If private healthcare is affordable to you then you have savings or a good wage and a comfortable life. That's fine but its not ethical to state its affordable for all. Single parents, couples with children working minimum wage, students, the elderly with a state pension who fear they can't pay the gas bill. None of these people can afford private healthcare.
I don't think anyone has said private healthcare is affordable for all.
Syl said
May 16 6:52 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Maddog wrote:
No. Is private care affordable?
Private health insurance is affordable. Premiums obviously depend on people's ages, existing health conditions but you can get a decent invidual plan for less than a monthly gym membership costs (sometimes much less.) It depends on your priorities but most people are happy to rely on the NHS.
Paying privately for care if you don't have insurance can be expensive but generally noticeably lower than US prices.
I agree. We don't have ongoing private health care, but my husband has been treated for an ear problem both by the NHS, then a couple of years later, the problem returned, so for quicker treatment he went private.
The same surgeon operated on him both times.
And something tells me your husband has the financial ability to write checks that others can't. Nothing wrong with that. He has done well for himself.
But the point is, NHS wasn’t giving him satisfactory service and his quality of life was.being impacted..
The service your husband got going outside of your system is standard here and NHS like care is the exception..
But like I said a dozen times. It costs more. Seems like your husband was willing to pay for better care like I am..
Maddog, the operation was exactly the same, performed by the same surgeon.
The service was quicker, and had he needed aftercare that would have been quicker too....the outcome was exactly the same.
Anonymous said
May 16 7:23 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
If private healthcare is affordable to you then you have savings or a good wage and a comfortable life. That's fine but its not ethicalto state its affordable for all. Single parents, couples with children working minimum wage, students, the elderly with a state pension who fear they can't pay the gas bill. None of these people can afford private healthcare.
Where?
Some forego holidays, regular trips to the pub etc to afford private healthcare and that's fine by me, their money. I used to have BUPA when worked which meant I had to cut back a bit on other things and that was my choice. BUPA paid for itself when I needed a complicated op. The recommended surgeon was at the other end of the UK so a fair few arrangements had to be made. It was all sorted with dates etc, mutual to both. The same surgeon performed NHS ops also, it was the surgeon's location that was problematic for me.
I use the NHS like the majority, however if I needed something done quickly to improve my quality of life then I admit I wouldn't hesitate getting funds together if waiting times proved heavy. Perhaps I'm lucky where I am but I have had no problems with the NHS when needed.
Maddog said
May 16 7:27 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Maddog wrote:
No. Is private care affordable?
Private health insurance is affordable. Premiums obviously depend on people's ages, existing health conditions but you can get a decent invidual plan for less than a monthly gym membership costs (sometimes much less.) It depends on your priorities but most people are happy to rely on the NHS.
Paying privately for care if you don't have insurance can be expensive but generally noticeably lower than US prices.
I agree. We don't have ongoing private health care, but my husband has been treated for an ear problem both by the NHS, then a couple of years later, the problem returned, so for quicker treatment he went private.
The same surgeon operated on him both times.
And something tells me your husband has the financial ability to write checks that others can't. Nothing wrong with that. He has done well for himself.
But the point is, NHS wasn’t giving him satisfactory service and his quality of life was.being impacted..
The service your husband got going outside of your system is standard here and NHS like care is the exception..
But like I said a dozen times. It costs more. Seems like your husband was willing to pay for better care like I am..
Maddog, the operation was exactly the same, performed by the same surgeon.
The service was quicker, and had he needed aftercare that would have been quicker too....the outcome was exactly the same.
Quicker is better service. That's the whole point. We only get so many days on this rock. I'd rather spend fewer of them uncomfortable..
Also, there is always some amount off risk when you delay a needed procedure..
Maddog said
May 16 7:28 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If private healthcare is affordable to you then you have savings or a good wage and a comfortable life. That's fine but its not ethical to state its affordable for all. Single parents, couples with children working minimum wage, students, the elderly with a state pension who fear they can't pay the gas bill. None of these people can afford private healthcare.
I don't think anyone has said private healthcare is affordable for all.
Barksdale sorta alluded that tt was..🤷
Anonymous said
May 16 7:40 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Maddog wrote:
No. Is private care affordable?
Private health insurance is affordable. Premiums obviously depend on people's ages, existing health conditions but you can get a decent invidual plan for less than a monthly gym membership costs (sometimes much less.) It depends on your priorities but most people are happy to rely on the NHS.
Paying privately for care if you don't have insurance can be expensive but generally noticeably lower than US prices.
