US Adverts on National Healthcare

But you can get elective surgery in the UK right away as well if you have the money or extra insurance as well.

if all else fails, you can go private.

Yes you can, but you are still forced to pay into the NHS even if it is not delivering the services it is supposed to deliver.  If people were given the choice of opting-out of paying "contributions" to the NHS I'm sure that many more would go with private coverage. 

As for inefficiency, I don't see how anyone who has lived in Britain for a number of years can have failed to have seen the frequent reports of waste and inefficiency in the NHS.  Even 20 years ago it had grown to the point of being satirized in an episode of Yes, Minister, in which a new hospital was supposedly the best-run hospital in the country according to all government statistics - The only problem being that it had no doctors, nurses or patients, only administrators. 

And the problem of "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" is one which has been in the news over the last few years all too often.  There are NHS hospitals now which have more administrators than medical staff.   

Carl, a LOT of people do not trust this administration, as the polls clearly show.

Great.  I'm sure that with the thorough examination of policy through the use of public opinion polls. we'll be able to have the sort of reasoned debate you're looking for.   

Vague words like "some" and "a lot" don't actually mean anything.  There are roughly 300 million Americans.  How many is "some"?  How many is "a lot"?  Or, as you base your opinion of everything on personal experience, how many of the 300 million Americans do you run into in your daily life?  How many of them do you discuss health care with?  How many of them disapprove of health care reform? 

Anyhow, quit speaking for me.

Great.  I'm sure that with the thorough examination of policy through the use of public opinion polls. we'll be able to have the sort of reasoned debate you're looking for.   

Well Carl, healthcare is too personal to try and pass a botched bill and just hope they get it right, and Americans ARE losing trust in this administration to be able to handle it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574362971349563340.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/opinion/22herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/economy/obama_health_care_miscalculate.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009082009

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-pitfalls22-2009aug22,0,3787348.story

Yes you can, but you are still forced to pay into the NHS even if it is not delivering the services it is supposed to deliver.  If people were given the choice of opting-out of paying "contributions" to the NHS I'm sure that many more would go with private coverage. 

As for inefficiency, I don't see how anyone who has lived in Britain for a number of years can have failed to have seen the frequent reports of waste and inefficiency in the NHS.  Even 20 years ago it had grown to the point of being satirized in an episode of Yes, Minister, in which a new hospital was supposedly the best-run hospital in the country according to all government statistics - The only problem being that it had no doctors, nurses or patients, only administrators. 

And the problem of "Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians" is one which has been in the news over the last few years all too often.  There are NHS hospitals now which have more administrators than medical staff.   

I find that the NHS being the largest employer in Europe quite astounding.

Well Carl, healthcare is too personal to try and pass a botched bill and just hope they get it right, and Americans ARE losing trust in this administration to be able to handle it....

If your argument is "The Obama administration needs to do a better job of explaining how they intend to achieve health care reform," then I agree with you.

The problem is there are too many hospital/health care corporations, drug companies and insurance companies with way too much invested in keeping things just the way they are.  They've hired lobbying firms to convince people like you that health care reforms mean long waiting times, elimination of care for the elderly, and government death panels deciding when and how you're going to die.

And since you're so insistent on the personal side of this, your fear means people like me, who are self-employed and don't have a company to provide health care benefits, get to keep going without health insurance at all, hoping I don't get sick, or get hit by a car while crossing the street, because I can't afford to buy my own health insurance.

Of course, now that I live in the UK I don't have to worry about it, but if I ever go back to live in the US I will, thanks to the efforts of giant health care companies with billions of dollars to spend scaring you.

How so?  The question is whether some people have had to wait 2 years or more.  The answer is yes, regardless of what the average time may be and whether the average waiting time has been dropping recently.  

"Some people" - well, of course "some people" will have had to wait just as in the US "some people" will also have to wait.

"Some" is not a very quantifiable measure, I find percentages tend to be better.

The fact is that under the last 10 years waiting times have reduced considerable, in fact only last week there was a report out that said England no longer has waiting lists because the times had fallen below the targets.

You will always have waiting times for elective surgery anyway, to not have waits would actually show a very inefficient service as there would have to be far too much "slack" in the system in order to provide that, not very good in a capitalist society when you need the best return for investment.

Yes you can, but you are still forced to pay into the NHS even if it is not delivering the services it is supposed to deliver.  If people were given the choice of opting-out of paying "contributions" to the NHS I'm sure that many more would go with private coverage. 

I fear in that case, what you would end up with is a situation like in the US where people just choose not to have any at all. Also it would be people that didn't feel they needed the service anyway....and like with insurance it's about spreading the cost so it would make the NHS less efficient.
The vast majority of people in this country, whilst they may feel there are problems within the NHS would tend to feel the solution would be to put more money into it rather than to move to a private insurance based system

Even 20 years ago it had grown to the point of being satirized in an episode of Yes, Minister, in which a new hospital was supposedly the best-run hospital in the country according to all government statistics - The only problem being that it had no doctors, nurses or patients, only administrators. 
 

