I'm shocked that life expectancy is falling in the US - and infant mortality is crap, too

[McEdam]

The US comes in at no. 42 in international league tables of life expectancy - because so many people don't have health insurance, apparently. Perhaps we should be thankful we have an NHS, however much we like to complain.

Also scary stats re infant mortality - US really not where it should be. I gather birth in the US is quite medicalised - perhaps this shows that Hospital Knows Best approach/high C-section rates are actually not safer at all?

US tumbles down life expectancy ratings

So are taxes in America significantly lower then?
(am not really getting into a political wrangle)

Most people are under-insured, chocolatedot. This means they have some level of coverage, but not nearly enough. A lot of folks just have emergency cover, and no primary cover.

WEll the NHS costs a family of four around £4,500 a year which adds up to $9,000 annually.

They are slightly lower for individuals, MrsB

They are slightly lower for individuals, MrsB

Of course it depends on your scheme but for the price of NHS per capita, you can buy gold plated coverage. I am pretty sure the French healthcare system is the most expensive in the world.

hmm
Maybe it's the socialist in me coming out, but I quite like the idea of everyone having the same access to the same healthcare and being taxed according to their income to pay for it...
[no emoticon for rose-tinted pinko lefty specs ]

I think Zim isn't quite the bottom as it's something like 34.2 (as opposed to 34.1 for Swaziland).

I find it shocking that a country which considers itself one of the most civilized in the world has such a shocking mortality rate.
The NHS is not expensive when you consider everything it has to cover. The sky high cost of private health insurance in the US (I have relatives there who struggle to meet the costs) means that health care will not be available to everyone.
Thank goodness we do have the NHS here and highly trained paramedics who don't have to ask "what's your health cover" before deciding which hospital they take you to.

Chocolatedot, you say - "the cost of the NHS to every man, woman and child would buy the very very best insurance available in the US."

If that's the case, how does America spend far more as a percentage of GDP on health than the UK does? And their GDP per head is higher to begin with, so spending per head is even higher than the % figures suggest. Where is the rest of that money going?

I wondered where you are getting your comparative figures from - genuinely interested. Cheers, Tech

eleusis, isn't it difficult to get medical insurance in the US if you have a pre-existing medical condition? I have American friends who I seem to remember have told me that they can't, practically speaking, change job (and hence insurance) because they have a long-term condition that's covered by their current medical insurance but would be "pre-existing" and excluded from any subsequent insurance. Or something like that. Does that make any sense or have I got entirely the wrong end of the stick?

"highly trained paramedics who don't have to ask "what's your health cover" before deciding which hospital they take you to."

and at least you get a paramedic if you're in an accident = these days in Zim many people don't even bother calling for an ambulance if someone is injured as chances are they can't afford it regardless of where they get taken.

We saw a man knocked down on the road while on holiday last year - DH immidiately picked up his mobile to call for an ambulance - and his cousin took the phone out of his hand and told him not to bother......was he being uncharitable/cruel - no just a harsh reality of life sadly. He was pulled to the side of the road and left - we have no idea what happened to him after that

Can all the experts who have first hand experience of medical services in the US and in the UK please raise their hands?

I think it's just me and Expat so far. We have very different opinions. I was insured. She wasn't. Therein lies the diffrence.

BUT, as far as a I know and correct me if I'm wrong expat the problem was the price of the care and not the quality.

Top of the range medical insurance in the US for a family of four I think costs around $10,000 which is slightly more than what the NHS costs a family of four in the UK annually ($9,000). For that insurance, you would however get better service in the States - shorter waiting times and more comfortable and private accomodation etc. That is the only comparison I am making. Obviosuly insurance is only part of the equation but ss the US has significantly better cancer and heart survival rates than the UK I'm not surprised by the difference in spending.

I would agree with you on that entirely, eleusis.

The quality of the care was excellent, even at the county - for the indigent and uninsured - level.

I've called for two ambulances in my life (for other people). No one asked me for insurance when the ambulance was dispatched.

And here in the UK, they just take you to local shit hospital whether you want to go there or not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the NHS costs a family of 4 around 4500 per year".

How do you work that out?

But quality of care is a non-issue if you can't afford to get through the door of the hospital.
I agree that the top levels of care available in the US probably are some of the best in the world, but when huge swathes of your population can't access it (because they're under-insured, not insured at all, only on Medicare, not local to the best centre etc) then I'm not sure whether that systme deserves to be rated as 'the best in the world'.
Whcih I suppose is the point the original Guardian article was making.

I have also been in an ambulance - well, it was actually with my husband, who had slipped on ice walking to work and fractured his skull - and was not asked about insurance, although you can specify if it's at all appropriate (sometimes, given the patient's condition, it isn't).

In many cities, there will be at least one hospital with a certain trauma level status, and if your injury or condition is of such severity, you'll be rushed there asap. In such cases, your insurance will usually cover care there and/or a large percentage of it until such time as you can be transferred.

In some cities, there is more than one trauma center, but with specialties. For example, in Houston, if you get shot, you want to go to Ben Taubb Hospital. If they can't save you there, they can't save you anywhere when it comes to gunshot wounds.

But if it's a car smash, then Hermann's the place.

"not local to the best centre etc"

See, now that is not an issue in the states. You can go where you like. There's no one telling you that you can't come in because you have the wrong post code.

I'm a sceptic on the numbers quoted here. Especially since it was given my a democrat and socialised medicine one of their big campaign issues.

I think socialised medicine degrades the system for everyone.

Raising hand, eleusis

I meant if the best place is on the other side of the country will Medicare or your insurance fly you there?

ok, we are up to 3 now. Have you stayed in a hospital? Surgery?

There are co-pays on top of that, the the patients have to pay themselves. Our co-pay was 20pc

You could sue them to see if that were possible, MrsB.

Unfortunately, however, the same situation happens with the NHS, however, where your treatment or drugs may not be available to you because of rationing or postcode lottery.

Both systems have their flaws.