I agree. We don't have ongoing private health care, but my husband has been treated for an ear problem both by the NHS, then a couple of years later, the problem returned, so for quicker treatment he went private.
The same surgeon operated on him both times.
And something tells me your husband has the financial ability to write checks that others can't. Nothing wrong with that. He has done well for himself.
But the point is, NHS wasn’t giving him satisfactory service and his quality of life was.being impacted..
The service your husband got going outside of your system is standard here and NHS like care is the exception..
But like I said a dozen times. It costs more. Seems like your husband was willing to pay for better care like I am..
Maddog, the operation was exactly the same, performed by the same surgeon.
The service was quicker, and had he needed aftercare that would have been quicker too....the outcome was exactly the same.
Quicker is better service. That's the whole point. We only get so many days on this rock. I'd rather spend fewer of them uncomfortable..
Also, there is always some amount off risk when you delay a needed procedure..
You're continually claiming the US gives better healthcare "service". Being seen quicker does not mean overall better "service", it just means you are seen quicker so perhaps re-phrase your mantra?
Again, official articles say US quality of care is crappier / lag behind countries less wealthy but hey you get your crappy "service" quicker.
Being seen quicker does not mean
Maddog said
May 16 7:41 PM, 2025
Impact on Health Outcomes:
Delayed or inadequate care can worsen existing conditions, increase the risk of complications, and potentially lead to premature death.
Economic Costs:
Slowed medical care can have economic consequences, including reduced productivity due to illness and disability, and increased costs associated with treating more severe conditions later on.
Mental Health:
The stress and anxiety associated with waiting for treatment can have a negative impact on mental health, further compounding the problem.
Social Impact:
Long wait times and limited access to care can lead to frustration, anger, and a sense of injustice among patients and the wider public.
Potential for Preventable Deaths:
Medical errors and delays in treatment can contribute to preventable deaths, according to ScienceDirect.com.
Syl said
May 16 7:57 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If private healthcare is affordable to you then you have savings or a good wage and a comfortable life. That's fine but its not ethical to state its affordable for all. Single parents, couples with children working minimum wage, students, the elderly with a state pension who fear they can't pay the gas bill. None of these people can afford private healthcare.
I don't think anyone has said private healthcare is affordable for all.
Barksdale sorta alluded that tt was..🤷
He said it was affordable, he didn't say it was affordable to all.
Bloody hell, we have an increasing number of food banks here, it doesn't need spelling out that if people can't afford to eat, they will not be able to afford private health insurance.
Magica said
May 16 8:16 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
If private healthcare is affordable to you then you have savings or a good wage and a comfortable life. That's fine but its not ethical to state its affordable for all. Single parents, couples with children working minimum wage, students, the elderly with a state pension who fear they can't pay the gas bill. None of these people can afford private healthcare.
I don't think anyone has said private healthcare is affordable for all.
Barksdale sorta alluded that tt was..🤷
He said it was affordable, he didn't say it was affordable to all.
Bloody hell, we have an increasing number of food banks here, it doesn't need spelling out that if people can't afford to eat, they will not be able to afford private health insurance.
Lots are struggling there now, thanks to Starmer. He's making sure.illegals are fine, but sod the rest of us 🤐😤
Anonymous said
May 16 8:47 PM, 2025
Syl, thankyou for making things transparent. If the many poor and poverty stricken rely on food banks to get by they can't "save up " or "forego a holiday" to get private healthcare, which has never been thought of as universally affordable.
Vam said
May 16 9:53 PM, 2025
Convenience and fast-tracking aside, I’d hope that people who can afford to pay for private health care are also motivated to do so knowing that they’re not causing additional strain on already over-stretched NHS resources.
Anonymous said
May 16 11:29 PM, 2025
Vam makes a good point. I go a tad further and think considering how the NHS has been woefully underfunded and is the only medical resource for people in poverty people who can afford to go private should always do so. If people can afford private care they have no need to use the NHS. Just imo.
Barksdale said
May 17 10:06 AM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
If private healthcare is affordable to you then you have savings or a good wage and a comfortable life. That's fine but its not ethical to state its affordable for all. Single parents, couples with children working minimum wage, students, the elderly with a state pension who fear they can't pay the gas bill. None of these people can afford private healthcare.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement to say private health insurance is affordable for a lot of people but I assumed that was implicit.
As I said the monthly premium for an individual is about the same as a standard gym membership. It may prove to be better value than the gym membership given a lot of people end up going to the gym infrequently despite paying for it whereas they would use private healthcare if the need arose and find it particularly useful.
