• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British National Healthcare System holds top spot in worldwide healthcare survey

GhostlyJoe said:
If dozens of other countries could feed and clothe their citizens for half the cost, why would we not emulate that model? Instead of bowing to the market gods, let's look at what actually works, and, right now, the way we do health care isn't working.
Click to expand...

The Chinese did. Ask them.

I am afraid that isn't much of an answer on socioeconomic terms.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The charts make no distinction in a like for like comparison. The NHS isn't the sole provider
Click to expand...

I was reading an article on statistical comparability that mentioned that the other day.
 
Lafayette said:
Give us factual evidence of your claim from an independent body.
Click to expand...
Apparently you misunderstood, I am not paraphrasing find the finding of a study or independent body, I am conveying my impression of the nature of healthcare literature. In fact, I have made several attempts to find and read a summary of methodlogy of the dozens of countries who publish statistics, so far no luck.

You don't understand that when there is a Central NHS-agency processing all claims, they know exactly who is submitting them...
Click to expand...

I was not questioning the robustness of NHS statistics. I am noting that in the many international comparisons most don't explicitly specify any universal method of definitions, data collection, etc. What methods and definitions does (for example) Australia use compared the US, Canada, or Poland? Hence, on that basis alone I remain skeptical of the soundness of any international comparison.

These differ from country to country, which is why the Commonwealth Fund study is so important a reckoning factor in the debate.
Click to expand...
Two flaws:

1) I have yet to see any examination of varying statistical collection and analysis methodologies between countries, and how differences are accounted for.

2) I have noted that different inter-comparison health care performance studies come up with widely different results. After investigating these differences, in turns out that different studies use different criteria.

3) IMO, only studies that include survival rates from disease or accident, and major therapeutic intervention to improve quality of life (as well as costs) are worth serious consideration. Most of the rest are little more than propaganda.


Your GP earns $200K a year and most of it comes from Insurance Companies who take their cut off the top? There is effectively no competition whatsoever within geographies because only two or three companies own all the hospitals (bolded for emphasis). In Europe, those hospitals are run by government Civil-Servants (at much lower costs but a lifetime guaranty of their jobs.)
Click to expand...

Mostly wrong. Only 20 percent are owned by companies. 80 percent are owned by NGO's and Governments

1. Number of Nongovernment Not-for-Profit Community Hospitals - 2,845
Number of Investor-Owned (For-Profit) Community Hospitals - 1,034
Number of State and Local Government Community Hospitals - 983


2. Europe has major public funding of healthcare using widely different systems. However, contrary to your assertion these hospitals are not always run by government Civil-Servants.

In France, only 6 in 10 hospital beds are government owned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France). In Germany there are "2000 hospitals in Germany. About half the hospitals in Germany are public, with about 30 of them being university clinics. One third of the clinics are private but non-profit, while the other hospitals in Germany are for-profit clinics. Their numbers are increasing." (https://www.internations.org/germany-expats/guide/15986-health-insurance/hospitals-in-germany-16000). In Italy the substantial majority of hospitals are government owned, but private hospitals and clinics have been growing (especially in Lombardy and other northern regions) as a solution to some of Italy's healthcare performance deficiencies.

The Commonwealth Fund maintains an in-depth understanding of healthcare costs across all nations covered in its study. Its ranked results are accusatory:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...t/2017-mirror-mirror/image_02.jpg?h=450&w=600

In the US, you have one of the worst healthcare system of any developed nation, and IT IS THE ONLY ONE BASED UPON PRIVATIZED INSURANCE ..
Click to expand...

I am not questioning their knowledge, I am pointing out the obvious; the measurement of a healthcare system is better or worse is often little more than a case of finding what you are looking for. The WHO, for example, uses a bunch of socio-economic indicators that don't have a strong correlation to actual system performance. Moreover the OECD admits that while "Through ongoing national and international efforts, information on health care spending is expanding, yet information on the value that health services create is still limited."

And read a LANCET study that puts the NHS of the UK way down the list of healthcare ranking:

NHS is 'worse than healthcare in Ireland, Spain and Slovenia' in new global ranking | The Independent

If you would focus more on the literature, and less on being a press agent for the NHS, you would be a lot become more informed.
 
Last edited:
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

maxparrish said:
Apparently you misunderstood, I am not paraphrasing find the finding of a study or independent body, I am conveying my impression of the nature of healthcare literature. In fact, I have made several attempts to find and read a summary of methodlogy of the dozens of countries who publish statistics, so far no luck.
Click to expand...

TRy harder, the stats are there. I report them daily in this forum!

The Commonwealth Fund has done the hard work of comparative analysis of costs. Get in touch with them if you think they have overlooked serious considerations in their obtaining of comparative data!

maxparrish said:
I was not questioning the robustness of NHS statistics. I am noting that in the many international comparisons most don't explicitly specify any universal method of definitions, data collection, etc. What methods and definitions does (for example) Australia use compared the US, Canada, or Poland? Hence, on that basis alone I remain skeptical of the soundness of any international comparison.

