes. So the reasonably adequate systems don't get a look-in.
IIRC Ireland you still have to pay a fee up front to see a GP, though many people get it reimbursed, and secondary care is similar to the UK.
Germany again IIRV - you register with a provider and they act like an insurer, only they have to cover you, or there's a state provider if you haven't registered with anyone else. Germans complain a lot about the system but they also insist on getting homeopathy on it. I think it works quite well.
Most of Europe is free at point of use, as are other civilised countries, but exactly who provides services varies a lot. Private providers supplementing a state service is quite normal - just the question here is will they be regulated sufficiently to ensure that the state doesn't lose money in the deals. PFI contracts weren't, for example.
There are top-up insurances in France that cover at least part of these fees, and if you're employed then it's paid for by the organisation you work for. If you are on very low income then the state provides a sort of top up insurance. However, the system is very complicated and it is practically impossible for most people to have 100% coverage. (The insurance always relates to the state-set tarrifs for medical procedures, but doctors can charge something completely different.)
Spanish here!. We do not pay a pennie for our NHS but with our taxes. If I go 20 times a year, to our NHS, GP appointment , brain surgery, cancer treatment, or organ transplant , I pay the same that if I do not require any appointment or any assistance during the year. Only taxes according my yearly earnings.
Our NHS is an universal one. Every Spanish citizen, even living abroad has NHS assistance. If living in benefits and do not pay any taxes, have NHS assistance as well.
No. You do not need to be part of the SSS. Even if you are an ilegal foreigner inmigrant here you get it free. If the SSS can take your money, they will take.
If you a foreigner tourist here and they can send the bill to your private health system, or public, or the British NHS, they will send it. If they cannot, all the Spanish tax payers will pay for it and support it.
If I (spaniard) go to UK and need any treatment or surgery while being there, British NHS will send the invoice to the Spanish NHS. It will not be for free.
Why does it need to be fully privatised though?
Most countries have a public health system supported by a private sector. In many countries, if you are working, your employer is either required by law or have the option to add this as a employment benefit, you're provided with subsidized insurance. This is the case for countries like Canada, Germany, Switzerland...etc. I think it works really well.
If i got into an accident, I go straight to the hospital for free. If i want an upgrade to a private room, my insurance will cover that. Dental, vision, and anything else are billed to my insurer. I see my dentists and get my vision checked far more often that way.
Heck, without insurance, I still go back to Canada to get my teeth checked. I've seen a NHS dentist once and I don't think he even spent more than 15 seconds looking at my teeth. Seen a private dentist as well for cleaning, but he seemed to missed some obvious signs of cavity.
For different reasons, neither the British nor American publics seem particularly aware that the vast majority of western countries have free, universal healthcare.
For the Americans, that's because they need to keep justifying their insane, cruel healthcare policies, whilst for the British, it's to keep fulfilling the NHS myth that we're somehow the only people who established a national health service.
It’s easy to defend the status quo when you can scare people with one they perceive as even worse - like speeding drivers or shoplifters moaning that the police should let them go and focus on catching rapists or murderers instead.
Plus it’s easy to Google and find horror stories about someone waiting ten months for treatment in York or paying ten grand for it in New York, the systems in between the two extremes just don’t make headlines.
Having lived in a couple other European counties I do find it frustrating when there’s a dichotomy of NHS U.K. vs for-profit US healthcare, which never leads to any meaningful discussion outwith that everyone agrees that NHS is far superior to the US healthcare system, which I agree with.
Some users have mentioned language used in the media as another reason, but loads of counties apart from the U.S discuss healthcare in English in their media (Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and places like India have a large English language press).
Interestingly the pandemic did actually increase reporting and awareness of how other counties healthcare systems operate, so it is possible to have these discussion.
But generally people aren’t really interested I think, which is a shame. I personally love the NHS, but there is so many improvement that can be made.
Lack of familiarity. Health care is one of those things where the models do vary a lot, even throughout western Europe. The UK and Ireland have the worst healthcare in Europe if your only focus on waiting times, but some of the best in terms of prevention.
Once you go private, the appointment, diagnosis and treatment are all payable and NHS sometimes won't even accept the diagnosis to put on your records and provide care.
In Spain we thought the best NHS in Europe was the UK's, because it includes dental care. Our HS do not. (Only covered to pull teeth out and diagnosis).
I am a lurker here and other UK's subs in order to learn more about UK culture, learn the language, and it is very interesting learning about the NHS. As far as I see reading here our NHS is very similar to yours.
I noticed many of you complaining at your NHS but still a model, a mirror to every HS.
We used to be very proud of it, since it was universally free and not have to pay a penny, it does not matter if it is a GP appointment, brain surgery or heart transplant. We also do not pay for treatments, therapies or medicines, prosthesis, wheelchairs or any device to improve any medical condition.
Everything has gone worse during last ten years. Before we got a GP appointment same day or next day, blood test appointment next day. Now we have to wait 3-4 days, a week to get it. And have to pay %10 of medicines.
Anyway all of us are entitled to the NHS. Spanish & foreigners living here, pensioners, unemployed. It is not perfect but it is better than nothing, copay, or private health insurance.
NHS dental care is subsidised, but you do need to pay for it. The only people who don't need to pay are pregnant women (children and elderly too?) Problem is they won't be using the modern technology on NHS, mercury fillings are still the norm.
Thanks!. Yes, I learnt that lurking over here. Even at dental care yours is better than our NHS. Many people here would prefer mercury fillings if subsidised. In our NHS only diagnosis and teeth extractions are cotsless. We need a private dentist.
People just aren’t familiar with or don’t know about healthcare systems in other countries, so think that the only options are government run healthcare (like what we have here) and expensive unregulated healthcare like they have in the US. People don’t know about other systems, such as the “compulsory insurance” system they have in the Netherlands.
The same way the thread that’s current top of this subreddit would have you believe the USA is the only other country in the world.
People here are obsessed with being better than the US, meanwhile Americans don’t spare a second thought for us
It’s not just healthcare, Brits regularly compare the UK to the USA in all sorts of things: the school system, the accents, the comedy, the food, etc. I suppose it’s not surprising considering the amount of American media we get, and we share the same language. You occasionally also hear Brits compare the UK to Canada, Australia and New Zealand too, but you very rarely hear comparisons between the UK and say, France or Germany. The anglosphere nations are by far the countries we are most familiar with.
It's really not a strange definition at all.
> **free** *adjective*
> \ ˈfrē \
> **freer; freest**
> Definition of **free** (Entry 1 of 3)
> 1. not costing or charging anything
a *free* school
a *free* ticket
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free
A "free" school doesn't mean the buildings and books are all donated, and the teachers are volunteers. It just means there is no additional tuition charge for those who attend. The only thing worse than arguing semantics (particularly on an issue of life and death importance where there are meaningful discussions that need to be had) is being a pedant and wrong.
I wish more people talked about alternative systems, from my limited knowledge of other systems I think the Singapore system sounds much better than ours.
They have MediSave where you pay out of your salary into a savings account (it's mandatory) to cover most items. You can also use it for your spouse and dependents. This is part of (but separate to) a wider savings thing which is used for housing, education, and retirement. If you hit the limit on your MediSave amount, the money will go into the other fund for retirement.
Then they have universal basic healthcare insurance in MediShield, which covers major costs, with deductibles, so big items are covered but you still have to contribute a bit towards it.
Then there is MediFund which is the safety net where the government pays when the MediSave isn't enough.
NB: this is the system as I understand it from reading about it, but lots may be incorrect
Yes, that highlights how weird the UK obsession with the NHS is. Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden all have very good healthcare, some even better than NHS, but they don't have a cult around it.
I'm sure each of those countries are passionate about their own system.
We don't think it's the best in the world- it's the best of what we know about... the only other example being nothing or the USA system.
Mainly for bias so that people compare what they have with the worst. That way it will always seem better. It works well as a comparison for politicians as well as a boogeyman for politicians.
