Talk to any professional in a country that has it, and they will let you know what they think of it (and it isn't good).
I work in the NHS, the British universal healthcare system funded by tax-payer and free at the point of use. The system is not perfect, but it works. It also has its advantages over the US healthcare system (of which I have no first-hand experience, it must be said). For instance, everyone in this country must have a GP. Any access to secondary care provider (even privately) must be via the GP who orchestrates the overall healthcare of the patient. I think this is an extremely important point of difference between the two systems, and the one the NHS wins hands down. Having a single generalist overlooking your healthcare prevents you from doctor shopping, prevents you from seeing random specialists because you (an average person with no medical knowledge) think those specialists are the right docs to see for you at present, and ultimately cuts the healthcare costs considerably. It may also reduce the workload of specialists, because certain follow-ups can be easily done in primary care (eg, periodic renal function tests and general check-up in someone on Li, or LFTs in someone on anticonvulsants). So, in this model, a generalist has a concern/problem that requires specialist input --> he makes a referral to a specialist --> specialist makes the initial assessment and establishes treatment --> specialist refers the patient back to generalist for routine follow-up --> specialist may or may not arrange follow-up in his clinic, but if he does not the generalist can re-refer the patient at any time. The bottom line: as much as British general public despises NHS, it has its advantages, and it would be unfair to say that any professional in the UK would not have anything good to say about it.
IMO, those in other countries aren't living in some communal paradise. They just take "free" healthcare for granted like we take clean drinking water for granted.
Hell, YES. They have a RIGHT to free healthcare, right? The fact that a lot of them come from welfare families, where two or three generations never worked a single day in their lives (hence, never contributed to the NHS funding) is completely irrelevant. The "free" healthcare is something people in this country firmly believe they are entitled to.
The drugs are the same quality, no matter what country they are sold in and from the little bit I have read on the subject, pharmaceutical companies charge more for medication in the U.S because Americans are willing to pay for it.
Hey, this is a bit off. Is Seroquel cheaper in India? i bet you, it is. Can you be confident it is actually Seroquel every time you buy it? Hmmmm.... I originally come from a Second World Country, and have quite a few colleagues from Second and Third World countries. The medications sold there are generally divided into three categories: 1) First World class medications - those that can be sold in the US, UK, etc without a fear of a lawsuit. 2) Medications produced by the same companies, but specifically for export into developing countries. And then, there are 3) "Similars"....
It's funny how not one single candidate has said that. If people would simply take more responsibility for their own health, that would lead to better outcomes, better qualities of life, etc.
But that would be asking too much. State should fix everything for you, why should you be forced to do anything about it? After all, if a kid falls behind at school, it is the school's fault. If you are sick, it is all these damn doctors...
However it will also bring in its fair share of problems. In the NHS for example, the waiting line for a hernia surgery is several months, sometimes even more than 1 year. The patients in the meantime are put on welfare. Imagine the waste!--1 year of welfare because the guy can't work while waiting for about a year.
Also doctors have much less incentive to work hard. The surgeons at the hospital I worked at were supposed to work about 9-5. Most of them showed up 1 hr late, and left 1 hr early.
Socialized medicine will not be the panacea several politicians are making it out to be. IT will get rid of some problems, but it will also create new ones. The overall improvement IMHO will be none, while at the same time making the playing field worse for us doctors.
Whopper, I agree with you that the playing field for doctors would be made much less attractive by introducing "universal" healthcare system in the US. I do not think the US healthcare system will ever come close to what NHS is like, though, so I do not think this is a big worry. The medical establishment in the US will not allow this to happen. Frankly, I think neither NHS nor the US healthcare system are likely to survive as they are at present: too many things are "broken" in both systems. It is my vision, the NHS will slowly become more privatised and the US healthcare system will become more "nationalised", so meeting in the middle (ideologically speaking). The US system will be offering some core services (eg, prenatal and perinatal care) free at the point of use, and the NHS will be charging for some of it's services.
I do have issue with your statement regarding the NHS waiting times, doctors performance etc. I do not know when and where you got your NHS experience. It might be that what you are saying was true a few year back, in some poorly managed hospital. I work in one of the best hospitals in the country, a tertiary referral centre, and things are certainly not as horrible as you describe. I have yet to see a doctor being consistently late, or leaving consistently early. As a matter of fact, most of my colleagues regularly stay 1-2 hours late, after their shifts are over. Most of us are quite hard working, despite the fact our salaries have no direct correlation with the time we spend at work or the amount of work we accomplish whilst there. I think there is a lot to be said about just being a conscientious professional, and wanting to do your best for your patients independent of the financial reward.
The waiting times for referral, operations, etc have improved tremendously since late 90s. The norm for a hernia op is 1 month or so, if it is uncomplicated. Cancer referrals take 2 weeks max. Total hip arthroplasty has 6 months max waiting time on the list. So, things are not as bad as you experienced them.
The way I look at universal health care is this--when someone is admitted, we will KNOW they have insurance that is current, valid, and will pay for the admission at THIS hospital (as opposed to the one across town that is "in network". When they are discharged we will know they will be able to fill and refill their meds without my filling out a prior authorization form. We will know that they can see the doctor we've arranged a follow-up appointment with. We will be able to eliminate the jobs of the 20 or so people in every hospital whose job it is merely to check and recheck benefits and do "utilization review", as well as half of the employees of the insurers who spend their days talking to those people. (Also in universal health care, the insurance is not tied into the employer--so you don't get this ridiculous changing of providers every 2 years as jobs change and employers switch coverage plans, etc...)
This would be ideal. This is also quite close to what we have in the NHS here in the UK. However, the government will always find something to be monitored to justify hiring a few "managers" whose salaries may easily consume the savings you would have made.
