If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You have no idea :mad:
Exactly what im trying to say, but health care is shit in america, all the fat pigs (americans) get to buy health insurance, and i cant get it cause im disabled. I'm american, I hate the government, the way health care is managed, and most importantly i hate american lawyers.
Access to healthcare is what is shit...
I've been to the UK when I was a kid, It's a lot nicer there.
Yes, but if you don't have health insurance, you get cheap operations that arent as good as if you have health insurance.
I think with most things you have to pay up front any way. I hope you do realise that there is actually very little 'free' stuff on the NHS, so even if you were to move here, then you'd still have to pay for quite a few things.
lots of hospitals would rather jsut treat their patients rather than give them a bill and see them die i'd suspect
yea but in america people only care about money. and im sure i wouldnt have to pay for any major operations or procedures (thats only operations ive had).
Unless you're a UK or EU citizen I'm sure you would. They might treat emergencies, but I don't think they'd give free health care if you came over just to be treated
I'm sure MoK can confirm this (or tell me I'm wrong).
I meant moved and applied for citizenship and lived there.
Didn't mean it like that. :rolleyes:
We don't bill the individual usually. We have agreements with most other nations to bill their embassy.
And people with certain illnesses can get some things free as well.
ok we could be a lot better, certainly in our cancer care, but i don't see how you can even compare the Us system to the UK
If you're willing to travel 30/40 miles then this isn't really the case anymore. I had a minor operation on my hand last year, was informed I could wait 6 months and get it done in a local hospital, or be driven (for free) to a treatment centre 30 miles away and get driven back with a wait of 3 weeks.
France may well have a better system than us, but then so would we if we barred lots of people without jobs. MSF works in France and doesnt feel the need here.
Medecines Sans Frontieres I assume. Given their mission is to provide emergency medical assistance to populations where health structures are insufficient it says a lot that they work in France.
Here's the details of why they work there (for those that don't want to click the AME - Aide Médicale d'Etat - or state medical aid had its eligibility criteria changed removing medical care from many of the poorest or most excluded in France).
France: Helping those excluded from care
Thats the one, like I said if the NHS didnt treat the people it didnt like the look of it would mean a better service for the rest of us, but frankly I think the French policy stinks.
But it's comforting to know that some insurance companies will cover Viagra (but not the pill)
Just read the article, it looks like MSF have been there since 1987 :shocking:
I wasn't saying that U.S. healthcare system is flawless; both it and the NHS have flaws. I was only suggesting that nationalising it might not be the great panacea (get it? haha) some people seem to think it will be. American healthcare does seem inefficient. They also spend more on healthcare, as a percentage of GDP, than Canada and Germany, though you have to add, among other things, the large sums they spend on research and development into that equation. The uninsured are obviously a problem but a portion of the millions who aren't insured will include those who are rich enough to afford it, but who don't have it (don't know why), those who are poorer and qualify for medicaid but again don't apply for it for whatever reason and those who get treated and simply don't pay for it. The U.S. Also has free or low-priced charity care people can take advantage of.
Nationalised healthcare systems do do what they're essentially supposed to, which is to provide simple primary care for most people, but they tend to falter when it comes to providing more complicated care.
The problem with the NHS is that it's too big and unwieldy to be managed from Whitehall. Staff are stretched and under-pressure from sometimes contradictory targets and directives, which is having a negative effect on how compassionate care is; especially if you're old/inarticulate. Keeping the old-style matron might have saved us from all the infections you hear about, but that would involve nurses being sternly told what to do, and we can't have that because that's just mean. The poorest should be covered by the state but instead of leaving it to government to mismanage billions most people should be able to spend their money at the hospitals they choose. That choice will force bad hospitals to improve, people will be in control rather than bureaucrats.
I only recall the gist of what Wanless said but I think I was accurate. Sir Wanless can't be talking out of his arse, he has a 'Sir' in front of his name man! That's like a certified arse clamp.
It's often different for major operations tho.