With our crazy 'socialist' health care system, how come England is healthier that the USA?

I like my personal healthcare system the best. I pay for my own medical care and expect nobody else to contribute a dime. I like supporting myself and my family, am just funny that way. I’m an “average American citizen,” yet I don’t recall anyone from that journal giving me a physical. Not that would ever have my permission, but that’s beyond things. Paying “loads of cash” is really a “not let some strangers make your healthcare decisions for you” type of effect, not a placebo.

Access to health insurance, which is one thing the report mentioned, isn’t the only thing that affects health. You have to take into account genetic issues, geographic issues, socioeconomic issues…. For example, a wealthy business owner may have access to all the health care he needs, but maybe he doesn’t go to the doctor as much because he’s too busy running his company and they don’t see the red flag saying he has heart disease. Maybe he’s super stressed because he’s trying to keep his company afloat. The US, in general, has a work oriented mindset. Work work work… that’s what we do. We have fewer days off and work longer hours. It’s bound to have an effect on us. Even more if you’re the kind of person who takes your work stresses home with you.
Also, “average citizen” makes me grind my teeth. There’s no such thing.

The question is a non-sequitur, as Allie pointed out. The cause and effect is much more complicated than the effects of the money around medicine.

It also seems intentionally disingenuous or ironic bait for conservative American answers. “Socialist” health care, as found in the modern Western world outside the USA, means people can go to the doctor when they are ill, and not have to worry about costs. Works quite well for most things. In the USA, many people have to worry about the costs and sometimes therefore don’t get treated, or not until they’re already messed up, etc.

Because the populace as a whole has equal access to health care and access to preventative care. people who have no health insurance in the US wait until they are really sick and then go to the emergency room.

Could it possibly have something to do with industry completely toxifying our environment? Not a single stream or river in this country is free from lead or mercury due to coal burning.

Then again, I doubt England is much better.

capitalism. It pushes all kinds of bad stuff on the population all in the name of more capitalism. Sell shit quality foodstuffs that have a high profit but low quality and soon enough it is everywhere to the point it is almost impossible to avoid. The health system is profit driven so it caters to those they can make the most money from. And the point that in order for capitalism to survive the people have to work long until they die, not until they get sick.

It’s the floridated water. We never should have done that.

@woodcutter Perfectly put.

Read the headline just to the right of this story.

“Gaddafi forces beat up BBC team”

I wonder how thier health is doing?

Ah, I see the right wing is at its usual best in diverting the discussion to another topic, @Jaxk.

Ha! Great question. The USA’s world rank is $37 in healthcare outcomes (life expectancy, deaths in child birth, infant mortality and deaths from preventable causes). And mystery of mystery, virtually every country that outranks us has either single-payer government administered health insurance or, as in the UK’s case, a nationalized heathcare industry. Personally, I would opt for single payer with doctors, hospitals and healthcare providers remaining in the private sector. That’s what France has, and they rank #1.

The only thing the US leads the world in is healthcare cost per person.

@ETpro In your option, that is single payer, would you allow waivers for those of us who like to pay our own bills? That’s one thing that never seems to come up in these debates. Everyone seems to focus on healthcare insurance, and everyone should get care when needed of course, but some of us don’t have health care insurance because who choose not to have health care insurance. The government officials could mandate it all they want, but I ain’t buyng because they demand me to, and will continue to pay for health care the way I want.

@12Oaks That seems perfectly fair to me. Yes. But please understand that single payer doesn’t mean that you aren’t paying your own bills. It is insurance, and you pay for it in taxes just as you pay for insurance from United Healthcare in premiums. In the other countries that do have single payer systems, very few people opt out. Some do pay for supplemental private insurance to cover things not included under the single payer system. But rather than make anyone feel they have to give up something they like, we could just allow them to deduct the amount their single payer coverage would add to their taxes if they elected to buy comparable or better private insurance instead.

Medicare already is a single-payer system, and it have a far better percentage of cost going to patient care than private insurers. Administrative costs (including parts supplied by other government agencies or contractors) is 6% for Medicare. The US private insutrer average is around 12% for large pools and can go as low as 7% for employees covered under the employer plan of very large corporations. But it is 22% to 25% for companies of 25 workers or less and 30% for private policies bought by an individual.

@ETpro Been trying to understand the nuances in all the different options, but so many ways it’s so hard to keep up. I’d rather go for a system where the employer doesn’t provide insurance. Instead, you get paid now what they contribute then do with that money, like buy insurance if you choose, as you wish. Perfect? No. No option will ever be. That would bring insurance rates down, for sure. I just don’t like government officials making decisions for me that are mine to make or doing for me what I could do for myself. Nothing to do with political parties, I been saying this since Bush 1 and stand by it, I just like my independence and the ability to make life options that affect only me to be made be me. Like how I decide to pay for any health care I may need, or saving for retirement. That’s a whole new issue, though, so won’t elaborate.

@12Oaks The problem is if you go out to buy the same insurance a large employer provides, you are no longer part of a huge group where the risk of a brutally expensive catastrophic illness is spread over thousands of people. In the insurance company’s view, when you shop for an individual policy, there is no pool to share the risk. So the policy will cost you far, far more than employer provided policies cost. Blue Cross for my wife and myself (and we are both in excellent health) was $3500 a month till Medicare kicked in for me. Most Americans would have to go without insurance if we did what you yearn for.

@ETpro No system is perfect, for sure. But if EVERYBODY were to shop for health care insurance on their own, like we do for car and house insurance, then those pools would be eliminated, or at least pooled in a different way. I just think it shold be up to the indivdual to buy insurance (if they choose) and sholdn’t be in the hands of the employer. Being able to buy across state lines would also open up the competition and drive prices down. There really is no easy answer, that’s for sure, but am quite sure that having the government take care of that for you or them forcing you to buy some or pay a fine or go to jail clearly isn’t the answer. Having insurance shold be the choice of the individual. Should start from there.

Quite a lively debate there. It’s hard for me to understand the issue in the US. I feel that the UK health system looks after me really well. I feel all loved and cuddled (from a healthcare perspective!) I might end up with no money and could still expect to get any healthcare required. It amazes me that I can live without health concerns irrespective of my financial status. I love it. We still have a private health sector and some of the jobs I have had included private healthcare but I’ve never used it as the normal healthcare is fine for me. And I ended up paying extra tax for the healthcare I never even used, but that’s fine. I earn enough to cope and it supports the whole system. YMMV. Really, you shouldn’t criticise until you’ve experienced it.

@markferg For the record, I ain’t criticizing that way of doing things, just more stating my preference for another way. I just don’t like government forcing stuff on me, especially since I have every ability to make my own decisions that affect nobody but myself.

@12Oaks – seems the debate in the US about personal provision v. an aggregate system (I’m trying to avoid the government/socialist label here.) Seems to me that in most of the world there is an understanding that there is no such thing as a truly personal system i.e. YOUR doctor and YOUR hospital. It is a shared system, so rejoice if you don’t need it and give thanks if you need more that you can afford. Like gun control, it seems that the US has a view that the individual should take the burden entirely. We have a different view in Europe. C’est la Vie! Personally, I like our system! It’s not perfect but it stacks up well on the statistics. If you don’t like aggregate statistics than go for personal benefit, but that has issues too! You like what you got and I like what I got. Mine suits me, your’s suits you. Fine. I’m happy, you’re happy. Leave it as is then.

@markferg Fair enough. To each their own for their own reasons. That’s often a good plan. Now to get Red Sox and Yankee fans to do the same thing…...

@12Oaks They could do that right now if they wanted to. I am sure the group of individual buyers is bigger than any other group. But it’s more profitable to not look at it that way.

The pride of people who want to pay their own way is less important than people in need getting the help they need, although I respect people for wanting to help themselves. I dont really see how socialist applies to the US system, unless anything that involves the government and is not completely privately owned is considered socialist..by which definition Ron Paul is a borderline Marxist.