AIBU to not understand the english attitude towards the NHS?

[EggplantsForever]

Every time someone criticises the NHS, every time someone asks for better health service, or to have some not absolutely vital procedure (like IVF) covered, or to be referred to a specialist there is a barrage of voices here calling them "ungrateful", proclaiming that "the NHS is on it's knees", etc.

I just find it so peculiarly English and I have very hard time understanding it! Perhaps you can explain?

I mean, it is almost as if people feel that someone very nice and kind has given the English people the free health service, and they should be eternally grateful and not mention its shortcomings or it will be taken away. But the NHS is in fact paid by your own taxes! It belongs to you. And you have full right to criticise it and expect it to work just as well as other free healthcare systems in the world. Which it doesn't. It actually compares pretty badly even to the countries that spend less money per capita on health. I have a feeling it is actually badly mismanaged.

For example, look at this table en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_of_healthcare
UK is at the bottom at most of them, below Portugal/Spain, Israel, and Slovenia who spend significantly less money on healthcare.

From my personal experience, having lived in a country with free healthcare, you could go to a gynaecologist without referral (and women were advised to see one for a yearly check up). Skin specialist did not require referral either. Referral to any other specialist took me on average two weeks. IVF was available to everyone for free. The list of cancer drugs included drugs that are not funded in the UK. etc And people still routinely complained about their healthcare. Which they had full right to do, because it was funded by their own taxes.

So I am just not sure why is everyone so afraid to criticise the NHS? It is actually one of UK's biggest problems. And why does everyone eternally fear that it will be "taken away"?

"And for anyone who wants an insight into the US system, I recommend Lionel Shirver's "So Much For That"."

Yes, very sad book where a husband basically wants his wife to die because they can't afford to treat her any more.

MyBrexit - I do think France has an excellent system. Belgium's is good, but I did know a diabetic man who travelled to work in Belgium every day because he got all his money back on his treatment in France and only some of it in Belgium.

My sister is in Australia- she regularly has to prioritise health problems within her family- they have insurance but are required to pay an amount.
So it's literally should we get OH's painful elbow looked at- or my eye disorder- because they can't do it all.

Because in the current political context, if we lose the NHS the American system is what we will get instead. That is what people are scared of.

Utter rubbish -- elect the Labour party and see what's left after a few years. The socialist SNP/Greens are in the process of destroying Scotland's NHS. Hardly any GP surgeries at full strength; ambulance service strike threatened. I've heard that the Tories will destroy the NHS since the 70s as a leftist mantra - well they're doing a fucking bad job at that.

And I fully agree

Why is it that the only alternative peoplecan think about is the US with a private healthcare that a lot of people can’t Afford?

There are other systems in place, private or semi private or fully state funded that
1- work better for the patient
2- are better value for money.

Yes unjust need to look at how well each system in the work fares to find them.
France is one of the best one in the world. So maybe THEY Are the ones we should aim to emulate???

speakout maybe then the answer is that the Australian system is NOT the one the U.K. should copy?

It’s nit because in Australia or in whatever other country, the healthcare system isn’t great that it means no other country has a good system in place.

As for Australia, to get the decent cover you have top up insurance, my bil gets great coverage but only because he pays $300 a month in premiums. He said the base cover was really bad

I think this type of information is really confusing for others that don’t understand the system. What you have written is more relevant to the US system. Basically the optional private healthcare insurance is only really useful for planned stuff and then yes, you may as well have the top tier or nothing. I pay a lot more than $300/month for private but that covers the whole family not just myself.

If you are in an accident, are attacked by a shark, fall off a ladder, are bitten by a spider or snake, have a heart attack, your child has a seizure at 2am in the morning, have a stroke or any other one of a million unplanned events then you are treated in the public hospital system for free. If you are having a knee replacement and don’t want to wait as long as you would in the free public system you can PLAN to have this in the private system and pay for it (in addition to the private insurance you already pay). If you are having a baby you can PLAN to have it in the private system if that’s what you wish. Or you could have it for free in the public system. It depends if choice of Dr, private room and nice food are important to you and you are happy to pay for these things.

