So this is the wonderful health care system that ACA supporters cite as an example?

[spacejamz]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...t-of-some-hospitals-alive-report-reveals?lite

Socialized medicine...ain't it grand??? Too bad that ACA did NOTHING to truly address the affordability issue (the actual costs of medical services charged by providers) which IMO is the main problem....

Link to Report:
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/bruce-keogh-review/Documents/outcomes/keogh-review-final-report.pdf

Maybe I should have chosen a more unbiased site....LOL

 

[WhipperSnapper]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...t-of-some-hospitals-alive-report-reveals?lite

Socialized medicine...ain't it grand??? Too bad that ACA did NOTHING to truly address the affordability issue (the actual costs of medical services charged by providers) which IMO is the main problem....

...and I bet it wouldn't be very difficult to write horror stories about Americans going without medication and treatment, etc. Or maybe horror stories could be written about health insurance company death panels where employees receive commissions for finding was to cancel sick people's insurance.

At least the British system isn't spending 17% of their GDP on health care. If they spent 17% then perhaps everyone could be treated like the Dutchess.

 

[Exterous]

At least the British system isn't spending 17% of their GDP on health care. If they spent 17% then perhaps everyone could be treated like the Dutchess.

Well - I believe they are the next closest country in terms of GDP spending. 11% is a reduction but its still a significant outlay.

That said - the report was not as 'scathing' as I would have imagined from the NBC headline. A quick read shows that one of the biggest issues is staffing but in no way touches on whether this is a financial decision or a lack of trained work force problem. In fact the article was surprisingly vague on the causes of the work force issues, barely going beyond 'Its a problem. They know its a problem. They are reviewing the problem'

The article did go on to mention that the institutions were under 'Financial Pressure' and have needed to undergo restructuring to make significant cost savings. Its very vague on the reasons behind them, but given that the Financial Pressure is applied universally to the institutions this leads me to believe there are some rather notable financial funding problems within their NHS. What amount or any ties to staffing are not noted.

Overall a concern to note but not enough detail to make wide sweeping policy decisions due to a complete lack of reference to underlying causes

 

[fskimospy]

Well - I believe they are the next closest country in terms of GDP spending. 11% is a reduction but its still a significant outlay.

That said - the report was not as 'scathing' as I would have imagined from the NBC headline. A quick read shows that one of the biggest issues is staffing but in no way touches on whether this is a financial decision or a lack of trained work force problem. In fact the article was surprisingly vague on the causes of the work force issues, barely going beyond 'Its a problem. They know its a problem. They are reviewing the problem'

The article did go on to mention that the institutions were under 'Financial Pressure' and have needed to undergo restructuring to make significant cost savings. Its very vague on the reasons behind them, but given that the Financial Pressure is applied universally to the institutions this leads me to believe there are some rather notable financial funding problems within their NHS. What amount or any ties to staffing are not noted.

Overall a concern to note but not enough detail to make wide sweeping policy decisions

11% is 6% of GDP less. In the US that would mean 900 billion less every year, or in Washington budget terms a $9 trillion savings over 10 years. That's a pretty huge amount of money. The information I've read actually says that the UK spends about 9.5% of GDP on health care, which puts the savings in US terms at over $1 trillion annually. There are also quite a few countries that spend more of their GDP on health care than the UK. The UK is actually on the low end for developed nations.

What's funny is that the structure of the NHS is completely different than the structure of Obamacare. If the NHS was working well or poorly would tell us little about how the ACA would work out. In terms of how systems operate the NHS has generally chosen cost control over quality. They spend a little more than half of what we do on health care, and therefore it's little surprise their health care isn't as good. Whether or not that's worth it to us is a question we have to answer.

 

[Exterous]

11% is 6% of GDP less.

Is your opinion of me so low you decided to do 17-11 for me?

In the US that would mean 900 billion less every year, or in Washington budget terms a $9 trillion savings over 10 years.

It would be a significant reduction but would the consequences of alarmingly low staffing rates be magnified by the much lower population density of the US? I don't know and, since the report provides no data as to the monetary shortfalls or staffing issues being related to payroll the report is rather unhelpful other than "NHS is not all puppies and unicorns"

The information I've read actually says that the UK spends about 9.5% of GDP on health care

It probably depends on who does the study and what they include in Health Care. According to the Guardian the WHO puts the UK expenditure at 11%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

(The most recent data from the WHO's web published material puts it at 9.5% but thats from 2011. New data? Bad Guardian reporting? A number of other countries are at 12% but that could just be comparing new data with old data.)

 

[fskimospy]

Is your opinion of me so low you decided to do 17-11 for me?

lol, fair enough. My bad!

It would be a significant reduction but would the consequences of alarmingly low staffing rates be magnified by the much lower population density of the US? I don't know and, since the report provides no data as to the monetary shortfalls or staffing issues being related to payroll the report is rather unhelpful other than "NHS is not all puppies and unicorns"

I would definitely not advocate adopting an NHS style system in the US, but their cost savings are pretty huge. The NHS is not known for particularly good quality, even as compared to countries that spend a similar percentage of GDP on health care. The NHS definitely needs some more puppies and unicorns.

It probably depends on who does the study and what they include in Health Care. According to the Guardian the WHO puts the UK expenditure at 11%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

(The most recent data from the WHO's web published material puts it at 9.5% but thats from 2011. New data? Bad Guardian reporting? A number of other countries are at 12% but that could just be comparing new data with old data.)

It would be surprising for health expenditures to jump 1.5% of GDP in only 2 years, but I guess anything is possible.

 

[werepossum]

Is your opinion of me so low you decided to do 17-11 for me?



It would be a significant reduction but would the consequences of alarmingly low staffing rates be magnified by the much lower population density of the US? I don't know and, since the report provides no data as to the monetary shortfalls or staffing issues being related to payroll the report is rather unhelpful other than "NHS is not all puppies and unicorns"



It probably depends on who does the study and what they include in Health Care. According to the Guardian the WHO puts the UK expenditure at 11%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

(The most recent data from the WHO's web published material puts it at 9.5% but thats from 2011. New data? Bad Guardian reporting? A number of other countries are at 12% but that could just be comparing new data with old data.)

Not true. Government is so amazingly efficient that once we move to a government system we can cut 1/3 of health care spending, cover 25% more people, and get even better care. Because, um, France.

 

[WHAMPOM]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...t-of-some-hospitals-alive-report-reveals?lite

Socialized medicine...ain't it grand??? Too bad that ACA did NOTHING to truly address the affordability issue (the actual costs of medical services charged by providers) which IMO is the main problem....

Link to Report:
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/bruce-keogh-review/Documents/outcomes/keogh-review-final-report.pdf

Maybe I should have chosen a more unbiased site....LOL

Only in the USA where a single Hospital issued tylenol tablet costs $8.00 (they get a quanty discount and pay less then you do over for the counter) and charge $1,000.00 aday for hospital care that costs $25.00 in japan. Need I mention the $6,000.00 American colonoscopy that costs $800.00 in Europe(actual cash charge for non residents).

edit; these numbers are two or more years old from the last time looked them up

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Only in the USA where a single Hospital issued tylenol tablet costs $8.00 (they get a quanty discount and pay less then you do over for the counter) and charge $1,000.00 aday for hospital care that costs $25.00 in japan. Need I mention the $6,000.00 American colonoscopy that costs $800.00 in Europe(actual cash charge for non residents).

edit; these numbers are two or more years old from the last time looked them up

Let's look at that $25 dollar cost. With all that happens in a day, do you really believe that's the cost? 25 cent wages perhaps? Equipment from spontaneous creation? Manna from heaven?

 

[Jhhnn]

Real numbers-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

Notice that the UK is quite stingy in terms of per capita spending on healthcare. In years past, it was even worse.

I suspect that there's a threshold effect at ~$4K per capita, with countries spending that much or more getting good results, other than the US, where we spend more than twice as much for very uneven results.

 

[blankslate]

...and I bet it wouldn't be very difficult to write horror stories about Americans going without medication and treatment, etc

You're so wrong Whippersnapper so so wrong... Our free market medical system is the bestest

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-2923545.html

In the recordings of two 911 calls that day, first obtained by the Los Angeles Times under a California Public Records Act request, callers pleaded for help for Rodriguez but were referred to hospital staff instead.

"I'm in the emergency room. My wife is dying and the nurses don't want to help her out," Rodriguez's boyfriend, Jose Prado, is heard saying in Spanish through an interpreter on the tapes.

"What's wrong with her?" a female dispatcher asked.

"She's vomiting blood," Prado said.

"OK, and why aren't they helping her?" the dispatcher asked.

"They're watching her there and they're not doing anything. They're just watching her," Prado said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5284151&page=1

Even pared down to a few minutes, the hour-long surveillance video is disturbing.
At 5:32 a.m. June 19, a woman in a hospital gown in the waiting area of the psychiatric emergency room of a New York City hospital topples first to her knees before collapsing on her face.



A full hour passes. Other people stream in and out of the waiting room, including hospital security guards. The woman writes something on the ground before going completely still. Finally, someone takes notice and alerts the staff. But by then, at 6:36 a.m., the woman is already dead.

If anything like these two stories happened in Europe, Australia, Japan or any other rich country with a "universal health care" system those stories would be being e-mail to every person on a conservative e-mail mailing list and all over Fox News.

 

[fskimospy]

She wasn't vomiting blood, she was just expelling some extra freedom.