I'm so glad we can now use satire to prove how bad something is.....case closed on Thatcher then!

If your argument is "The Obama administration needs to do a better job of explaining how they intend to achieve health care reform," then I agree with you.

And since you're so insistent on the personal side of this, your fear means people like me, who are self-employed and don't have a company to provide health care benefits, get to keep going without health insurance at all, hoping I don't get sick, or get hit by a car while crossing the street, because I can't afford to buy my own health insurance.

Of course, now that I live in the UK I don't have to worry about it, but if I ever go back to live in the US I will, thanks to the efforts of giant health care companies with billions of dollars to spend scaring you.

Carl, I'm concerned that this gets done right, as we will be stuck with whatever passes. It's very important that the reform is clear, understood, and there are no surpises in the end. Blame your administration for not handling this very important reform wisely, not the citizens who have every right and reason to question this bill.

I find that the NHS being the largest employer in Europe quite astounding.

I have wondered that if you were to add up all the people in the US who work for hospitals; doctors; mental health facilities; nursing homes; insurance companies; drug companies etc. what that figure would be?

But then Americans who have good jobs and are comfy in their own situation don't like to look at the inverse of a 'fact'.

I find that the NHS being the largest employer in Europe quite astounding.

Why? If you're getting that figure from people who have NHS contracts AND who are direct employees, then you're looking at pharmacists, dispensers in pharmacies, opticians, doctors, nurses, hospital nurses, consultants, surgeons, mental health professionals (psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, some therapists/counsellors, HCAs) dentists, specialists of various sorts, physios, phlebotomists, district nurses, health visitors, school nurses, community nurses, and while I agree that it's management heavy in some places a system like the NHS can't run itself - you do have to have people looking at need and commissioning services, ensuring contract performance, keeping the finances running, etc. etc. etc. I'm not even vaguely surprised.

I'm not surprised, either.  Why would it be astounding?  It takes a heck of a lot of people to run a nation's healthcare system.

As for inefficiency, I don't see how anyone who has lived in Britain for a number of years can have failed to have seen the frequent reports of waste and inefficiency in the NHS.  Even 20 years ago it had grown to the point of being satirized in an episode of Yes, Minister, in which a new hospital was supposedly the best-run hospital in the country according to all government statistics - The only problem being that it had no doctors, nurses or patients, only administrators.  

I think I'll rely on personal experience and news reports rather than a 20 year old sit-com for my facts about and opinions of the NHS, thank you very much.

Interesting article on the NHS (good and not so good things)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/19/nhs-healthcare-america

True.  Which means that there are people waiting a lot longer than the average time as well.  Averages taken without qualification can be quite misleading.

[...]
So what?  The NHS has been in existence since 1948, so it means that under the NHS people were waiting those times just 3 to 5 years ago.  You talk as though this were ancient history.

No, people have been waiting less than they used to wait.  What is misleading is to imply that something that happened in the 1980s to someone you knew happens now often and to imply that age has something to do with waiting and then to quote older articles that don't even show a 2-3 year wait.  

Yes you can, but you are still forced to pay into the NHS even if it is not delivering the services it is supposed to deliver.  If people were given the choice of opting-out of paying "contributions" to the NHS I'm sure that many more would go with private coverage.  

You ignored the last bit: People still pay less for healthcare in the UK per capita even with private insurance/doctors. People don't just go private because NHS isn't delivering what it's supposed to deliver.  They also go private because they want something that the NHS never was intended to deliver or because they want something that the NHS would love to deliver but will never realistically be able to deliver.  I am not saying that people don't feel let down when they have to go private, just that it isn't always the case.

As for inefficiency, I don't see how anyone who has lived in Britain for a number of years can have failed to have seen the frequent reports of waste and inefficiency in the NHS.  Even 20 years ago it had grown to the point of being satirized in an episode of Yes, Minister, in which a new hospital was supposedly the best-run hospital in the country according to all government statistics - The only problem being that it had no doctors, nurses or patients, only administrators.  

And a system where over 30% of healthcare costs are due to insurance paperwork is more efficient?  Sure it doesn't make it onto SNL because most people don't realise it.  At least NHS' inefficiencies are out in the open.

Carl, I'm concerned that this gets done right, as we will be stuck with whatever passes. It's very important that the reform is clear, understood, and there are no surpises in the end. Blame your administration for not handling this very important reform wisely, not the citizens who have every right and reason to question this bill.

Right.  More like the sheeple doing drug companies', the Republican party's, insurance companies', and large private healthcare providers' (but surprisingly, not all of them) bidding by avoiding any real discussion of this.  Criticise, question, advocate all you want, but do it with the facts.

SO when is anyone going to answer me about what the NHS has to do with the proposed bill?

I mean, if this is about actually enlightening people about the realities, why the strawman?  If there is so much concern about the proposals, wouldn't you think the subject should be about the proposals?  I mean, this is meant to be about open discourse and everything!