Why would some people want American style healthcare?

[FishCanFly]

I mean, to abolish the NHS for extortionate private insurance?

I’m not for it, but I suppose some people think, maybe rightfully, that the quality of care would improve. That’s no good to those who can’t afford it though.

I don’t want American style but I do think we need to move towards a European model where we pay something towards our healthcare if we can afford to. The NHS isn’t particularly good generally and anyone who thinks differently hasn’t experienced decent care. That’s not to say that pockets of it aren’t excellent but it’s really not fit for purpose

I suppose, that if you can afford it (or your employer has a great policy), then you get the best healthcare that there is to offer. But obviously where people are dying from diabetes and other diseases because they can't afford insurance, then it's a bit of a crazy system.

However, I don't think the intransigence that's felt by some people, that the NHS is some wonderful pinnacle that we must never challenge or modernise, is helpful either. The NHS has so many problems and I do think some radical changes are necessary. The French have a great system. Australia seems to manage. We definitely need reform and I don't think it has to be free at the point of use - I would be happy to pay - and those on benefits would have some kind of exemption card so they wouldn't lose out on healthcare because of poverty.

It seems to come from the idea that healthcare isn't a basic right and should only be offered to those who can afford it as a motivation to make them earn more. They don't think people should get something for nothing.

It's from those confident (rightly or wrongly) that they will never be the ones to lose everything and go bankrupt because they or their child gets cancer or some other serious condition.

I can't understand that either.

But I can understand people wanting to move to something more like some of the other European countries, and I think I feel that way myself, although I am not wealthy. I would rather pay towards treatment and actually get it in a timely manner than have to wait years for treatment just because it is free. My son is on a waiting list to see an ENT specialist and we were told at the outset that it will probably be two years before he is seen. I can't fathom why anyone thinks that is good healthcare, even if it is free.

I would rather pay for a decent healthcare system than suffer the one we have. Refusal to refer for treatment, refusal to give flu vaccine to at risk groups because "we don't do that here" and the inability to spot the signs of a serious infection over 4 months leading to several out of hours visits and an admission is unacceptable.

When we had to visit the doctors with our youngest while on holiday in America we were seen, diagnosed and back at our hotel with antibiotics within 90 minutes. Here we would have still been in the phone waiting to speak to a call handler to have him triaged.

However, I don't think the intransigence that's felt by some people, that the NHS is some wonderful pinnacle that we must never challenge or modernise, is helpful either.

Absolutely. I can’t stand the political ‘we have the best healthcare system in world’ rhetoric - we really don’t and especially politicians shouldn’t spout this nonsense in a bid to sit and do nothing to improve the NHS, particularly by making those who criticise its shortcomings out as ungrateful. It reeks of propaganda and brainwashing. I agree a European model would work better - there just isn’t the money to support a system that was created back in the 1940s. As with many other things the UK isn’t very good at updating things...

My experience was wonderful. Yes, there are waiting times, but seeing a GP isn't a luxury and it shouldn't be.

Seeing a GP is a luxury where I am. Appointments are like hen’s teeth and then you get the dreaded 10 min one symptom thing.

I’m not familiar with the American health system but something needs to be done.

I wouldn’t but I think people should value what is available more. I like the small contribution thing which would help with this.

Seen elsewhere, just for debate ...

If you don't have an emergency, then yes, you may need to wait. Emergencies are done instantly. What i don't like are pesky receptionists with zero medical training.

I think the NHS is generally good in an emergency and I am very grateful for it.

However, the long waits often push things into becoming an emergency when they otherwise wouldn't be, which can be devastating for the individual patients and crippling for the NHS.

I don’t know what the answer is, but as somebody who works within the NHS and obviously has access to it as a patient occasionally, it is just not fit for purpose and something drastically needs to change.

I work an extra 2-3 hours a day (unpaid) just to ensure my clients are getting the care they need (and that’s still only on a basic level)s

It has been a couple of years since I looked at the figures but the last time I looked the US government paid more per person for health care than the UK government/s. That isn't counting the money paid in health insurance, it is just the cost directly to the government budget. I imagine this is because more people make a profit from heathcare in the US.

If we funded the NHS to the same level that the US government funds the Us system then the NHS may not be as underfunded as it currently is.

I have to wait whether I have an emergency or not.

And, SerendityJane this only adds to the myth of the free NHS.

It’s not free, we all pay for and cannot always use it.

An American colleague doesn’t like that you don’t get any choice of doctor, treatment or when you have it. Which is true, we don’t really get a choice unless you pay. Free = worse.

I’m guessing people want American style healthcare because on face value it’s so much better than the NHS, providing of course that you have a good job and good insurance. We have excellent employer provided insurance and just in terms of care, ease of seeing a doctor and things like that, there’s no comparison because the US is so much better. However, medical bills are the number 1 reason for bankruptcy in the US. That’s really not something anyone should be aiming for. Neither system is good.

I kind of agree with @Answerthequestion - I think the nhs does an amazing job, but when it was set up, frail older people and many people when various health conditions and disabilities didn't live very long and people generally had someone (female) at home to look after them while they recovered. And while it's great people live longer, premature babies survive and women aren't tied to them home anymore, the improvements in survival and lack of available support at home (because households generally need two incomes now) mean it has a huge amount to contend with.

If people like me could pay even a smallish access fee for services it could be a huge help to improve them for all.

I wouldn't want American style healthcare (don't know why that's always touted as the only alternative to the NHS tbh) but I think there are plenty of other more effective schemes out there than the NHS.

I think there's a middle ground.
My labour and delivery cost me about 1.5k with good insurance, but i had a private room pre and post delivery, my husband was able to stay with me and my care was second to none. As it was anticipated we had the money to pay for it.
Similarly the service i get from my paediatric doctor for run of the mill illnesses and questions about my baby is wonderful.
That said, we've definitely been stung before with my husband who has different insurance with big unexpected bills and yes sometimes there's been times we don't go to the doctor cos of money. I know people who've nearly gone bankrupt due to medical expenses.
I think there's definitely a half way house - pay for " insurance "if you can to improve the service all round.

It would totaly screw people on lower incomes. Those on benefits would MAYBE get freebies, but those on lower end salaries would be absolutely fucked.

I don't think I've come across anyone saying that they'd want a copycat US system over here - what I have seen is people legitimately calling out problems with the NHS being accused of wanting that.

I agree with a PP that it's really unhelpful that any criticism whatsoever of the NHS is met with accusations of wanting to sell out to the US system. I also feel that there's a difference between the staff working in the NHS and the structure of how the NHS works. So many people choose to conflate the two - much of that seems to be for political purposes.

The hard left in UK have a line to take which states that any changes to NHS provision will lead to a US style health service in which millions will be excluded from health care and millions will be bankrupted by the price they will have to pay. This is a lie designed to frighten ill informed people into voting Labour.

The truth is that there are many health care models across the world. Germany for example has a compulsory, means tested insurance scheme which also covers social care in old age. Care is free at the point of delivery. If you are rich you pay a lot more than those who are poor - most of whom pay little or nothing. The health care delivered is massively better than that available on the NHS. Similar systems exist in Belgium, France, Netherlands etc.

The NHS has its advantages. It also has its disdvantages. But the idea that we have to choose between an NHS system and a US style system is a lie.

If you speak to people who live in Germany or Switzerland they have a health service but have to have their own insurance. The free at the point of use mantra has damaged the NHS