Most people are happy to rely on the NHS however and use their money for something else. That said, one of the biggest issues people have with the NHS is waiting times which private insurance gets round. Also, the NHS is particularly stretched when it comes to mental health services so again private insurance is handy there.
Anonymous said
May 17 10:33 AM, 2025
Barksdale, a significant amount of people such as pensioners, those working minimum wage or zero hour contracts are on the poverty line due to the cost of living crisis.It is not considered affordable for people living in a different world to the circumstances you describe. However I take your point.
Maddog said
May 17 3:56 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Maddog wrote:
No. Is private care affordable?
Private health insurance is affordable. Premiums obviously depend on people's ages, existing health conditions but you can get a decent invidual plan for less than a monthly gym membership costs (sometimes much less.) It depends on your priorities but most people are happy to rely on the NHS.
Paying privately for care if you don't have insurance can be expensive but generally noticeably lower than US prices.
I agree. We don't have ongoing private health care, but my husband has been treated for an ear problem both by the NHS, then a couple of years later, the problem returned, so for quicker treatment he went private.
The same surgeon operated on him both times.
And something tells me your husband has the financial ability to write checks that others can't. Nothing wrong with that. He has done well for himself.
But the point is, NHS wasn’t giving him satisfactory service and his quality of life was.being impacted..
The service your husband got going outside of your system is standard here and NHS like care is the exception..
But like I said a dozen times. It costs more. Seems like your husband was willing to pay for better care like I am..
Maddog, the operation was exactly the same, performed by the same surgeon.
The service was quicker, and had he needed aftercare that would have been quicker too....the outcome was exactly the same.
Quicker is better service. That's the whole point. We only get so many days on this rock. I'd rather spend fewer of them uncomfortable..
Also, there is always some amount off risk when you delay a needed procedure..
You're continually claiming the US gives better healthcare "service". Being seen quicker does not mean overall better "service", it just means you are seen quicker so perhaps re-phrase your mantra?
Again, official articles say US quality of care is crappier / lag behind countries less wealthy but hey you get your crappy "service" quicker.
Being seen quicker does not mean
Being sent home to wait months for a needed procedure isn't good service anymore than waiting an hour for a meal in restaurant is good service..
Having a waiter take your order quickly isn't the sign of a good restaurant. Service encompasses a bit more than that..
Maddog said
May 17 4:02 PM, 2025
As for quality of care.........
In general, cancer survival rates are better in the US than in the UK, though some specific cancers show varying outcomes. A Lancet Oncology study indicated that 91.9% of Americans with cancer survived for five years, compared to 51.1% in the UK. The UK struggles with lower survival rates for certain cancers like lung, liver, brain, and others.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Overall:
The US tends to have better overall cancer survival rates compared to the UK.
Specific Cancers:
Lung cancer: US lung cancer patients have better survival rates than those in England.
Oesophageal, rectal, and ovarian cancers: The UK has made progress in these specific cancers.
Prostate cancer: UK men with early-stage prostate cancer have high survival rates.
Less survivable cancers: The UK has some of the worst survival rates in the developed world for cancers like lung, liver, brain, oesophageal, pancreatic, and stomach.
Possible Reasons:
Access to Care: The US system may have advantages in access to advanced treatments and screenings, potentially leading to earlier diagnoses and better survival outcomes.
Funding and Innovation: Medicare in the US may cover more cancer drugs and medical innovations, including immunotherapy and clinical trials.
Delayed Diagnosis and Treatment: Some experts believe the UK's poorer survival outcomes may be related to delays in diagnosis and access to treatment.
Maddog said
May 17 4:09 PM, 2025
Now, I will admit that we spend huge sums of money buying a few more years for some cancer patients.
Maybe we should spend it elsewhere.
The Canadians have adopted a program where they encourage you ending your life with these diagnoses. Maybe that's the way to do it. Guilt people into not using the precious resources that could be used for those with better chances of survival..🤷
Anonymous said
May 17 5:31 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
As for quality of care.........
In general, cancer survival rates are better in the US than in the UK, though some specific cancers show varying outcomes. A Lancet Oncology study indicated that 91.9% of Americans with cancer survived for five years, compared to 51.1% in the UK. The UK struggles with lower survival rates for certain cancers like lung, liver, brain, and others.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Overall:
The US tends to have better overall cancer survival rates compared to the UK.
Specific Cancers:
Lung cancer: US lung cancer patients have better survival rates than those in England. Oesophageal, rectal, and ovarian cancers: The UK has made progress in these specific cancers.
