In view of Obama's health care proposals you may find this poll interesting. I can't find a salary distribution for the sites members so it may not be typical of the UK, however judging by other comments there are quite a lot of 'professional' people on there.

Tell the USA your views on the NHS.

There’s a furore in the USA about healthcare policy, and some say President Obama’s planned actions are equivalent to setting up a NHS. That’s meant huge debate over there about the service we have over here.

Which of these is closest to your message to the USA?

A. Big Thumbs Up. Free healthcare has always worked for me, go for it. - 27% (3739 votes)
B. Thumbs Up. It’s got its faults but it's better than any ‘pay’ system. - 50% (6879 votes)
C. Thumbs Up-ish. It needs serious change, but on balance I’d still recommend it. - 17% (2371 votes)
D. Thumbs Down-ish. It has some good elements, but on balance I’d stick with what you’ve got. - 2% (317 votes)
E. Thumbs Down. It hardly works, we need radical change to make it passable. - 2% (253 votes)
F. Big Thumbs Down. We need to scrap our outdated, outmoded system. - 2% (279 votes)

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...html?t=1886695

I wouldn't say the UK system is one to envy too much. The "free" healthcare system ensures that it is massively overstretched. Takes forever to go from checking in to seeing a doctor. I think there should be some level of payment. It helps pay for the running of services and it cuts down on people showing up for BS.
A friend of mine in the UK had to wait months before he could be seen for his chronic knee problem.

I could see a Doctor on the same day in my area, although I would have to make an appointment between 8 and 8.30am. It can take a few dials on the phone to book, although if you go to the surgery it is almost booked immediately. I have heard there are far worse areas though.

Concerning referrals only emergencies are seen quickly, you can pay a small fee (about £100 a year in my case although my employer used to pay) to a health scheme to see specialists more quickly usually within a few weeks and for a longer appointment.

As a man with five children and eleven grandchildren, I have every reason to be grateful to the NHS. However, that is my personal experience, I believe I have been very fortunate.

The problem is, can we continue to afford it? We have concerns that with every medical advance it will require more and more funds.

At the moment, in my area, I have to give it a big thumbs-up.

Of course you have to allow for the amount of spending as well when comparing systems

Here is a comparison of the United States' healthcare costs versus those of selected other countries in 2006:

UNITED STATES: 15.9 pct of GDP, $6,657 per capita

BRAZIL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $371 per capita

CANADA: 9.7 pct of GDP, $3,430 per capita

CHINA: 4.7 pct of GDP, $81 per capita

FRANCE: 11.1 pct of GDP, $3,807 per capita

GERMANY: 10.7 pct of GDP, $3,628 per capita

INDIA: 5.0 pct of GDP, $36 per capita
ISRAEL: 7.9 pct of GDP, $1,533 per capita

JAPAN: 8.2 pct of GDP, $2,936 per capita

MEXICO: 6.4 pct of GDP, $474 per capita

SOUTH AFRICA: 8.7 pct of GDP, $437 per capita

SWEDEN: 8.9 pct of GDP, $3,598 per capita

RUSSIAN FEDERATION: 5.2 pct of GDP, $277 per capita

UNITED KINGDOM: 8.2 pct of GDP, $3,064 per capita

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTR...BrandChannel=0

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I wouldn't say the UK system is one to envy too much. The "free" healthcare system ensures that it is massively overstretched. Takes forever to go from checking in to seeing a doctor. I think there should be some level of payment. It helps pay for the running of services and it cuts down on people showing up for BS.
A friend of mine in the UK had to wait months before he could be seen for his chronic knee problem.

When my son was about 4 years old needed an urgent operation on his ears, he was in a lot of pain, I was told that there was an 18 month wait. I blew my top and told the doctor he cant wait that long, he's in agony. The doctor replied that he could do the operation within days if I went private.

Either my son had to endure 18 months of pain or pay up, I paid up.

If I remember correctly I contributed about 11% of my pay for National Insurance, for health care, pension etc. I did some checking and found it was cheaper that if I went totally private (pension and health insurance) then what I was then paying, however, I was unable to opt out of the NHS.

As someone stated on the forum, "If you think health insurance is expensive, wait till its free."

Originally Posted by Del Boy

As a man with five children and eleven grandchildren, I have every reason to be grateful to the NHS. However, that is my personal experience, I believe I have been very fortunate.

The problem is, can we continue to afford it? We have concerns that with every medical advance it will require more and more funds-snip-

Indeed, but it is well spent.

I have now lived (and paid) threee completely different health care systems (Germany, UK, Spain), and I think it is about the most important budget part that could be spent, way before payng mil, you are investing in your human ressources. (aka the future) or paying back efforts of human rssources (the elder that have got you where yo are).

Here in Spain, currently, the mix looks like this:

You are contracted or autonomous? You can go to the hospital any moment and get *great* care (though it might take some time: My ex wife suffered from a broken shoulder last year, she had to wait two weeks sedated and under pain control before she got operated. For being free - if you paid your social security - this is acceptable I find. I myself had a heart attack a few years ago, same hospital, got an "Urgent" sticker stuck to my forehead and had to wait only 4 hours. Also acceptable - if you survive... Treatment? TOP in both cases.).

If you are dependant, your peers card will be charged, if you have nothing: You still get treated (and on the same level), but it will take more time, as state pays and the mixed ones come first if they are not life threatening.

You have exclusions (and this is where the "mix" comes in): E.g.: Teeth out: State paid. Teeth in, you pay.

So, we all have some private insurances aside the social security to ensure you get basic care also in "teeth in" cases (and here, inurance companies *do* comply, unlike than what I have seen in the UK).

I have read recently that the *public* health care budget in percent of the overall national turnover in the US (with its few ppl that enjoy it) is higher than here (and here *everybody* gets treated, no matter for what or how long), for me this only reads: Someone is scamming people big time.... Of cause, we pay 10% average of our salary to be treated when cancer hits us with 70...

On first glance I would suspect the usual suspects scamming over there, pharmaceuticals and pharmacies (I pay 7.-- Euros for my Omeprazol here in Spain - month load - , but I used to pay 89.-- in Germany for exactly the same pills... They were simply pulling our legs over there or had their politicians paid better...)

FWIW,

Rattler

EDIT: Just saw the fgures pop up in a post before mine, this is what I was refering to...

As far as BritInAfrica´s post is concerned, not to treat a pain patient - if not on the same day, but within 3 - would a) be against the Hippocratic oath every doctor swears and b) a felony in Spain and Germany (for "denying possible help", my translation), for 18 month denial you face a good 2 years sentence for not treating your son here and there.

R.

This is why I firmly believe we should keep private insurance companies, and simply make a government alternative available. That way, competition would ensue, and private insurance companies would be FORCED to lower their prices to retain membership. Basic capitalism... Nothing better than that... Right, Republicans?

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

This is why I firmly believe we should keep private insurance companies, and simply make a government alternative available. That way, competition would ensue, and private insurance companies would be FORCED to lower their prices to retain membership. Basic capitalism... Nothing better than that... Right, Republicans?

Of course you should have both public and private health systems, public health systems are designed to ensure that everyone has access to health care regardless of means and private systems are to ensure that those who have the means can get all the bells and whistles (which also serves to reduce pressure on public health).

RIGHT. But currently, the only "public health option" is to take your child to the ER when he/she has a cold. *rolls eyes*