Two flaws:

1) I have yet to see any examination of varying statistical collection and analysis methodologies between countries, and how differences are accounted for.

2) I have noted that different inter-comparison health care performance studies come up with widely different results. After investigating these differences, in turns out that different studies use different criteria.

3) IMO, only studies that include survival rates from disease or accident, and major therapeutic intervention to improve quality of life (as well as costs) are worth serious consideration. Most of the rest are little more than propaganda
Click to expand...

For the most part, you are seeking an explanation of the statistics not a defense of their correctness.

Again, I suggest you make your complaints to the Commonwealth Fund who have taken the task upon themselves to investigate and report the statistics on a comparative basis.

You are barking up the wrong trees in a sad effort to justify privatized medicine - which is wreaking havoc in the United States in terms of human lives lost ...

maxparrish said:
2. Europe has major public funding of healthcare using widely different systems. However, contrary to your assertion these hospitals are not always run by government Civil-Servants.

In France, only 6 in 10 hospital beds are government owned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France). In Germany there are "2000 hospitals in Germany. About half the hospitals in Germany are public, with about 30 of them being university clinics. One third of the clinics are private but non-profit, while the other hospitals in Germany are for-profit clinics. Their numbers are increasing." In Italy the substantial majority of hospitals are government owned, but private hospitals and clinics have been growing (especially in Lombardy and other northern regions) as a solution to some of Italy's healthcare performance deficiencies.
Click to expand...

Whether an institution is private or public in Europe is of no real concern as regards who pays what. It is the individual who is insured, and so the cost of healthcare paid by the insured member is reduced to acceptable proportions. Moreover, key to National Healthcare Insurance is the fact that the government specifies the fees to be paid, thus maintaining a cap on total costs - unlike the US where they are exploding. This singular feature is why HC-costs are so much less than in the US - where they produce enormous profits for Insurance Companies.

Some countries like the UK pay 100% of the total cost. Other countries like France ask that members pay "top-up costs" (typically costing a private insurance of about 100€ a month). In either case, the government pays the principle amount of the cost. That is ALL THAT REALLY MATTERS. Nobody is financially ruined in Europe due to healthcare costs as is, indeed, the case in the US.*

The fact of the matter is that, whether the patient pays either type of care, s/he is reimbursed by the National Healthcare System. There is no such thing in Europe as an "ER", where people without insurance wait until the last minute and often die as a result.

True, you haven't the foggiest notion of how an National Healthcare System works because you have NEVER LIVED AND PARTICIPATED IN ONE ...

*In fact, what humans everywhere fail to understand is that (as regards healthcare) an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. That has become patently evident in Europe as well. (Of course, Europe does not see the necessity of policing the world, so it does not have an extravagant National Defense Budget as does the US!)
 
GhostlyJoe said:
If dozens of other countries could feed and clothe their citizens for half the cost, why would we not emulate that model? Instead of bowing to the market gods, let's look at what actually works, and, right now, the way we do health care isn't working.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you get the "for half the cost".

Food, clothing and shelter are the basics. Whazzat?

The "basics" by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs of which, for the most part, we are mostly concerned about the first two levels before moving upward:
 

Attachments

  • 137fc3d7f0b799f63bfc3d2814638106--abraham-maslow-nclex.jpg
    137fc3d7f0b799f63bfc3d2814638106--abraham-maslow-nclex.jpg
    73.5 KB · Views: 37
Lafayette said:
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
TRy harder, the stats are there. I report them daily in this forum! ...
You are barking up the wrong trees in a sad effort to justify privatized medicine - which is wreaking havoc in the United States in terms of human lives lost ...
Click to expand...

Rest assured, I get it that you are a true believer. And if there is one thing a true believer hates more than any other, more than the idolaters of the wrong gods, is an agnostic who has no need for any god. Feel free to nurture your 'for us or you are against us' mentality, but I only have a commitment to RESOLVING conundrums, and penetrating deeper than the glib or reassuring falsehoods.

That you find it a threat suggests that you, not I, need to reflect on your motives.

Whether an institution is private or public in Europe is of no real concern as regards who pays what.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean that your "truthie" that the cost problem is due to a few companies owning all the hospitals was really hot air? We agree. I assume we also agree that Europe's hospitals are not all staffed by civil servants.

...Moreover, key to National Healthcare Insurance is the fact that the government specifies the fees to be paid, thus maintaining a cap on total costs - unlike the US where they are exploding. This singular feature is why HC-costs are so much less than in the US - where they produce enormous profits for Insurance Companies.
Click to expand...