If you are driving along and are hit by a lorry you will be taken to a hospital in the public system. Your treatment there is in no way linked to whether you have top tier private health, low tier or none.

Also, not all operations can be performed in the private sector. I have had planned operations that could only be done in tertiary public hospitals (the required surgeons and expertise did not exist in the private system), other planned operations I have had in the private system no problems. One of my kids can’t be treated in the private system, the expertise and facilities they need does not exist so even though I pay a shitload of private insurance they are only treated in the public system (for free).

Yes, very English. Then again it would have to be wouldn’t it? No other country has similar.

Your outcomes uses three measures which are not necessarily a true reflection of the quality of healthcare. Add into the worse outcomes things like alcohol, obesity, inactivity, smoking and one can see an entirely different reason for the U.K. to have worse outcomes than many other nations.

insurance based system are fine until you can’t pay because of long term serious illness (maybe where you need listing for a transplant - the poor don’t get transplants in US) or live in poverty. The NHS remains free at point of delivery and remains a much, much cheaper system based on GDP than most European countries and USA.

And you can get your painful shoulder treated in the public system and your dodgy eye - for free. Seeing a GP for these things would be free. If you need to be referred then you would either be referred in the public system and wait or chose to be seen faster in the private system and pay the additional fee. If you choose the private system then yes, you will need to prioritise which one comes first if you don’t have the money immediately available for both .

Yes, very English. Then again it would have to be wouldn’t it? No other country has similar.

@toomuchtooold OP I think the reason people defend the NHS so hard is that they don't know any better. The only systems anyone really knows much about in the UK are ones from other English speaking countries particularly the US, so they make this false dichotomy where if you don't put up with the NHS you get full privatisation

Well this is patronising Not everyone who disagrees with you does it out of ignorance.
On the (almost identical) thread that ran about a week ago people compared the NHS to systems in non-English-speaking countries and the response was always "Well India / Senegal / wherever isn't really a fair comparison is it? That's in the developing world"
Most of us don't live under a rock and are aware there are more than 2 or 3 ways of "doing healthcare".

Because in the current political context, if we lose the NHS the American system is what we will get instead.

Wow! You know that for certain do you? Fire up the crystal ball you obviously have access to and drum up the winning Euromillions numbers for me for tonight please. Sensationalist unfounded scaremongering bullshit.

What bugs me is that people automatically assume that the choices are either a) a free at point of delivery NHS system, or b) the US system, where those who can afford it get healthcare.

I live in a very nearby EU country where healthcare is sooooooo much better than in the UK. It is also paid for out of people's taxes. A prescription for antibiotics only costs me about €2.50 (not £8.80!), and yes, I pay a small amount (about €5) after reimbursement to see a doctor. However, I can get an appointment for a GP/paediatrician for the kids on the same day, and I can easily see a specialist, such as an opthalmologist, gynaecologist or ENT without having to be referred - I can usually get an appointment within a couple of weeks at most. When it comes to hospital, I get a decent room (2 people at most) thanks to hospitalisation insurance provided free by DH's employer (but which would only cost €150 a year for the entire family), and I didn't get thrown out the same day when I had anyof my 4 children.

The NHS isn't free (it's paid for out of your taxes!), and it doesn't work well in many parts of the country. There are alternatives that work just as well on the other side of the channel and that don't cost patients anything more....

I'm interested in some of the comments above about the Belgian system - saying you had to pay 3 times:

"I used to live in Belgium. I paid for my healthcare THREE TIMES. One through taxes, two through mutuality contributions (social insurance) and three at the point of delivery. It was better care, easy to get GP appointment, can go straight to a specialist if you want and serious illnesses would be covered completely, BUT it is very expensive. Many people also had private insurance in addition to paying in the three ways I've already mentioned."