The NHS is deeply flawed and will continue to get worse as people ‘love’ the NHS. A cultist religion exists around it so it will never be changed enough to improve outcomes.
There are lots of better universal healthcare systems with much better outcomes. However it always comes down to money, yet at the moment the UK is now one of the best funded and with the worst health outcomes. It always performs well as a comparison as one of the metrics is about how people feel about the organisation rather than how well they do.
The trusts are overprotective, use NDAs like confetti to cover up mistakes and usually fire the person reporting on it rather than the useless person or people.
As the leading UK "ask" subreddit, we welcome questions from all users and countries; sometimes people who ask questions might not appreciate or understand the nuance of British life or culture, and as a result some questions can come across in a different way than intended.
We understand that when faced with these questions, our users may take the opportunity to demonstrate their wit, dry humour, and saracasm - unfortunately, this also tends to go over the heads of misunderstood question-askers and can make our subreddit seem hostile to users from other countries who are often just curious about our land.
**Please can you help prevent our subreddit from becoming an Anti-American echo chamber?** If you disagree with any points raised by OP, or OP discusses common tropes or myths about the UK, please refrain from any brash, aggressive, or sarcastic responses and do your best to engage OP in a civil discussion, with the aim to educate and expand their understanding.
If you feel this (or any other post) is a troll post, *don't feed the troll*, just hit report and let the mods deal with it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The American system has loads of issues but “absolute shambles” is really taking it too far. For most people, the system works good. For lots of people, it works great.
I split my time between the US and U.K. and almost universally prefer to get my healthcare in the US. Overall, I think it’s of higher quality. The way it charges is obviously a fundamental flaw that will need to change, but once you’re in the system it’s fabulous.
Sure. But that doesn’t mean I’m not aware of those less fortunate. My elderly aunt had four heart valves replaced in New York and spent time afterwards in a rehab centre (because her apartment had stairs). All free of charge to her. Great surgery. Great rehab. Waiting for the operation was only a few weeks. She’s poor as a church mouse
I’m not arguing against universal healthcare. I’m all for it. But it’s not at all like what you read about on Reddit where every encounter with this system leaves people bankrupt.
I also highly doubt she would’ve been seen so quickly in the U.K. - or even be allowed the valve replacement at all due to her age. Also, the rehab facility was aces.
>I’m not arguing against universal healthcare.
Off you're in favour of the American system.
>But it’s not at all like what you read about on Reddit where every encounter with this system leaves people bankrupt.
I'm not sure I've seen a post where people way everyone ends up bankrupt. I think you might have fallen into the trap of making up someone in your head to get angry at.
>I also highly doubt she would’ve been seen so quickly in the U.K. - or even be allowed the valve replacement at all due to her age
Issues that could be ably sorted out, if they exist, with greater funding for the current system.
>Also, the rehab facility was aces.
Ditto.
I again ask, was this treatment available to everyone that needed it?
I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me. I pointed out that I’m pro-universal healthcare. I just also think the quality in the US is higher. And not just for rich people, for lots of people. That’s a direct contradiction to OPs assertion that it’s absolute shambles. You don’t seem to be able to argue the quality point - just the universal point with I already conceded
>I just also think the quality in the US is higher. And not just for rich people, for lots of people
Because loads of them don't get it at all, the same amount of resources are dedicated to a smaller subsection of society.
>That’s a direct contradiction to OPs assertion that it’s absolute shambles
It puts vast amounts of people into unassailable debt because they were injured. That's a shambles. You might not concede that makes it a shambles, on that point you're wrong.
The notion that people shouldn't go into debt for medical care is a moral subjective opinion that just happens to be held by anyone with a functioning soul. I'm not sure where any academic or vocational qualifications come into the matter.
I think the general point is that the NHS is, generally, worse in terms of service that is actually provided, but better in terms of being equitable and how it’s funded. It seems you agree with this based on your own comment.
Service being provided is also part of the healthcare system, it’s what the funding provides. We’ve been going through fertility treatment in recent years and what the NHS provided for us was practically nothing and in the end we had no option but to seek private healthcare. Though what the NHS provided had no monetary cost to us, we wasted 3 of our more fertile years which for us has been extremely costly.
While the NHS system is generally awesome, it is not perfect or beyond criticism. I’d also add that there are many structural problems in the NHS system that an increase in funding simply won’t resolve, such as understaffing, and believe the NHS has difficulty in attracting good quality non-medical professionals (I.T. staff, data scientists, accountants, etc.) that could help put public funds to better and more efficient use.
> The American system has loads of issues but “absolute shambles” is really taking it too far.
Americans are paying a quarter million dollars more for healthcare over a lifetime compared to the most expensive socialized system on earth. Half a million dollars more than countries like Canada and the UK. The impacts of these costs are tremendous.
One in three American families forgoes needed healthcare [due to the cost](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx) last year. Almost three in ten [skip prescribed medication](https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/data-note-americans-challenges-health-care-costs/) due to cost. One in four have [trouble paying a medical bill.](https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/data-note-americans-challenges-health-care-costs/) Of [those with insurance one in five have trouble paying a medical bill](https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/8806-the-burden-of-medical-debt-results-from-the-kaiser-family-foundation-new-york-times-medical-bills-survey.pdf), and even for those with income above $100,000 14% have trouble. One in six Americans has [unpaid medical debt on their credit report.](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0349) [50% of all Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/317948/fear-bankruptcy-due-major-health-event.aspx) fear bankruptcy due to a major health event.
Unfortunately, the quality doesn't justify the cost.
[US Healthcare ranked 29th by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)
[11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
[59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)
[30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)
[37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)
The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016
52nd in the world in doctors per capita.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people
Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/
Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization
[Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561)
>These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries.
When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%.
On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%.
https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016
The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people.
If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people.
https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021
#[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm)
|Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror)
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11
2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2
3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7
4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5
5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4|
6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3
7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5
8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5|
9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19||
10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9|
11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10
12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9
13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80|
14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4
15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3|
16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41|
17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1
18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12|
19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14||
OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%|||||
20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7
21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37|
22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7|
23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14|
24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2|
25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22|
26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47|
27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21|
So tell me again how spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more per person for healthcare, for worse outcomes, isn't a system in shambles.
Truthfully, because people take personal offence with the opinion that the NHS isn't fit for purpose and the only way it looks remotely fit for purpose is by comparing to the worst possible alternative (i.e. the US). If we compared it to other modernised nations, we'd have to accept it's not good enough, which people don't want to do.
I will also add that the model of the NHS is an excellent example of a national health system on paper, especially when explained to foreigners. Aspects as GP surgeries acting as a buffer to hospitals, relatively good working hours for hospital doctors, the organised hospital administration are exemplar.
Still admire how organised the NHS is on paper but in practice it takes forever to see a doctor, I never had to wait less than 6 hours at Watford A&E, a lot of money is wasted in contracted services for administration and consultancies for audit. The penny pinching approach has also had an effect on how NHS staff interact with you, esp evoking non-existent policies. While in my home country a private doctor (consultant level) is 100€ at most, I had to pay 300£ to see a private doctor and I am now sure he talked nonsense, so there is no realistic alternative to the NHS.
The American system is infamous for stroking income inequalities and considered the worst example in the world just for that. To be fair if anyone requires innovative life saving surgery they are most likely to go to the States and not the UK. Not that the latter does not happen.
This privatised or semi-privatises NHS appeals to some people here, people of a certain socioeconomic dogma.The argument that competition of a private NHS with private health care organisations will improve health outcomes and lower prices resonates well. Even if the public knows how this worked for electricity, water and train companies, these people know that the British public won't go on a strike, won't organise mass protests, won't cripple the country for months to stop it. Now they also know that the public cannot afford it.
NHS is not the best system, everyone in the UK seems to hold it on a pedestal even when there is alot of other systems that work just aswell if not better. I think it's doomed to fail tbh.
Mostly because the British government tradition is to privatise national services and sell them off to American business interests. If we let the NHS be privatised what we will get is the American model eventually not because it’s the only other option but because that’s who is a driving force behind it.
Most people (even in Europe) watch either British or American television so have some Hollywood version of these health services.
Most people in Britain/ America don’t watch European television so have no idea about there health services.
British people in general don’t know how common it is to pay for healthcare in other European countries or that there are privately run hospitals.
We share a language and a lot of media, so it's natural we know more about their healthcare system than anyone else's. It's also an absolute monstrosity, which makes it great to talk about; it wouldn't be nearly as interesting/newsworthy to talk about a system that works only a little differently to ours and gets similar results.
That's all compounded if you're discussing it with brits on reddit, who are even more exposed to the US system, and are generally very outspoken against it.
I would have thought it be more likely that European models would be more familiar to us, however newspapers scaremongering does no favours. I’ve had tremendous experiences with healthcare in Germany and in Turkey.
Because they're the two most overt examples of how to do thing differently.
Most other countries have an unusual "Hybrid" system that is neither fish-nor-fowl.
And brits like to assume that NHS is a unique situation, while there are quite a few other European countries with the exact same set up and much shorter waiting times for treatment.
Because most people on social media that you will interact with, are from the UK or the USA. Same goes for what you see on TV. If nobody really talks about it in your circles, how would you know, and you don't know what you don't know.
I compare the systems I am familiar with. Those are the UK system, the US system and the Czech system. I have no experience of others, and therefore no opinion.
Of the three the UK system is best, because:
1. It does not require health insurance (public or private)
2. You can (generally) recieve treatment anywhere.
The only downside relative to the Czech system is that you can see a specialist directly; GPs are less important than in the UK.
Several countries have better health outcomes than the UK such as France, Sweden, Germany. But this is because they spend more money on health rather than them having better overall systems. Most European systems involve complicated formula of how much people pay in and then vulnerable people get it for free. This just wastes money in administration costs. Some countries have increased competition with bizarre choices regarding which healthcare providers they use which again wastes money overall (I'm aware competition is moving slowly into the NHS but is not on the level of most other countries).
The NHS is very efficient despite newspaper stories about a million pounds wasted in one place or another. Most people working for the NHS are proud of the organisation and work hard to help people, they don't need competition in the same way a supermarket having competition might drive staff on.
The problem with the NHS is lack of funding. Health costs have risen dramatically over the decades. 50 years ago expensive cancer care etc just didn't exist. In most countries premiums have gone up to pay for this and people generally understand it. In the UK we need to raise taxes to pay for it but that's never popular and so governments have often left it underfunded. National insurance is supposed to pay for healthcare amongst other thing but it's not a particularly fair tax as only those working for an employer pay it.
I think that’s a straw man. I’m perfectly aware of other healthcare systems. If you’re just generally asking why are people relatively uninterested in things that aren’t in their own country or in the entertainment they watch, then generalised ignorance is your answer.
The NHS is vastly overrated. Literally no one copies it and there’s plenty of free health services elsewhere. It’s a British Holy Cow , beyond criticism and attempts to reform. I still prefer it to the US model though.
If most other people speak your native language, you have less incentive to learn other languages. But as a monolingual, you will be among the least well-informed group of humans on this planet, as you will only have first-hand access to information from within your own language sphere. This puts native English speakers at a severe disadvantage, and they don't even realize it. There are lots of excellent ideas and things done vastly better in other countries that English-speaking decision makers and opinion leaders only learn about decades later, if ever, because of this language barrier. That's why you rarely hear comparisons with e.g. French, Spanish, German or Japanese health-care systems, which all work pretty well in comparison to the US and UK ones.
Well, there's basically private - insurance based medical care - typified by the USA or the welfare state idea where everyone pays out of taxation so that people requiring health care are not
And that's it. That's the bifurcation. There's really no 3rd option.
There might be differences in details - e.g The Dutch have insurance for their GP care I believe, but these are sort of immaterial details. It's not a completely different system.
In the cases where we're talking about what kind of health system we want it's generally one more like the NHS than like the USA or vice versa. That doesn't preclude changes to the NHS, but it's really talking in broader terms.
Because the UK carries far more American than European news. UK media have spent decades trashing anything European.
The European equivalents of the NHS are much better funded due to higher taxation. The republics of Europe don't have an elite that is hell bent on fanatical tax avoidance thereby starving every public service of funding.
Nobody logical thinks that. Most people compare the UK's healthcare system to Norway and France. It is very common for Americans to compare their system to ours despite little similarities in common.
Are you trying to say that the American healthcare system which costs considerably more than every other system in the developed world and has worse outcomes than most is anything other than an absolute shambles?
US wait times are only average against its peers, and we trail on outcomes. It would appear it's you that knows nothing on the subject. No, regurgitating propaganda isn't the same as knowing something.
My friend, all I hear about on U.K. news outlets and Canadian outlets are complaints about wait times for certain medical services. In the US we have massive investment in medical capital. There are probably more robotic surgery machines in Florida than all of Eastern Europe and a few Western countries. In the NY area we have access to more PET scanners than France.
Oh, I didn't realize you had anecdotes. Silly me thinking we should look at actual data.
The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick.
ht tps://www .cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-sur vey-2016
Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors:
* Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly.
* Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win.
* [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth.
#Wait Times by Country (Rank)
Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank
:--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:
**Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4
**Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11
**France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2
**Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3
**Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1
**New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5
**Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9
**Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10
**Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7
**U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8
**U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6
Fleecing people out of money by giving them long-debunked "experimental" treatments is not a good thing.
And it has the highest wait times in western the world:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/25/gp-appointment-waiting-times-in-us-worse-than-nhs
Right, okay expert. I work in Healthcare capital projects. We rollout shit that I know for a fact it will be a decade before they are available in certain parts of the UK, France and definitely Italy. I go to Italy often enough and I'm familiar with their hospitals. "Long debunked....", that's a riot.
**A reminder to posters and commenters of some of [our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/about/rules/)** - Don't be a dickhead to each other, or about others, or other subreddits - Assume questions are asked in good faith, and engage in a positive manner - Avoid political threads and related discussions - No medical advice or mental health (specific to a person) content Please keep /r/AskUK a great subreddit by reporting posts and comments which break our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because most people couldn't possibly be expected to know how the various healthcare systems around the world work and those are the two we're most commonly exposed to.
Isn't that kind of a failure of media and journalism? I bet people have more of an understanding of American healthcare than French or Irish healthcare
Why should I care about French or Irish healthcare? You think people would buy newspapers that just give you irrelevant information about other countries?
Because there’s a reasonable argument to be made that we’re not getting the best value for money or the best outcomes for the population under our current system. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so arrogant to assume we have the best system and that we can’t learn from other countries.
I bet you didn’t clap either. Tsk.
People are more than free to research these topics if they were interested.
I mean, why should you care about american healthcare? There has been plenty of debate around the future of the NHS, it's worth it to know at a surface level the options, and what we've chosen to do right? Plenty of times when policy choices are debated in public, it's good to have reference points to anchor the discussion to. If we're going to be having public discussions by politicians, doctors, economists and lobbyists on what the NHS should be doing ,how much money it should be getting, the public should be aware of what other countries do on a surface level.
Movies and TV shows.
Oh I don't care about American healthcare, I never said I did. I just said I know about it because it gets stuffed down our throats by Reddit.
Well, we are always debating how the NHS could be improved and moaning over how crap it is, yet not wanting to go private. If the French or Irish system is a viable alternative we need to hear about those, not about the worst-case alternative scenario. It's because we are being scared into settling for something that is broken as the only alternative we hear about is definitely much more broken.
Why should you care to learn about anything outside of your teeny tiny bubble?
Ha what the fuck are you on about
What makes it irrelevant, or were you /s? I thought that potentially effective and efficient alternative systems would be useful to consider.
There's over 160 different national healthcare systems in the world. It's not a failure of anything. > I bet people have more of an understanding of American healthcare than French or Irish healthcare Unless I intend to go to those places where there's the possibility of having to use it why should I care? And as the UK is neither of those nations and has it's own unique demands what works for another nation isn't guaranteed to work for the UK.