More partisan cognitive bias. I am sure top-down price controls in many countries do keep prices down (and sometimes quality suffers), but I am not so sure that it is the actual contributing factor in all NHI systems. Germany, with the largest economy in Europe, has let its prices be set through a process of negotiations among regional associations of private sickness funds and health care providers. Only after the two sides agree, does the law embody their price agreement.

Nor are insurance companies obtaining "enormous profits for insurance". Net income for the health insurance sector has mostly been anywhere from negative to 4 percent on a quarterly basis. https://ycharts.com/companies/HIIQ/net_income_cs_rev

Loathing insurance companies (and banks) are in the DNA of American populism (left and right). But while Obama was bashing health insurance company profits, a 2010 Congressional Research Service study already showed that among large, publicly traded health insurers, profits averaged 3.1 percent of revenue. Moreover the bulk of insurance companies comes from investments, not premiums. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...c3296387341_story.html?utm_term=.02a1cf4caeac

In either case, the government pays the principle amount of the cost. That is ALL THAT REALLY MATTERS. Nobody is financially ruined in Europe due to healthcare costs as is, indeed, the case in the US.*
Click to expand...

No, that is not all that really matters. Apart from the dispute over how many ACTUALLY been "ruined" (aka by simply declaring bankruptcy and getting the debt wiped off), the fact is there are many other things that also matter, including: survival rates, cures for ailments, costs to taxpayers, wage growth impacts, investment impacts, etc.

...There is no such thing in Europe as an "ER", where people without insurance wait until the last minute and often die as a result.[/I]
Click to expand...

Citation, other than that of a fictional TV show?

True, you haven't the foggiest notion of how an National Healthcare System works because you have NEVER LIVED AND PARTICIPATED IN ONE ...
Click to expand...

Your foggy and subjective loaded perceptions are not of interest to me; but at least you're admitting that your "expertise" is based an anecdotal report by yourself. For my part, I am trying to rely on actual researchers and authorities.

*In fact, what humans everywhere fail to understand is that (as regards healthcare) an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. That has become patently evident in Europe as well. (Of course, Europe does not see the necessity of policing the world, so it does not have an extravagant National Defense Budget as does the US!)
Click to expand...

You incorrect in part. Many preventative treatments are more costly than an event, e.g. long-term treatment for heart disease. You see, while a cardiac event may be expensive, without preventive treatment, many would die which eliminates the cost of preventive care and future cardiac events. Moreover, most "prevention" is not prevention - it is earlier detection of an already present disease.

In short, soothing slogans, cliches, and popular myths may be red meat for partisans, but it says nothing about the complexity of reality.
 
Lafayette said:
Not sure where you get the "for half the cost".

Food, clothing and shelter are the basics. Whazzat?

The "basics" by Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs of which, for the most part, we are mostly concerned about the first two levels before moving upward:
Click to expand...

Clear flawed egghead notions. Everyone knows the basic needs are for beer, football, cigars, a big screen TV and the need to be left alone.
 
maxparrish said:
Clear flawed egghead notions. Everyone knows the basic needs are for beer, football, cigars, a big screen TV and the need to be left alone.
Click to expand...

Yes, every jerk in Christendom clearly knows the truth you relate above. It was exceptionally the case this year when so many Americans voted for Donald Dork who as thus far proven time and again his incompetence in matters presidential. His only recognized attribute is fingering trite messages on Twitter. Any child can do that, and most do.

I live in France, and the French all think that the BigMess in France, that has dated since 2008 (the debut of the Great Recession in the US) will be miraculously put right by Mr. Macron in just six months. AbraCadabra! (He's been "on board" since May - so he's "overdue".)

To each their own pig-headedness. The Brits had their Brexit and if the exit-vote had been taken in other countries, there would be even more who would have stoopidly voted to leave*. Then the EU would be in a real mess.

The beauty of a Representative Democracy is that it tends to elect politicians who have functional brains. Not always, but in the majority. Which doesn't necessarily make them more honest, but certainly more clever in general.
 
maxparrish said:
That you find it a threat suggests that you, not I, need to reflect on your motives.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in the end, that is what debate is all about.

Moving right along ...
 
Nap said:
NHS provokes fury with indefinite surgery ban for smokers and obese*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-41656667

https://amp.theguardian.com/society...g-times-hospital-bosses-fear-a-return-to-1999

NHS rationing 'leaving dying patients to suffer in pain' report warns

If these stories are true, then their healthcare is absolutely terrible.
Click to expand...

First link is taken so out of context it's untrue. One small part of the country wants to stop non-urgent surgery for smokers and obese unless they have lost weight or stopped smoking, expect for certain circumstances. It will never happen.

Third link is taken way out of context. It's one doctor's feelings.

Fourth link happens in America. Insurance companies ration care or refuse it outright based on money and profits.

The NHS isn't perfect, and our current health secretary's personal views are that he would to abolish it (not government policy). However, the government has slashed funding for it.

I would still much rather have the NHS than the US system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom