Record number of Britons go abroad for healthcare.

[Mister_T]

meaning what?

Meaning that no system is flawless. These "problems" that you say these other countries with government healthcare are having, are miniscule when compared to the U.S. healthcare disaster.

I replied that the secondary problems the poster listed were in my opinion a result of the same type of socialist policies. Meaning, socialist principles that cause problems in the HC industry (price controls, asset redistribution, etc) cause the poverty and a poor economy.

I think I may have given the wrong impression. I don't think that socialism has caused South Africa's horrible economy.

There are a variety of factors that contribute to South Africa's economy woes. Even if I did socialism helped caused South Africa's bad economy, I think for someone to pin it all on "socialist principles" is illogical. After all, Britain has adopted these socialist principles and I would hardly say that they have a poor economy. I'm not up and up on poverty in the U.K so I really can't comment on it.

 

[Mathematician]

gene, if you want me to continue replying to you, please try to pay attention to our discussion. This is getting annoying.

The US does not have a free market system, it is a hybrid system.

We can go through each country by itself if you like but we'll have to do them each one at a time as each country is quite different. Since this is my thread, we will start with the UK. When we are done, we will do Canada. When Canada is done, you may select the next country.

Of course the US has a hybrid system. You can't have a "fully free market" system without abolishing the government.

 

[Comprehend]

Meaning that no system is flawless. These "problems" that you say these other countries with government healthcare are having, are miniscule when compared to the U.S. healthcare disaster.

I think that brings me back to the original question.

Why then are there rapidly increasing numbers of Brits fleeing the free healthcare?

I think I may have given the wrong impression. I don't think that socialism has caused South Africa's horrible economy.

There are a variety of factors that contribute to South Africa's economy woes. Even if I did socialism helped caused South Africa's bad economy, I think for someone to pin it all on "socialist principles" is illogical. After all, Britain has adopted these socialist principles and I would hardly say that they have a poor economy. I'm not up and up on poverty in the U.K so I really can't comment on it.

fair enough. I don't know much about it either.

 

[Comprehend]

Of course the US has a hybrid system. You can't have a "fully free market" system without abolishing the government.

That isn't true at all. :cover:

 

[Fluffy]

Why then are there rapidly increasing numbers of Brits fleeing the free healthcare?

That answer to that will be within the model that predicted the 200,000 figure. The article neglects to provide it but it is pointless speculating about it until that is sourced.

 

[yossarian22]

Of course the US has a hybrid system. You can't have a "fully free market" system without abolishing the government.

Only if you want to stick to the assumption that the market must determine everything. The US did have a free market system for some time. Businesses were not regulated save for taxes.

 

[jeffrey]

There are articles over here about Brits that have moved here, and are upset about saying into Britain's NH and now having to pay for doctors. Funny, my wife and were talking a while back about a possible operation she might need and it would be cheaper for her to fly back to the U.K., have it done there and fly back here after.

 

[Comprehend]

That answer to that will be within the model that predicted the 200,000 figure. The article neglects to provide it but it is pointless speculating about it until that is sourced.

Here is a link to the original article. I don't see a link to the actual study.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nhealth128.xml

 

[Comprehend]

Another UK article:

Britain is sickliest nation in Europe.

And a killer here:

1 in 3 NHS trusts are going bankrupt

The scale of mismanagement in the NHS is revealed today in a critical report that shows one in three organisations is struggling financially despite massive investment.

The poor state of finances comes even though the total budget for the NHS has trebled in the last 10 years to more than £100 billion.

Lets do a little math here.

UK = 60 million people and the govt spent 100 Billion Pounds which is roughly 206 Billion US dollars.

The US has 300 million people so at 206 Billion dollars per 60 million people = 1.03 Trillion dollars...

kinda expensive for "free" healthcare eh? and obviously that isn't enough money as 1/3 is still going belly up.

 

[Smoke]

Britain is sickliest nation in Europe.

Are you suggesting that "obesity, alcohol abuse, diabetes and smoking related deaths" are caused by the NHS?

UK = 60 million people and the govt spent 100 Billion Pounds which is roughly 206 Billion US dollars.

The US has 300 million people so at 206 Billion dollars per 60 million people = 1.03 Trillion dollars...

According to the World Health Organization, total expenditure on health is $6,096 per capita for the U.S. and $2,560 per capita for the U.K.

Life expectancy at birth in the U.S. is 75 for males and 80 for females; in the U.K., it's 77 for males and 81 for females. Healthy life expectancy is 67/71 in the U.S. and 69/72 in the U.K.

Probability of dying before the age of five is 8 per 1000 live births in the U.S. and 6 per 1000 births in the U.K.

Sounds like they're doing pretty well compared to the U.S.; we're spending more than twice as much per person and getting poorer outcomes.

 

[Mathematician]

UK'ers aren't the most healthy Europeans in the world, either. They like to combine the American habit of overeating with the European habit of smoking.. and the universal habit of drinking.

 

[Comprehend]

Are you suggesting that "obesity, alcohol abuse, diabetes and smoking related deaths" are caused by the NHS?

Nope. But you can think long and hard about this article before you decide whether the life expectancy statistics you provided below are an indicator of the quality of healthcare. Clearly there are other major factors that weigh on the number.

Shouldn't the NHS be working on preventing such things? Do you think the government should be allowed to control these habits since it places such a large burden on the system?

According to the World Health Organization, total expenditure on health is $6,096 per capita for the U.S. and $2,560 per capita for the U.K.

I've said this a number o' times. I think the US system is bad too. It is also heavily regulated and a cumbersome leviathan.

Life expectancy at birth in the U.S. is 75 for males and 80 for females; in the U.K., it's 77 for males and 81 for females. Healthy life expectancy is 67/71 in the U.S. and 69/72 in the U.K.

see above. Are you trying to suggest that life expectancy has a direct correlation to the quality of healthcare? There are a number of other factors involved such as race and dietary habits.

Probability of dying before the age of five is 8 per 1000 live births in the U.S. and 6 per 1000 births in the U.K.

The UK has a black population of 1%. The US has a black population of 12%.

Now go check out the 5 and under mortality rates of the Black population in the US. (while you are at it, check out the life expectancy of the black population in the US).


EDIT: oh yeah, also check out the reporting differences between the US and other nations in mortality rates.

Sounds like they're doing pretty well compared to the U.S.; we're spending more than twice as much per person and getting poorer outcomes.

only if you fool yourself into thinking that the healthcare system is the only factor that determines these numbers.

 

[Mathematician]

Now go check out the 5 and under mortality rates of the Black population in the US. (while you are at it, check out the life expectancy of the black population in the US).

The UK has a larger percentage of Indians and Muslims, who demographically are treated like our African American communities. Your point? :sarcastic

Shouldn't the NHS be working on preventing such things? Do you think the government should be allowed to control these habits since it places such a large burden on the system?

Only if you think the Congress should be eliminated since they burden the system with drawling costs to maintain 400 + people.

 

[Comprehend]

The UK has a larger percentage of Indians and Muslims, who demographically are treated like our African American communities. Your point?

gene sweetie. Go look at the black population mortality rates like I said.

Only if you think the Congress should be eliminated since they burden the system with drawling costs to maintain 400 + people.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[Smoke]

Do you think the government should be allowed to control these habits since it places such a large burden on the system?

Nope. We've been through that before.

see above. Are you trying to suggest that life expectancy has a direct correlation to the quality of healthcare? There are a number of other factors involved such as race and dietary habits.

The UK has a black population of 1%. The US has a black population of 12%.

Now go check out the 5 and under mortality rates of the Black population in the US.

Please explain exactly how being black affects infant mortality and life expectancy. Are black people genetically less fit than white people? Do they have less access to healthcare?

 

[Mathematician]

I did. The white population in America still has a smaller mortality rate than the average UK population. Thanks for making yet another clever assumption.

 

[Comprehend]

Nope. We've been through that before.

Please explain exactly how being black affects infant mortality and life expectancy. Are black people genetically less fit than white people? Do they have less access to healthcare?

Blacks have double the infant mortality than white and other races. Since we have 12% while the UK has 1%, it drives up our infant mortality numbers.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_03.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/50_12t1.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_14.pdf

Apparently, even when controlled for access and education, black babies have a much higher infant mortality rate. I don't know why and it seems neither do the experts from what I have read. I am just saying is messes up our numbers. By the way, American Indians and Alaskan indians also drive up the rate.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5115a4.htm

Previous studies have examined factors related to black-white disparities in infant mortality. Infants with very low birthweight account for approximately two thirds of the black-white gap in infant mortality (6). Preterm delivery is associated with the deaths of infants with very low birthweight, demonstrating the need to reduce preterm births, particularly among black infants. Racial disparity in IMRs has not been explained fully by differences in socioeconomic status. Black infants born to college-educated parents have higher IMRs than white infants born to parents of similar educational background; this difference is attributed to a higher rate of very low birthweight (7). Education of the mother does not confer the same level of protection against infant mortality among black women as it does among white women, suggesting that a complex interaction of social, environmental, and biologic factors that are experienced uniquely by black women might account for the disparity. Racial segregation is an important macrolevel predictor of greater black-white infant mortality differences in 38 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas, independent of differences in median income (8).
Despite higher poverty and lower education rates, Hispanic infants have higher birthweights and their IMRs approximate those of white infants. This finding is consistent with previous studies (9) and contradicts common assumptions about poor, underserved minority groups. Cultural practices, family support, selective migration, diet, and genetic heritage are possible contributing factors (9). Furthermore, U.S. Hispanics are a heterogeneous group, and IMRs are higher among Puerto Rican infants (10). In Philadelphia, 79% of Hispanic births were born to Puerto Rican mothers, possibly explaining the higher IMR in that city

 

[Comprehend]

I did. The white population in America still has a smaller mortality rate than the average UK population. Thanks for making yet another clever assumption.

um. you are saying that the US has a lower mortality rate?

How does that help you?

Finally, what assumption do you think I am making?

 

[Inky]

If you want a good economy, make a free market.

If you want a good healthcare system, make a free market.

The economic principles of both are the same.

The U.S. was much closer to a libertarian-style "free market" during the Industrial Revolution than it is today, and that turned out well, with the massive groups of underpaid factory workers and the child laborers and all.

The problem is, a "free market" in the sense you seem to be implying doesn't lead to a sort of ideal neutrality; that's just as much a castle-in-the-air as pure communism is. Mostly it leads to oligarchy.

 

[Smoke]

The problem is, a "free market" in the sense you seem to be implying doesn't lead to a sort of ideal neutrality; that's just as much a castle-in-the-air as pure communism is.

And unlike pure communism, it's actually been tried on a large scale. There's no faith so blind as the blind faith of those who put their trust in free markets.