Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 239 posts

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#151

Post by vidarh »

xvector wrote: post #96
vidarh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I'm trying to make you feel worse about it: In the UK we pay less per capita in taxes toward healthcare than you do in the US (or at least did last I added up the numbers - Medicare and Medicaid alone added up to a higher per capita cost than the NHS), and if we do want private health insurance, which here is basically "queue skip insurance", it costs a fraction of in the US because they only need to provide…

In the UK you also pay insane taxes and your _median_ citizen in the UK has far less disposable income after all expenses including healthcare, according to OECD metrics. In software engineering specifically, I'd make a third of my current income in the UK. I'd much rather make 3x as much in the US and still get free healthcare through my employer, with shorter waiting lists and better treatment outcomes than the NHS…

> They will very quickly find that the US system is far better than the NHS. We get seen more quickly, our doctors can afford to actually spend time on us, more effort goes into root-causing a problem, we have more treatment options, etc.

Nothing stops you from choosing extra insurance in the UK too if you believe you need that level of cover.

The only reason you're comparing it to the NHS instead of an equivalently expensive UK private healthcare plan is that the NHS provides good enough universal coverage that most people don't feel the need for more.

But the US equivalent would be to compare it with Medicare and Medicaid.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#152

Post by mattclarkdotnet »

arjie wrote: post #36

One thing that's surprised me about the US is the general slowness of most things. In India, you can get MRIs and CT Scans same day. Or you could the last time I was there. And it didn't cost very much in comparison. My doctors have all been good (attested to by my parents who are surgeons themselves) but the healthcare system is wonky. One thing I didn't expect is that the Indian system where you just drag your heal…

Australia checking in and agreeing, usually same day or even within a few hours for MRI, x-ray and ultrasound. Next day for CAT. Centralised records so each practitioner can see the full history.

Oh and blood tests done with max 30 minute wait and then results in 48h

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#153

Post by mytailorisrich »

vidarh wrote: post #142
mytailorisrich wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private care is still quite affordable on a good salary so I can understand that you feel that private insurance is not worth it, but you were also very lucky with your NHS experience. For instance the UK have very bad outcomes for cancer because things tend to be caught late and treatment delayed thereafter. Frankly, for anything potentially serious or time-sensitive I would go straight private (and in fact the NHS…

> The NHS has much bigger problems than funding. Even the new, left-wing government has indicated that they won't increase funding without reforms. It's always very convenient to starve something of funding for years when you want to insist something needs to be reformed before you can spend as much as it costs to provide service at an adequate quality. Reform or no reform, outcomes won't improve without increasing t…

The point is that throwing ever more money at a bottomless pit isn't a solution. Hence there must be changes, not just more money.

Another issue is that the NHS is a religion. It is blasphemous to suggest departing from free-of-charge delivery or private involvement (although that's already what we have). Even suggesting "reform" is badly received.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#154

Post by hnbad »

l5870uoo9y wrote: post #93

The UK performs better (third place) than, for example, Germany (second last place). The UK's healthcare system is often heavily criticized as being on the brink of collapse - any explanation for this?

The UK's healthcare system isn't failing, it's being failed. There's been a constant cycle of defunding the NHS because it is bad and the NHS becoming worse from a lack of funding. The obvious end goal is full privatization once the system becomes defunct enough for that to be sold as a "tough but necessary" decision. There is also very blatant lobbying from US healthcare firms in the UK as they would seek to expand into the UK once they no longer have to compete with the NHS.

It's effectively self-imposed austerity, which has been demonstrated to produce worse outcomes than investing in public services instead. There's an obvious conflict of interest at play as politicians (in the UK especially thanks to its governmental system) rarely have to rely on these public services as they can easily afford private alternatives.

There's also the factor of Western corruption. In Germany for example the health minister during the early pandemic owned a significant stake in several pharmacies while at the same time pushing for and implementing a mask subsidy that created massive profits for pharmacies handing out masks at or below cost. These ties are often legal despite the obvious conflict of interest.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#157

Post by hnbad »

xvector wrote: post #111
wickedsight wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any explanation for this? Everything is relative. Most people only use health care in their own countries and therefore can only compare to another time in their own country. So if it used to be better in the UK, it might feel really bad now. If it's always been meh in Germany, it probably feels ok there, since it's always been that way. Also, populism. Healthcare is a major point in the UK elections. It's been a m…

> It's been a major talking point [...] doesn't have to be objectively true for people to feel like it is true. Just like everyone always thinks crime is up even when it's down. I'm sorry, but no. It's not just a talking point. As someone with family in both countries, as well as having parents that have worked in both medical systems: The NHS waiting lists are genuinely bad and this isn't all in peoples' heads. It's…

> It's not even a "left vs right" issue; no one thinks the system is working right now.

That's true but as always the difference between left vs right (populism) is not what is being said but what the proposed solution is. This goes for many things: healthcare, immigration, poverty, etc. The issues are hot button topics but the proposed or implied solutions vary drastically. Alas of course the left in countries like the UK and Germany have become very centrist and instead of proposing different solutions from the right often join the moderate conservatives in suggesting what the right says "but less". This results in aimless reformism, means testing and bureaucracy which further feeds into far right populism by demonstrating "the left" as incompetent.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#158

Post by tstrimple »

zdragnar wrote: post #115
chgs wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one person has such power you aren’t really in a democracy

Perhaps you don't understand how voting works? When the difference between minority in favor (not passing) and majority in favor (passing) is one person, then yes, one person has such power. Democracy doesn't mean that the minority gets to overrule the majority when they feel like it. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

Unfortunately that’s exactly what “democracy” in the US means. Without a super majority, any individual can hold up any legislation they want outside of budget reconciliation. It will be that way as long as the filibuster exists in its current form.

Re: US health system ranks last compared with peer nations – report

#160

Post by pitkali »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #147
evnix wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general slowness extends to simple things like x-rays and blood tests too. This is not just US but whole of the west seems to have the exact same attitude. Most of Asia has same day or next day medical tests. In India you can order something like UberEats where in a technician comes home collects your blood samples and the results are emailed within the next 24 hours or so. Medicine seems to be commoditzed in the…

"This is not just US but whole of the west seems to have the exact same attitude" The slowness you describe has not been my experience in many European countries. It really depends on how the healthcare system is designed to work. I was pretty surprised when I went to China and I could just go to a doctor's office without an appointment, stand in a queue, stick out my tongue, get a diagnosis within ten seconds, and b…

Out of the Western Europe, I lived in Sweden and Germany, and I have not been impressed with the health care so far. I hear it's different when you're having a heart attack, but if you "just" tore some knee ligaments, for example, getting good care in a timely manner is a struggle.
Post reply on HN