Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Poor Britons healthier than rich Americans | 61 comments (61 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Poor Britons healthier (none / 1)
You don't have to be a multi-millionaire to get good health care in the U.S. What you need is to be employed at a job that has health benefits and that pays enough so that you can cover the deductable. Most insurance plans have an annual maximum of a couple of thousand dollars, so if you have a "reasonable" job, you have access to the best health care anywhere.

The problem with American health coverage is that below a certain point you fall out of the insurance system, and into the state supported system which is not nearly as good and which varies widely from state to state. Some states have excellent coverage for everybody, while others offer essentially nothing.

Note also that one of the ways the debate is distorted in the American political debate is by saying "X million people don't have health insurance," which is misleading because the numbers typically don't account for the people covered by the state plans. For example, hardly anybody has health insurance in Europe--because the state covers them.

Please be careful about filtering the distortions that come in partisan political debate from the real issue, which is that poor people have inadequate coverage.

And I think the whole point of this Britain versus American health article is that after they account for all of the factors they can think of, Americans still have worse health. It's not a matter of health coverage differences, it's a question of "what is going on here in our model?"

by asdf on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 08:42:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor Britons healthier (none / 1)
Efforts to improve the use of recommended health care services among the uninsured should focus on patient education and expanding insurance eligibility for both lower-income and higher-income adults.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 09:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor Britons healthier (none / 0)
Of course, if you are actually ill, you might find that the vaunted "best care anywhere" is ringed with protections to keep various treatments from being used.

(This does of course happen in a lot of systems, but US system boosters are the most egregious in attempting to pretend it doesn't happen.)

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 12:32:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor Britons healthier (none / 0)
The U.S. bashing here today is unbelievable. The places that have trouble with denying people promised care are the ones like Canada and Britain and France that can't keep up with the demand. This simply isn't the problem with the U.S. system.
by asdf on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 10:51:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor Britons healthier (none / 0)
This is not bashing, it's criticising a system that is broken.  I'm in the US and I have a lot of family here and in Britain.  As far as medical care I'd much rather be in Britain.  Forget the propaganda, asdf, and look at the studies and reports of Americans who have no insurance or cannot get medical care, yet we spend more than the other nations.

We don't have a problem "keeping up with demand" because we simply refuse to treat a lot of people.  I know this not only because I've read it, but because I've had painful experience in this area.  Right now, this very moment as I type, I am in need of some fairly routine medical treatment.  

I've needed this treatment since 1999.  I have pretty good insurance, yet I am not allowed the treatment.  It's medically necessary, but not covered.  I won't die from not having it, but my quality of life is quite severely affected.  I know other people in the same boat.  I know people who can't have the medications they need, or who can't afford their co-pays.  

What do you call that, asdf?  It's not "rationing" and it's not even having to be on a waiting list.  I don't know what it's called, but when you have no options it feels like "fuck you healthcare."  Maybe there's a nicer name.  

The reason I talk about this isn't to bash America, it's to identify a problem which, last I checked, is the first step in solving it.  And I want to solve this problem, I really do.  When you deny the problem, what are you hoping to accomplish?

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 11:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor Britons healthier (none / 0)
I agree that the American system is broken. I too have friends and family members for whom the system is not working.

And there are striking differences in attitudes towards medicine. Here, people pop pills like crazy, which skews the spending towards useless pharmaceutical research. In Britain, as I'm sure you know, you don't just take a cold pill or four, you tough it out.

The American system is the most expensive system, and it doesn't allocate services fairly, and it doesn't give good results. I agree with you. Personally I support single payer, unlike either of our political parties. I'm not expressing myself clearly, there's no question about that.

My reading of Metatone's comment was that in America you have insurance but don't get coverage. That is not the case, generally. (I don't know what your specific situation is.) On the other hand it is absolutely the case in countries with socialized medicine when they can't keep up with demand. Canadian surgery waiting lists. British dentist waiting lists. As you know.

Again, the problem with the American system is that it allocates health coverage unfairly.

by asdf on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 11:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor Britons healthier (none / 0)
Well, it seems to me all the hand-wringing about waiting lists, etc., is overblown right-wing propaganda -- not that the systems don't have problems or that this doesn't happen, but I don't think it's as bad as all that.  I've never known of one of my relatives who didn't get the medical care they needed in Britain.  

My nephew once had to wait two weeks for allergy testing, but otoh, I recently had to wait three weeks to get an appointment with a GI doc.  I don't see a lot of difference between those waits, except one was called a "waiting list" and the other was called "all booked up."

My reading of Metatone's comment was that coverage doesn't always mean coverage for everything.  There's no denying that this is indeed the case with many insurance plans here in the U.S.  Of course, there are hundreds of plans, so I'm sure there are many examples of the system working really well, but especially with HMOs, there are countless hurdles and exclusions and ways to disqualify a person from getting needed treatment.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 5th, 2006 at 12:09:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Poor Britons healthier (4.00 / 2)
Note also that one of the ways the debate is distorted in the American political debate is by saying "X million people don't have health insurance," which is misleading because the numbers typically don't account for the people covered by the state plans

Government plans including federal and state both count as insurance.  The number of uninsured is indeed the number of people without coverage.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Thu May 4th, 2006 at 02:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Poor Britons healthier than rich Americans | 61 comments (61 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: