Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Jon M
Lv 4
Jon M asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Is this where we want to head with our healthcare?

"Record numbers go abroad for health treatment with 70,000 escaping NHS"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new...

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    To begin with thats the daily mail, at least use a decent source.

    The people getting treatment abroad is still free British nationals have the right to use any facility in Europe if treatment wait time are over 6 weeks, paid for by the local NHS trust.

    Look at the advantages. Lowers infant moralities, longer lives due to preventive medicine, leading technology available to all, new and experimental treatment available to all (no insurance companies to say no), cheaper than paying current insurance prices (no deductible, office visit price, co co-insurance payment).

    Compare that to America which leads the world on Cancer. Yes you survive the Cancer but you crimpled with debt by having to pay the insurance companies. Your Employer made you redundant because you were a at will employee. You house has been repossessed because you couldn't afford to pay the mortgage having lost your job due to having treatment. At least you have the peace of mind that you at least didn't have to pay for any kids broken legs when you were still healthy and in full time employment.

    There are a lot of myths spread like less freedom (anyone can see any doctor and request as many specialist as they like compared to the few available on insurance plans), Long waiting times (Thing are done on a priority rather than first come bases, the child with the heart transplant is put before the 90 year old who needs a pacemaker) the government having to approve everything (external parties have less say compare to the insurance model where everyone has to be approved first).

    wikipedia even answers some of the criticisms given:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_...

    France leads the world in health care:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/799444.stm

    People live longer in countries with National health care system:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/778385.stm

    America will keep its pro-rich system because children aren't important only the War on Iraq.

  • 1 decade ago

    Babe & ADam- The US is consistently ranked below France and the UK in overall quality of healthcare. You say now that you are completely satisfied with our system. Wait until you get a chronic disease or cancer, then you'll see how "fair" our system really is. If we have the best healthcare in the world how come we lag behind in infant mortality, life expectancy, and modernization of health data? Although Europe has its health problems, we could improve ours by following some of their practices.

    **I noticed the article complained of MRSA infections in the UK. Might I point out we have the same problem in the US. Usually half my patient assignment will be on isolation for MRSA, CDIFF, and VRE.

    Source(s): RN, Oncology Unit
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Here's what so many people fail to understand: we don't have to go anywhere with our health care that we don't want to. If we are designing a new health care delivery system, we can take the best parts from other systems and add good new things that we want. We can do enough research to find out what the negatives and weaknesses of other systems are and leave those out of our system.

    We don't "have to" have a carbon copy of any other system. Only people who are scared themselves and want to scare others resort to such generalizations.

  • 1 decade ago

    I'm curious if you read your own linked article? It's primary focus is how thousands of Brits are seeking medical treatment in 48 different countries to avoid the superbug, which is also now a major health hazard here as well.

    If it's intended as a slap at govt. run medicine, that's fine. Nobody here is calling for govt. run, or socialist, medicine, only help with insurance payments and availability.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    If things are so bad in the UK, why don’t they do away with their National Health Service and leave millions uncovered for health care as we do here.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    yes.

    the rich will always be able to fly and get whatever they want in whatever country they want to go to.

    i'd rather see everyone be covered, and if the rich have to go somewhere else, so be it.

    it's better than being one of the countries they fly to, with great health care if you can afford it, and none at all if you can't, like we have now in the US.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Apparently so, because US' democratic candidates are trying hard for a health care program similar to the UK's and France's... so it must be the way to go! (said with much sarcasm)

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Americans deserve universal Health Care, it serves us right for being so stupid.

  • 1 decade ago

    Iv'e been preaching this for a while, and yes the Kiddman dress is hot

  • Zardoz
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Wow, did you see that Nicole Kidman dress?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.