- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 1
Forgeting all the draw backs inherent in both, would you support the establishment of a National Health Service (after the English Model) in the U.S.? Why or Why not?
Nhs
- Thread starter futurehealer117
- Start date
2
235750
Yikes, I can hear some crazy posts being written in response...
Look at the research is all I have to say. It speaks for itself. Start with outcomes: in America, our outcomes are worse regardless of how much money you make. Read JAMA for one-
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/295/17/2037
Now look at cost. America is the worst country in terms of cost effectiveness. Look at NEJM-
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf
So: the American way leads you less healthy and costs more money. Why would we stick with this insane 'system', if you can call it that?
Docs in different countries (England, Canada) get paid just fine. Relax.
We can do baby steps in the right direction. SCHIP is marvelous, and I hope it continues to expand.
EDIT: I looked up futurehealer's previous threads...you're a little trouble maker huh? 🙂 I trust you didn't post just to get people rowled up...
Look at the research is all I have to say. It speaks for itself. Start with outcomes: in America, our outcomes are worse regardless of how much money you make. Read JAMA for one-
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/295/17/2037
Now look at cost. America is the worst country in terms of cost effectiveness. Look at NEJM-
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf
So: the American way leads you less healthy and costs more money. Why would we stick with this insane 'system', if you can call it that?
Docs in different countries (England, Canada) get paid just fine. Relax.
We can do baby steps in the right direction. SCHIP is marvelous, and I hope it continues to expand.
EDIT: I looked up futurehealer's previous threads...you're a little trouble maker huh? 🙂 I trust you didn't post just to get people rowled up...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 1
It doesnt matter how many times you see your doctor, if you dont listen to him when he tells you to quit smoking and go for a jog once a week.
2
235750
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 1
Sorry I thought it was clear where I was going.
Basically I was trying to say that improving access does not solve the problem of people being fat and lazy.
2
235750
Ah I see.
Well, the articles I mentioned controled for statistics such as BMI, smoking status, etc, and their lives were better in countries that had nationalized health care.
So, you are right that having something like the NHS does not fix laziness and make people lose weight/quit smoking, it apparently has better ways of dealing with them (and making it cheaper for everyone involved)
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 1
Ok I read the article. Something doesnt add up to me though.
"[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]he US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer"
Except for cancer, most of these have to do with leading unhealthy lifestyles, especially diabetes. I'm really not sure how they account for risky behaviors, such as smoking, being overweight, etc. Im pretty sure the incidence of DM type 1 is pretty low and is usually early onset. So the diabetes most people have is type 2 and is usually from being obese.
.
2
235750
They did look at those factors, you couldn't get published in JAMA if you ignored things like smoking status and BMI when measuring health outcomes! If you read the paper, you'll see it.
Then in the Statistical methods portion:
"In HRS and ELSA, age-specific disease prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, all heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer in both countries is modeled as a function of the 3 education and income indicators, sex, and indicators for smoking, alcohol consumption, overweight, and obesity using ordinary least squares regression (OLS) models and STATA statistical software version 9.0SE"
And in their discussion they say (my bold obviously):
"Within each country, there exists a pronounced negative socioeconomic
status (SES) gradient with self-reported disease so that health disparities
are largest at the bottom of the education or income variants of the SES hierarchy. This conclusion is generally robust to control for a standard set of behavioral risk factors, including smoking, overweight, obesity, and alcohol drinking, which explain very little of these health differences."
There are certainly things you could complain about in this study. They ignore latinos and hispanics because there aren't many in the UK. So you could say (and many people do) that the US has more immigrants percent wise than the UK (which is not true), and so the NHS could never work in the US. There are debatable points of course, but they did talk about things like smoking and obesity.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 375
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes, I would be for it! And my reasons, well there are 47 million and growing reasons why!😉