Mutuelle contributions are hardly expensive - €35 twice a year for the whole family! Outside of Brussels, seeing a GP (after reimbursement) costs about €5. Again, hardly expensive. And yes, many/most people have private hospitalisation insurance, but it only costs about €150 a year for a whole family, and most Belgian employers provide it for free. I don't know what sector you were working in, but I don't know any Belgians that have additional "private insurance" other than hospitalisation insurance.

I'm also interested that someone mentioned the possibility for a GP telephone appointment the same day as being a good thing. So, I've got a massively sore throat and a fever - how does my GP check that out over the phone? frankly, I'd rather have a system where I could get an actual appointment the same day. I was horrified on a recent visit to the PIL that their local GP did a telephone call for my young son - who was suffering a terrible earache and had a temperature - instead of an appointment. I was told that if he was still in pain 3 days later, we were allowed an appointment. So, he was expected to be in pain for 3 days, before anyone could be arsed to actually look in his ears. Yes, that's a great system.

Fuck tons of misinformation about the Australian system on here from non-Australians.

No shock, really.

Nhs is crap. People have to wait months and months for certain procedures such as endoscopy in the meantime you must go to the gatekeepers which takes ages to be reffered to a consultant or specialist who will then decide whether you need the procedure or not. Husband started the process in November 17 he had his procedure septembre 18.

If he was in another European country it would have never taken this long

My sister is in Australia- she regularly has to prioritise health problems within her family- they have insurance but are required to pay an amount.
So it's literally should we get OH's painful elbow looked at- or my eye disorder- because they can't do it all.

So your sister and her family cannot access Medicare? Are they citizens of a non-Commonwealth country?

What I find annoying is 'but the NHS saved my life and x other people's lives so I will always be grateful'

A) that's their job/aim
B) happens at every hospital across the world
C) you/we pay through taxes anyway yet has so much inefficiencies
D) if you are grateful are you also grateful your boiler works at home every time it comes on?

“My sister is in Australia- she regularly has to prioritise health problems within her family- they have insurance but are required to pay an amount.
So it's literally should we get OH's painful elbow looked at- or my eye disorder- because they can't do it all.”

But this makes no sense. If you have private cover you can also access the free universal healthcare system. You don’t need to choose.

You can choose to see a private orthopaedic doctor and a private ophthalmologist, both of which will cost. I can conceive how you might have to prioritise which is more important - or - you could see one or both of these specialists in public and not pay a cent.

I think people are either misunderstanding what their relatives are telling them, or their relatives have no idea how the Australian health care system works.

unicornandbows - This. I hate it when people say stuff like that.

I've started another related thread:
AIBU To ask you to tell me about healthcare systems in other countries?http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/3415646-to-ask-you-to-tell-me-about-healthcare-systems-in-other-countries

Not sure whether this was the right way to go, but didn't want this to get lost on this thread.

It is odd that the NHS gets such special status. Nobody goes about saying

"the public education system led my son to Oxbridge and a career as a neurosurgeon, we should all be so grateful!"

and

"you're complaining about the current state of public schools? Do you really want to live in a country where ALL schools are private and only those can afford it can get an education???"

Doesn't happen.

The thing about like in the US 'our normal delivery bill was $25,000 but we only had to pay $100'- the actual cost isn't $25,000. That's just what they bill you or your insurers for. The actual cost is way way lower.

I can see how you would get very worried about how the country was going to fund healthcare if it had to meet costs like that. But it wouldn't because the true cost is much lower- it's just the consumer is billed such an inflated amount. In the UK a normal birth costs the NHS less than £2000 at my last recollection and I just don't believe it genuinely costs over ten times that in the USA.

For reference, my last c-section (here in Belgium) and 4 day hospital stay costs just over €6000. I didn't pay anything for it at all (covered by my hospitalisation insurance), but that was the amount on the bill that I saw.