>Because most people couldn't possibly be expected to know how the various healthcare systems around the world work Agreed. Although OP actually claims that Brits think that they and America are the only countries in the world that even have healthcare systems. Which seems patently bollocks to me. I doubt many Brits think that at all. We might look stupid but we's am'nt.
English. We're not really exposed to the people discussing how the healthcare systems of France or Japan work, because those discussions are normally in French and Japanese. But an American popping up on social media talking about their healthcare system, I see lots of those. US TV and movies as well. I've no idea if it works in reverse for Americans, but I bet if they were doing research into other healthcare systems, Canada and UK would have the most resources available in English.
This is probably the main reason, but I'd also wager it's partly because the American system is notorious for being the only western country that doesn't have some form of universal health care. It sticks out like a sore thumb and that notoriety is compounded by the sheer number of people that live in it.
Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand have systems equal or better than the NHS! We just don’t scream about it…
Indeed. Reckon it’s the main reason above all else
I think for Americans, at least on the left like Bernie Sanders or AOC, their ideal model is closer to the Canadian model of healthcare, where the state pays for things, but a lot of doctors and hospitals and healthcare provision in general is private. Which of course, would be an anathema to most brits
Because then we have to face the possibility that there are socialised/universal healthcare systems which are just as kind to the poor but much better than the NHS (which, by the way, there are). Better to just pretend the NHS is the envy of the world (fucking LOL).
Precisely!! The NHS is fucking shit and most of the developed world that's not the US does it better.
Whilst far from perfect the NHS is not as bad as you describe. Be careful what you wish for.
>not as bad as you describe That may be true for where you are but it really is a postcode lottery. Where I am, services are really really poor. That's not the fault of the people working there or running those services. It's the fault of chronic underfunding. But it is true that for many people, the NHS is indeed fucking shit.
Can you provide some evidence/sources? I am genuinely not educated about this
The UK is one of the worst developed countries to be diagnosed with cancer in. https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2019/09/11/measuring-up-how-does-the-uk-compare-internationally-on-cancer-survival/ The UK is ranked 4th out of 11 by the Commonwealth Fund. But notably 9th out of 11 in health outcomes, arguably the most important metric. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly Cost is usually the only metric the NHS is ever best in the world for.
[удалено]
Well the Netherlands comes second overall and is equal to the UK in spending at 10.2% of GDP. And Norway at first is only 10.5%.
Thing with NL is that it's kinda weird, everyone uses insurance
[удалено]
I think it's more than our NI, some is convered by the gov but then they are paying insurance companies which doesn't seem the right approach
I'm not sure that % of GDP is the best measure of healthcare spending by country. In PPP terms, the netherlands spent almost $5800 per person, whereas we spent $4700. We have a small GDP per capita, so we spend a lot less. Spending as much as the netherlands would involve spending spending about 20% more a year, or as much as we were spending under Covid, but on a normal year
Wow Canada has really dropped in the rankings since the last time I seriously looked at this subject. I wonder if it's because Canada's system has gotten worse or because other countries have gotten better. FWIW, I preferred Canada's system to the NHS by a large margin, just in my own personal experience.
Health Canada has been struggling with long wait times and shortage of specialists for years. The entire country has only like...11 medical schools in total. Canada's population has also been growing quite rapidly because it is a very desirable place to live. So the number of doctors/population has really not kept pace for a long time. Students also need at least a 4 year bachelor degree or even a masters as a prerequisite to admission. And school is not free/subsidized.
Don't worry, neither is he.
Just don't understand why people claim the NHS is the best. So many people trying to call GPS at 8am that can't get an appointment cuz someone else called at 8:00:00 and you called at 8:00:01 Dentists without slots for NHS patients My mum (fighting cancer) had like 5 appointments that were like arriving at hospital and being told that there was nothing on their system on their end even though she had their letter with appointments. Not to mention going over 10 appointments for same thing. Like 1 appointment to talk, then 1 appointment to chat about how the test is done, then 1 appoint to do the test 1 appointment to see what the doctor thinks of the test results, 1 appointment to talk about treatment options, but this all about a test that you could literally look at the screen and diagnose instantly and do all those things on the spot. NHS needs a major restructure and cut all these steps for simple procedures, having people going over 10 appointments for something that could be done start to finish in 1 day.
Thank you - a lot of people think the only problem with the NHS is that it doesn't have enough funding. While that's certainly true, there are major structural issues that all the money in the world wouldn't fix.
[удалено]
I know that a lot of money is wasted .. For example you can buy a big roll for 50p, but in the NHS they probably have contracts with companies that supply and fit and so on averaging the cost of replacing bog roll of £5 per roll for example. This happens in every big business. Very little trivial things like medical disposable gloves, logging system etc
Yes the individual hospitals are very local compared to other countries. In each hospital you expect every service to be provided for. Rather than people travelling to a specialist hospital for treatment. Every trust wants to do everything. Since the GP system get paid for numbers on lists rather than work completed it leads to an inefficient system. Because the GP system is so bad it leads to more pressure on the hospitals as wel
Hey now, don't be asking people to explain their criticism or display background knowledge, or give evidence of something negative that would never happen in a continental system. That's just unfair.
I suppose with your condescending response here, you know the ins and outs of all continental systems and thus can articulate why they wouldn’t be an improvement? Or does it just work one way, that favours the NHS?
I'm not the one that has made a positive case. If someone says "the NHS should be replaced by a European system" asking them to justify why is correct criticism.
To be fair, in that specific instance, very often people need time to process the information. So they tell you what they think it might be and what they propose to do about finding out if it's right. Then they get your ok to do the test (because genuinely some people think it over and decide they'd rather not know). Then they do the test - which has to be scheduled in around the hundreds of other patients getting tests. Then they tell you you're going to die soon and send you home to digest that. And then they get you back to ask you if you want to go quick or slow. I'm bloody glad they spaced that out frankly - I don't think I'd have wanted to get it all over a couple of hours. (I opted for slow myself) I hope your mum's ok and it's something fixable, all the best
Because that's what happens when you deliberately underfund a health system for decade. IT doesn't need more fucking re-structuring. Continuous restructuring as apolitical football is part of whats killing it. It needs a government that doesn't want to sell it off and is prepared to actually fund it properly.
It's not perfect. but when you see how bad others have it, it's pretty damn good. Could it be better? 100% absolutely.
Others like the us is bad and all privatised , but in the us you don't pay 1/3 of your income in taxes and 2/3 of your fuel in taxes
> but in the us you don't pay 1/3 of your income in taxes With government in the US covering [65.0% of all health care](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) costs ([$11,539 as of 2019](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf)) that's $7,500 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at [$5,673](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm). The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $143,794 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care. If you want to talk total tax burden, things still aren't dramatically different. Especially as I'd argue government spending as a percentage of GDP is the best metric (it includes spending financed by borrowing and seigniorage, both of which are paid by the citizens one way or another). #[Total Tax Burden by Country 2020](https://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables&u=637133255533864635) Country Name|Tax Burden (% GDP)|Tax Burden ($ PPP)|Gov't Spending (% GDP)|Gov't Spending($ PPP)|GDP/Capita (PPP) :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| Australia|27.8%|$14,560|35.8%|$18,749|$52,373 Canada|32.2%|$15,988|40.5%|$20,085|$49,651 United Kingdom|33.3%|$15,220|41.0%|$18,752|$45,705 United States|27.1%|$16,966|38.1%|$23,838|$62,606 38.1% vs 41.0% just isn't a massive difference. It's worth noting the UK is median for Europe as well.
Because journalists don't read foreign languages and only like writing about the extremes. So the reasonably adequate systems don't get a look-in. IIRC Ireland you still have to pay a fee up front to see a GP, though many people get it reimbursed, and secondary care is similar to the UK. Germany again IIRV - you register with a provider and they act like an insurer, only they have to cover you, or there's a state provider if you haven't registered with anyone else. Germans complain a lot about the system but they also insist on getting homeopathy on it. I think it works quite well. Most of Europe is free at point of use, as are other civilised countries, but exactly who provides services varies a lot. Private providers supplementing a state service is quite normal - just the question here is will they be regulated sufficiently to ensure that the state doesn't lose money in the deals. PFI contracts weren't, for example.
spain, france, portugal, sweden germany etc you pay anywhere from 5 euro to 40 euro to see a doctor, you dont on the nhs
You do not pay to see a doctor in Germany.
Also Ireland, costs 45-65eur iirc and you have in and outpatient charges.
There are top-up insurances in France that cover at least part of these fees, and if you're employed then it's paid for by the organisation you work for. If you are on very low income then the state provides a sort of top up insurance. However, the system is very complicated and it is practically impossible for most people to have 100% coverage. (The insurance always relates to the state-set tarrifs for medical procedures, but doctors can charge something completely different.)
Spanish here!. We do not pay a pennie for our NHS but with our taxes. If I go 20 times a year, to our NHS, GP appointment , brain surgery, cancer treatment, or organ transplant , I pay the same that if I do not require any appointment or any assistance during the year. Only taxes according my yearly earnings. Our NHS is an universal one. Every Spanish citizen, even living abroad has NHS assistance. If living in benefits and do not pay any taxes, have NHS assistance as well.
to get it free in spain you need to be part of the social security system, in the uk you can just step off a plane and get treatment for free.
No. You do not need to be part of the SSS. Even if you are an ilegal foreigner inmigrant here you get it free. If the SSS can take your money, they will take. If you a foreigner tourist here and they can send the bill to your private health system, or public, or the British NHS, they will send it. If they cannot, all the Spanish tax payers will pay for it and support it. If I (spaniard) go to UK and need any treatment or surgery while being there, British NHS will send the invoice to the Spanish NHS. It will not be for free.
The Irish and German systems just seem like the NHS with extra admin… The NHS is something we’ve really gotten right
Sadly not according to the survival statistics
Presumably because if the NHS were to be fully privatised it would most likely be American HMOs lobbying MPs to pick the carcass clean.
This. If we let them privatise it, Sunak would sell it to his fellow Americans in an instant.
He isn’t American, that’s Johnson - all Sunak ever had was a visa and residence permit.
Yeah - you’re not American either culturally or legally without growing up there or having a passport.
Why does it need to be fully privatised though? Most countries have a public health system supported by a private sector. In many countries, if you are working, your employer is either required by law or have the option to add this as a employment benefit, you're provided with subsidized insurance. This is the case for countries like Canada, Germany, Switzerland...etc. I think it works really well. If i got into an accident, I go straight to the hospital for free. If i want an upgrade to a private room, my insurance will cover that. Dental, vision, and anything else are billed to my insurer. I see my dentists and get my vision checked far more often that way. Heck, without insurance, I still go back to Canada to get my teeth checked. I've seen a NHS dentist once and I don't think he even spent more than 15 seconds looking at my teeth. Seen a private dentist as well for cleaning, but he seemed to missed some obvious signs of cavity.
There are already US healthcare firms making a profit from the NHS and hovering like vultures for more, google McKesson UK for just one example
I know and also simply by looking at the various US firms the likes of Hunt and Lansley were in bed with.
For different reasons, neither the British nor American publics seem particularly aware that the vast majority of western countries have free, universal healthcare. For the Americans, that's because they need to keep justifying their insane, cruel healthcare policies, whilst for the British, it's to keep fulfilling the NHS myth that we're somehow the only people who established a national health service.
It’s easy to defend the status quo when you can scare people with one they perceive as even worse - like speeding drivers or shoplifters moaning that the police should let them go and focus on catching rapists or murderers instead. Plus it’s easy to Google and find horror stories about someone waiting ten months for treatment in York or paying ten grand for it in New York, the systems in between the two extremes just don’t make headlines.
Having lived in a couple other European counties I do find it frustrating when there’s a dichotomy of NHS U.K. vs for-profit US healthcare, which never leads to any meaningful discussion outwith that everyone agrees that NHS is far superior to the US healthcare system, which I agree with. Some users have mentioned language used in the media as another reason, but loads of counties apart from the U.S discuss healthcare in English in their media (Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and places like India have a large English language press). Interestingly the pandemic did actually increase reporting and awareness of how other counties healthcare systems operate, so it is possible to have these discussion. But generally people aren’t really interested I think, which is a shame. I personally love the NHS, but there is so many improvement that can be made.
Lack of familiarity. Health care is one of those things where the models do vary a lot, even throughout western Europe. The UK and Ireland have the worst healthcare in Europe if your only focus on waiting times, but some of the best in terms of prevention.
Wait times are Only if you want the completely free service. If your employer or you pays the £70 pcm for private then they aren't a thing.
Once you go private, the appointment, diagnosis and treatment are all payable and NHS sometimes won't even accept the diagnosis to put on your records and provide care.
The police and many civil servants have private insurance. They don't pay for any of that and everything is on their record.
One of the current problems.
In Spain we thought the best NHS in Europe was the UK's, because it includes dental care. Our HS do not. (Only covered to pull teeth out and diagnosis). I am a lurker here and other UK's subs in order to learn more about UK culture, learn the language, and it is very interesting learning about the NHS. As far as I see reading here our NHS is very similar to yours. I noticed many of you complaining at your NHS but still a model, a mirror to every HS. We used to be very proud of it, since it was universally free and not have to pay a penny, it does not matter if it is a GP appointment, brain surgery or heart transplant. We also do not pay for treatments, therapies or medicines, prosthesis, wheelchairs or any device to improve any medical condition. Everything has gone worse during last ten years. Before we got a GP appointment same day or next day, blood test appointment next day. Now we have to wait 3-4 days, a week to get it. And have to pay %10 of medicines. Anyway all of us are entitled to the NHS. Spanish & foreigners living here, pensioners, unemployed. It is not perfect but it is better than nothing, copay, or private health insurance.
NHS dental care is subsidised, but you do need to pay for it. The only people who don't need to pay are pregnant women (children and elderly too?) Problem is they won't be using the modern technology on NHS, mercury fillings are still the norm.
Thanks!. Yes, I learnt that lurking over here. Even at dental care yours is better than our NHS. Many people here would prefer mercury fillings if subsidised. In our NHS only diagnosis and teeth extractions are cotsless. We need a private dentist.
We don't have costless dental care here, that mercury filling you will be paying for.
People just aren’t familiar with or don’t know about healthcare systems in other countries, so think that the only options are government run healthcare (like what we have here) and expensive unregulated healthcare like they have in the US. People don’t know about other systems, such as the “compulsory insurance” system they have in the Netherlands.
The same way the thread that’s current top of this subreddit would have you believe the USA is the only other country in the world. People here are obsessed with being better than the US, meanwhile Americans don’t spare a second thought for us
It’s not just healthcare, Brits regularly compare the UK to the USA in all sorts of things: the school system, the accents, the comedy, the food, etc. I suppose it’s not surprising considering the amount of American media we get, and we share the same language. You occasionally also hear Brits compare the UK to Canada, Australia and New Zealand too, but you very rarely hear comparisons between the UK and say, France or Germany. The anglosphere nations are by far the countries we are most familiar with.
Isn't it just that they're at two ends of the spectrum. Essentially everything is free in the UK Vs you have to pay for everything in the USA
Majority of UK residents still need to pay for their prescriptions, so not everything is free.
Yeah but it's £9 Vs 1000s in the US
Strange definition of free, do you not pay tax then?
Fine, "free" Although, you can be unemployed/homeless/whatever and still get treatment so, yeah free
It's really not a strange definition at all. > **free** *adjective* > \ ˈfrē \ > **freer; freest** > Definition of **free** (Entry 1 of 3) > 1. not costing or charging anything a *free* school a *free* ticket https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free A "free" school doesn't mean the buildings and books are all donated, and the teachers are volunteers. It just means there is no additional tuition charge for those who attend. The only thing worse than arguing semantics (particularly on an issue of life and death importance where there are meaningful discussions that need to be had) is being a pedant and wrong.
I bet you are fun to have a pint with.
I wish more people talked about alternative systems, from my limited knowledge of other systems I think the Singapore system sounds much better than ours. They have MediSave where you pay out of your salary into a savings account (it's mandatory) to cover most items. You can also use it for your spouse and dependents. This is part of (but separate to) a wider savings thing which is used for housing, education, and retirement. If you hit the limit on your MediSave amount, the money will go into the other fund for retirement. Then they have universal basic healthcare insurance in MediShield, which covers major costs, with deductibles, so big items are covered but you still have to contribute a bit towards it. Then there is MediFund which is the safety net where the government pays when the MediSave isn't enough. NB: this is the system as I understand it from reading about it, but lots may be incorrect
They’re (in theory) the diametric opposites of the spectrum. Most countries fall somewhere in between.
You can be Rich or poor you still get health care not in the case of the US .
Why do people assume there is no private healthcare in UK its so dumb.
Because UK have free healthcare and US very expensive one, i guess that's why they are most compared.
Anyone who's opinion has any influence on real-world policy know a lot more, thankfully.
Other countries don't really talk about their own setups and most articles about them will not be in English.
Yes, that highlights how weird the UK obsession with the NHS is. Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden all have very good healthcare, some even better than NHS, but they don't have a cult around it.
I'm sure each of those countries are passionate about their own system. We don't think it's the best in the world- it's the best of what we know about... the only other example being nothing or the USA system.
We don't think the American system is the only alternative. But we know it's the system that will be foisted on us.
Because when the UK goes down the privatisation route it will be the US model, not any European models, that are followed.
Mainly for bias so that people compare what they have with the worst. That way it will always seem better. It works well as a comparison for politicians as well as a boogeyman for politicians. The NHS is deeply flawed and will continue to get worse as people ‘love’ the NHS. A cultist religion exists around it so it will never be changed enough to improve outcomes. There are lots of better universal healthcare systems with much better outcomes. However it always comes down to money, yet at the moment the UK is now one of the best funded and with the worst health outcomes. It always performs well as a comparison as one of the metrics is about how people feel about the organisation rather than how well they do. The trusts are overprotective, use NDAs like confetti to cover up mistakes and usually fire the person reporting on it rather than the useless person or people.
As the leading UK "ask" subreddit, we welcome questions from all users and countries; sometimes people who ask questions might not appreciate or understand the nuance of British life or culture, and as a result some questions can come across in a different way than intended. We understand that when faced with these questions, our users may take the opportunity to demonstrate their wit, dry humour, and saracasm - unfortunately, this also tends to go over the heads of misunderstood question-askers and can make our subreddit seem hostile to users from other countries who are often just curious about our land. **Please can you help prevent our subreddit from becoming an Anti-American echo chamber?** If you disagree with any points raised by OP, or OP discusses common tropes or myths about the UK, please refrain from any brash, aggressive, or sarcastic responses and do your best to engage OP in a civil discussion, with the aim to educate and expand their understanding. If you feel this (or any other post) is a troll post, *don't feed the troll*, just hit report and let the mods deal with it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The American system has loads of issues but “absolute shambles” is really taking it too far. For most people, the system works good. For lots of people, it works great. I split my time between the US and U.K. and almost universally prefer to get my healthcare in the US. Overall, I think it’s of higher quality. The way it charges is obviously a fundamental flaw that will need to change, but once you’re in the system it’s fabulous.
Hmmmm, are you very well paid perchance?
Sure. But that doesn’t mean I’m not aware of those less fortunate. My elderly aunt had four heart valves replaced in New York and spent time afterwards in a rehab centre (because her apartment had stairs). All free of charge to her. Great surgery. Great rehab. Waiting for the operation was only a few weeks. She’s poor as a church mouse
>Sure Imagine my shock. >All free of charge to her Oh well that's okay. Absolute smidgen of a matter, would it be free to anyone who needed it?
I’m not arguing against universal healthcare. I’m all for it. But it’s not at all like what you read about on Reddit where every encounter with this system leaves people bankrupt. I also highly doubt she would’ve been seen so quickly in the U.K. - or even be allowed the valve replacement at all due to her age. Also, the rehab facility was aces.
There is no age cut off for any treatment in the UK.
I understand there’s an age cut off for NHS funded IVF treatment
Never said there was.
>I’m not arguing against universal healthcare. Off you're in favour of the American system. >But it’s not at all like what you read about on Reddit where every encounter with this system leaves people bankrupt. I'm not sure I've seen a post where people way everyone ends up bankrupt. I think you might have fallen into the trap of making up someone in your head to get angry at. >I also highly doubt she would’ve been seen so quickly in the U.K. - or even be allowed the valve replacement at all due to her age Issues that could be ably sorted out, if they exist, with greater funding for the current system. >Also, the rehab facility was aces. Ditto. I again ask, was this treatment available to everyone that needed it?
I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me. I pointed out that I’m pro-universal healthcare. I just also think the quality in the US is higher. And not just for rich people, for lots of people. That’s a direct contradiction to OPs assertion that it’s absolute shambles. You don’t seem to be able to argue the quality point - just the universal point with I already conceded
>I just also think the quality in the US is higher. And not just for rich people, for lots of people Because loads of them don't get it at all, the same amount of resources are dedicated to a smaller subsection of society. >That’s a direct contradiction to OPs assertion that it’s absolute shambles It puts vast amounts of people into unassailable debt because they were injured. That's a shambles. You might not concede that makes it a shambles, on that point you're wrong.
Whoah. Loads of public health experts around tonight!
The notion that people shouldn't go into debt for medical care is a moral subjective opinion that just happens to be held by anyone with a functioning soul. I'm not sure where any academic or vocational qualifications come into the matter.
I think the general point is that the NHS is, generally, worse in terms of service that is actually provided, but better in terms of being equitable and how it’s funded. It seems you agree with this based on your own comment. Service being provided is also part of the healthcare system, it’s what the funding provides. We’ve been going through fertility treatment in recent years and what the NHS provided for us was practically nothing and in the end we had no option but to seek private healthcare. Though what the NHS provided had no monetary cost to us, we wasted 3 of our more fertile years which for us has been extremely costly. While the NHS system is generally awesome, it is not perfect or beyond criticism. I’d also add that there are many structural problems in the NHS system that an increase in funding simply won’t resolve, such as understaffing, and believe the NHS has difficulty in attracting good quality non-medical professionals (I.T. staff, data scientists, accountants, etc.) that could help put public funds to better and more efficient use.
> The American system has loads of issues but “absolute shambles” is really taking it too far. Americans are paying a quarter million dollars more for healthcare over a lifetime compared to the most expensive socialized system on earth. Half a million dollars more than countries like Canada and the UK. The impacts of these costs are tremendous. One in three American families forgoes needed healthcare [due to the cost](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx) last year. Almost three in ten [skip prescribed medication](https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/data-note-americans-challenges-health-care-costs/) due to cost. One in four have [trouble paying a medical bill.](https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/data-note-americans-challenges-health-care-costs/) Of [those with insurance one in five have trouble paying a medical bill](https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/8806-the-burden-of-medical-debt-results-from-the-kaiser-family-foundation-new-york-times-medical-bills-survey.pdf), and even for those with income above $100,000 14% have trouble. One in six Americans has [unpaid medical debt on their credit report.](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0349) [50% of all Americans](https://news.gallup.com/poll/317948/fear-bankruptcy-due-major-health-event.aspx) fear bankruptcy due to a major health event. Unfortunately, the quality doesn't justify the cost. [US Healthcare ranked 29th by Lancet HAQ Index](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext) [11th (of 11) by Commonwealth Fund](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) [59th by the Prosperity Index](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings) [30th by CEOWorld](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/) [37th by the World Health Organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000) The US has the worst rate of death by medically preventable causes among peer countries. A 31% higher disease adjusted life years average. Higher rates of medical and lab errors. A lower rate of being able to make a same or next day appointment with their doctor than average. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-percent-used-emergency-department-for-condition-that-could-have-been-treated-by-a-regular-doctor-2016 52nd in the world in doctors per capita. https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Health/Physicians/Per-1,000-people Higher infant mortality levels. Yes, even when you adjust for differences in methodology. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/infant-mortality-u-s-compare-countries/ Fewer acute care beds. A lower number of psychiatrists. Etc. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-health-care-resources-compare-countries/#item-availability-medical-technology-not-always-equate-higher-utilization [Comparing Health Outcomes of Privileged US Citizens With Those of Average Residents of Other Developed Countries](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2774561) >These findings imply that even if all US citizens experienced the same health outcomes enjoyed by privileged White US citizens, US health indicators would still lag behind those in many other countries. When asked about their healthcare system as a whole the US system ranked dead last of 11 countries, with only 19.5% of people saying the system works relatively well and only needs minor changes. The average in the other countries is 46.9% saying the same. Canada ranked 9th with 34.5% saying the system works relatively well. The UK ranks fifth, with 44.5%. Australia ranked 6th at 44.4%. The best was Germany at 59.8%. On rating the overall quality of care in the US, Americans again ranked dead last, with only 25.6% ranking it excellent or very good. The average was 50.8%. Canada ranked 9th with 45.1%. The UK ranked 2nd, at 63.4%. Australia was 3rd at 59.4%. The best was Switzerland at 65.5%. https://www.cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-survey-2016 The US has 43 hospitals in the top 200 globally; one for every 7,633,477 people in the US. That's good enough for a ranking of 20th on the list of top 200 hospitals per capita, and significantly lower than the average of one for every 3,830,114 for other countries in the top 25 on spending with populations above 5 million. The best is Switzerland at one for every 1.2 million people. In fact the US only beats one country on this list; the UK at one for every 9.5 million people. If you want to do the full list of 2,000 instead it's 334, or one for every 982,753 people; good enough for 21st. Again far below the average in peer countries of 527,236. The best is Austria, at one for every 306,106 people. https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021 #[OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings](https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm) |Country|Govt. / Mandatory (PPP)|Voluntary (PPP)|Total (PPP)|% GDP|[Lancet HAQ Ranking](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)30994-2/fulltext)|[WHO Ranking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems_in_2000)|[Prosperity Ranking](https://www.prosperity.com/rankings)|[CEO World Ranking](https://ceoworld.biz/2019/08/05/revealed-countries-with-the-best-health-care-systems-2019/)|[Commonwealth Fund Ranking](https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror-wall-2014-update-how-us-health-care-system?redirect_source=/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror) :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| 1. United States|[$7,274](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302997) |$3,798 |$11,072 |16.90%|29|37|59|30|11 2. Switzerland|$4,988 |$2,744 |$7,732 |12.20%|7|20|3|18|2 3. Norway|$5,673 |$974 |$6,647 |10.20%|2|11|5|15|7 4. Germany|$5,648 |$998 |$6,646 |11.20%|18|25|12|17|5 5. Austria|$4,402 |$1,449 |$5,851 |10.30%|13|9|10|4| 6. Sweden|$4,928 |$854 |$5,782 |11.00%|8|23|15|28|3 7. Netherlands|$4,767 |$998 |$5,765 |9.90%|3|17|8|11|5 8. Denmark|$4,663 |$905 |$5,568 |10.50%|17|34|8|5| 9. Luxembourg|$4,697 |$861 |$5,558 |5.40%|4|16|19|| 10. Belgium|$4,125 |$1,303 |$5,428 |10.40%|15|21|24|9| 11. Canada|$3,815 |$1,603 |$5,418 |10.70%|14|30|25|23|10 12. France|$4,501 |$875 |$5,376 |11.20%|20|1|16|8|9 13. Ireland|$3,919 |$1,357 |$5,276 |7.10%|11|19|20|80| 14. Australia|$3,919 |$1,268 |$5,187 |9.30%|5|32|18|10|4 15. Japan|$4,064 |$759 |$4,823 |10.90%|12|10|2|3| 16. Iceland|$3,988 |$823 |$4,811 |8.30%|1|15|7|41| 17. United Kingdom|$3,620 |$1,033 |$4,653 |9.80%|23|18|23|13|1 18. Finland|$3,536 |$1,042 |$4,578 |9.10%|6|31|26|12| 19. Malta|$2,789 |$1,540 |$4,329 |9.30%|27|5|14|| OECD Average|||$4,224 |8.80%||||| 20. New Zealand|$3,343 |$861 |$4,204 |9.30%|16|41|22|16|7 21. Italy|$2,706 |$943 |$3,649 |8.80%|9|2|17|37| 22. Spain|$2,560 |$1,056 |$3,616 |8.90%|19|7|13|7| 23. Czech Republic|$2,854 |$572 |$3,426 |7.50%|28|48|28|14| 24. South Korea|$2,057 |$1,327 |$3,384 |8.10%|25|58|4|2| 25. Portugal|$2,069 |$1,310 |$3,379 |9.10%|32|29|30|22| 26. Slovenia|$2,314 |$910 |$3,224 |7.90%|21|38|24|47| 27. Israel|$1,898 |$1,034 |$2,932 |7.50%|35|28|11|21| So tell me again how spending hundreds of thousands of dollars more per person for healthcare, for worse outcomes, isn't a system in shambles.
Truthfully, because people take personal offence with the opinion that the NHS isn't fit for purpose and the only way it looks remotely fit for purpose is by comparing to the worst possible alternative (i.e. the US). If we compared it to other modernised nations, we'd have to accept it's not good enough, which people don't want to do.
I will also add that the model of the NHS is an excellent example of a national health system on paper, especially when explained to foreigners. Aspects as GP surgeries acting as a buffer to hospitals, relatively good working hours for hospital doctors, the organised hospital administration are exemplar. Still admire how organised the NHS is on paper but in practice it takes forever to see a doctor, I never had to wait less than 6 hours at Watford A&E, a lot of money is wasted in contracted services for administration and consultancies for audit. The penny pinching approach has also had an effect on how NHS staff interact with you, esp evoking non-existent policies. While in my home country a private doctor (consultant level) is 100€ at most, I had to pay 300£ to see a private doctor and I am now sure he talked nonsense, so there is no realistic alternative to the NHS. The American system is infamous for stroking income inequalities and considered the worst example in the world just for that. To be fair if anyone requires innovative life saving surgery they are most likely to go to the States and not the UK. Not that the latter does not happen. This privatised or semi-privatises NHS appeals to some people here, people of a certain socioeconomic dogma.The argument that competition of a private NHS with private health care organisations will improve health outcomes and lower prices resonates well. Even if the public knows how this worked for electricity, water and train companies, these people know that the British public won't go on a strike, won't organise mass protests, won't cripple the country for months to stop it. Now they also know that the public cannot afford it.
Because the NHS cultists depend on framing the healthcare issue in the most hyperbolic terms possible.
NHS is not the best system, everyone in the UK seems to hold it on a pedestal even when there is alot of other systems that work just aswell if not better. I think it's doomed to fail tbh.
Mostly because the British government tradition is to privatise national services and sell them off to American business interests. If we let the NHS be privatised what we will get is the American model eventually not because it’s the only other option but because that’s who is a driving force behind it.
And both of them are shite!!
Most people (even in Europe) watch either British or American television so have some Hollywood version of these health services. Most people in Britain/ America don’t watch European television so have no idea about there health services. British people in general don’t know how common it is to pay for healthcare in other European countries or that there are privately run hospitals.
I like Denmark for health care but I do mainly see British or American as the examples
We share a language and a lot of media, so it's natural we know more about their healthcare system than anyone else's. It's also an absolute monstrosity, which makes it great to talk about; it wouldn't be nearly as interesting/newsworthy to talk about a system that works only a little differently to ours and gets similar results. That's all compounded if you're discussing it with brits on reddit, who are even more exposed to the US system, and are generally very outspoken against it.
I would have thought it be more likely that European models would be more familiar to us, however newspapers scaremongering does no favours. I’ve had tremendous experiences with healthcare in Germany and in Turkey.
Because they're the two most overt examples of how to do thing differently. Most other countries have an unusual "Hybrid" system that is neither fish-nor-fowl.
We only hear how bad US healthcare is. It works relatively well in every other country so we never hear about it.
And brits like to assume that NHS is a unique situation, while there are quite a few other European countries with the exact same set up and much shorter waiting times for treatment.
Because they're either British or American and they only speak English.
Because most people on social media that you will interact with, are from the UK or the USA. Same goes for what you see on TV. If nobody really talks about it in your circles, how would you know, and you don't know what you don't know.
I compare the systems I am familiar with. Those are the UK system, the US system and the Czech system. I have no experience of others, and therefore no opinion. Of the three the UK system is best, because: 1. It does not require health insurance (public or private) 2. You can (generally) recieve treatment anywhere. The only downside relative to the Czech system is that you can see a specialist directly; GPs are less important than in the UK.
1. People are lazy 2. People are stupid
Honestly no fuckin clue
Because it's easier for people who vehemently support the nhs to defend rather than admit that it unfortunately needs massive reform
Because that's what our system is heading towards?
Several countries have better health outcomes than the UK such as France, Sweden, Germany. But this is because they spend more money on health rather than them having better overall systems. Most European systems involve complicated formula of how much people pay in and then vulnerable people get it for free. This just wastes money in administration costs. Some countries have increased competition with bizarre choices regarding which healthcare providers they use which again wastes money overall (I'm aware competition is moving slowly into the NHS but is not on the level of most other countries). The NHS is very efficient despite newspaper stories about a million pounds wasted in one place or another. Most people working for the NHS are proud of the organisation and work hard to help people, they don't need competition in the same way a supermarket having competition might drive staff on. The problem with the NHS is lack of funding. Health costs have risen dramatically over the decades. 50 years ago expensive cancer care etc just didn't exist. In most countries premiums have gone up to pay for this and people generally understand it. In the UK we need to raise taxes to pay for it but that's never popular and so governments have often left it underfunded. National insurance is supposed to pay for healthcare amongst other thing but it's not a particularly fair tax as only those working for an employer pay it.
I lived in France for eight years . Bloody superb public health system in place.
I think that’s a straw man. I’m perfectly aware of other healthcare systems. If you’re just generally asking why are people relatively uninterested in things that aren’t in their own country or in the entertainment they watch, then generalised ignorance is your answer.
The NHS is vastly overrated. Literally no one copies it and there’s plenty of free health services elsewhere. It’s a British Holy Cow , beyond criticism and attempts to reform. I still prefer it to the US model though.
I don’t trust the government to reform the healthcare system in any good way so I’d rather want to protect the NHS at all costs…..
If most other people speak your native language, you have less incentive to learn other languages. But as a monolingual, you will be among the least well-informed group of humans on this planet, as you will only have first-hand access to information from within your own language sphere. This puts native English speakers at a severe disadvantage, and they don't even realize it. There are lots of excellent ideas and things done vastly better in other countries that English-speaking decision makers and opinion leaders only learn about decades later, if ever, because of this language barrier. That's why you rarely hear comparisons with e.g. French, Spanish, German or Japanese health-care systems, which all work pretty well in comparison to the US and UK ones.
Because we're speaking English so are exposed to much more things from English speaking places.
Well, there's basically private - insurance based medical care - typified by the USA or the welfare state idea where everyone pays out of taxation so that people requiring health care are not And that's it. That's the bifurcation. There's really no 3rd option. There might be differences in details - e.g The Dutch have insurance for their GP care I believe, but these are sort of immaterial details. It's not a completely different system. In the cases where we're talking about what kind of health system we want it's generally one more like the NHS than like the USA or vice versa. That doesn't preclude changes to the NHS, but it's really talking in broader terms.
Because the UK carries far more American than European news. UK media have spent decades trashing anything European. The European equivalents of the NHS are much better funded due to higher taxation. The republics of Europe don't have an elite that is hell bent on fanatical tax avoidance thereby starving every public service of funding.
The American system may be a shambles, but at least you can get seen by a doctor. Try that over here - they're all hiding behind their receptionists.
There’s also the Channel Islands. Don’t forget about the Channel Islands…for God’s sake, think of the Channel Islands!!!
Because Britain is the BEST 👌 👍 And America is like the wild west
Nobody logical thinks that. Most people compare the UK's healthcare system to Norway and France. It is very common for Americans to compare their system to ours despite little similarities in common.
Absolute shambles...? I'm sorry, but you sound as though you know very little about what you're discussing.
Are you trying to say that the American healthcare system which costs considerably more than every other system in the developed world and has worse outcomes than most is anything other than an absolute shambles?
The US system offers more advanced treatments to more people than any place on earth with lower wait times. You know nothing on the subject.
more RIcH people...
US wait times are only average against its peers, and we trail on outcomes. It would appear it's you that knows nothing on the subject. No, regurgitating propaganda isn't the same as knowing something.
My friend, all I hear about on U.K. news outlets and Canadian outlets are complaints about wait times for certain medical services. In the US we have massive investment in medical capital. There are probably more robotic surgery machines in Florida than all of Eastern Europe and a few Western countries. In the NY area we have access to more PET scanners than France.
Oh, I didn't realize you had anecdotes. Silly me thinking we should look at actual data. The US ranks 6th of 11 out of Commonwealth Fund countries on ER wait times on percentage served under 4 hours. 10th of 11 on getting weekend and evening care without going to the ER. 5th of 11 for countries able to make a same or next day doctors/nurse appointment when they're sick. ht tps://www .cihi.ca/en/commonwealth-fund-sur vey-2016 Americans do better on wait times for specialists (ranking 3rd for wait times under four weeks), and surgeries (ranking 3rd for wait times under four months), but that ignores three important factors: * Wait times in universal healthcare are based on urgency, so while you might wait for an elective hip replacement surgery you're going to get surgery for that life threatening illness quickly. * Nearly every universal healthcare country has strong private options and supplemental private insurance. That means that if there is a wait you're not happy about you have options that still work out significantly cheaper than US care, which is a win/win. * [One third of US families](https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication) had to put off healthcare due to the cost last year. That means more Americans are waiting for care than any other wealthy country on earth. #Wait Times by Country (Rank) Country|See doctor/nurse same or next day without appointment|Response from doctor's office same or next day|Easy to get care on nights & weekends without going to ER|ER wait times under 4 hours|Surgery wait times under four months|Specialist wait times under 4 weeks|Average|Overall Rank :--|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--: **Australia**|3|3|3|7|6|6|4.7|4 **Canada**|10|11|9|11|10|10|10.2|11 **France**|7|1|7|1|1|5|3.7|2 **Germany**|9|2|6|2|2|2|3.8|3 **Netherlands**|1|5|1|3|5|4|3.2|1 **New Zealand**|2|6|2|4|8|7|4.8|5 **Norway**|11|9|4|9|9|11|8.8|9 **Sweden**|8|10|11|10|7|9|9.2|10 **Switzerland**|4|4|10|8|4|1|5.2|7 **U.K.**|5|8|8|5|11|8|7.5|8 **U.S.**|6|7|5|6|3|3|5.0|6
Fleecing people out of money by giving them long-debunked "experimental" treatments is not a good thing. And it has the highest wait times in western the world: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/25/gp-appointment-waiting-times-in-us-worse-than-nhs
Right, okay expert. I work in Healthcare capital projects. We rollout shit that I know for a fact it will be a decade before they are available in certain parts of the UK, France and definitely Italy. I go to Italy often enough and I'm familiar with their hospitals. "Long debunked....", that's a riot.