Prostate cancer: UK men with early-stage prostate cancer have high survival rates.
Less survivable cancers: The UK has some of the worst survival rates in the developed world for cancers like lung, liver, brain, oesophageal, pancreatic, and stomach.
Possible Reasons:
Access to Care: The US system may have advantages in access to advanced treatments and screenings, potentially leading to earlier diagnoses and better survival outcomes.
Funding and Innovation: Medicare in the US may cover more cancer drugs and medical innovations, including immunotherapy and clinical trials.
Delayed Diagnosis and Treatment: Some experts believe the UK's poorer survival outcomes may be related to delays in diagnosis and access to treatment.
"Currently the US, compared to similar Western countries, has the lowest life expectancy at birth, highest reported maternal and infant mortality, highest hospitalization rate from preventable causes, highest death rate for avoidable and treatable conditions, highest suicide rate, and highest chronic disease burden rate in the world.
...recent World Health Organization metrics suggest that the US does an incredibly poor job with healthcare delivery, with the US ranked 37th overall to comparable Western country metrics and last among the 11 highest-income countries."
Anonymous said
May 17 6:56 PM, 2025
Maddog, do you know if the homeless receive urgent medical care and if so who pays for it? I assume those with medicade must have a permanent address to qualify. No shade, am honestly curious.
Maddog said
May 17 8:08 PM, 2025
Anonymous wrote:
Maddog, do you know if the homeless receive urgent medical care and if so who pays for it? I assume those with medicade must have a permanent address to qualify. No shade, am honestly curious.
Everyone receives emergency care at any hospital. They might get transferred to a county hospital once they are stable..
All property owners, in Texas anyway, pay a tax every year for the county hospital..These placed usually have clinics for the indigent to get regular non emergency care. Or they work in conjunction with local cities and charities..
While these hospitals have a more spartan approach, they are also where the best trauma teams are. For instance Kennedy was taken to Parkland in Dallas. It might have been the closest but it definitely had the best trauma teams..
I don't think anyone has said private healthcare is affordable for all.
Maddog, the operation was exactly the same, performed by the same surgeon.
The service was quicker, and had he needed aftercare that would have been quicker too....the outcome was exactly the same.
Where?
Some forego holidays, regular trips to the pub etc to afford private healthcare and that's fine by me, their money. I used to have BUPA when worked which meant I had to cut back a bit on other things and that was my choice. BUPA paid for itself when I needed a complicated op. The recommended surgeon was at the other end of the UK so a fair few arrangements had to be made. It was all sorted with dates etc, mutual to both. The same surgeon performed NHS ops also, it was the surgeon's location that was problematic for me.
I use the NHS like the majority, however if I needed something done quickly to improve my quality of life then I admit I wouldn't hesitate getting funds together if waiting times proved heavy. Perhaps I'm lucky where I am but I have had no problems with the NHS when needed.
Quicker is better service. That's the whole point. We only get so many days on this rock. I'd rather spend fewer of them uncomfortable..
Also, there is always some amount off risk when you delay a needed procedure..
Barksdale sorta alluded that tt was..🤷
You're continually claiming the US gives better healthcare "service". Being seen quicker does not mean overall better "service", it just means you are seen quicker so perhaps re-phrase your mantra?
Again, official articles say US quality of care is crappier / lag behind countries less wealthy but hey you get your crappy "service" quicker.
Being seen quicker does not mean
Delayed or inadequate care can worsen existing conditions, increase the risk of complications, and potentially lead to premature death.
Economic Costs:
Slowed medical care can have economic consequences, including reduced productivity due to illness and disability, and increased costs associated with treating more severe conditions later on.
Mental Health:
The stress and anxiety associated with waiting for treatment can have a negative impact on mental health, further compounding the problem.
Social Impact:
Long wait times and limited access to care can lead to frustration, anger, and a sense of injustice among patients and the wider public.
Potential for Preventable Deaths:
Medical errors and delays in treatment can contribute to preventable deaths, according to ScienceDirect.com.
He said it was affordable, he didn't say it was affordable to all.
Bloody hell, we have an increasing number of food banks here, it doesn't need spelling out that if people can't afford to eat, they will not be able to afford private health insurance.
Lots are struggling there now, thanks to Starmer. He's making sure.illegals are fine, but sod the rest of us 🤐😤
Convenience and fast-tracking aside, I’d hope that people who can afford to pay for private health care are also motivated to do so knowing that they’re not causing additional strain on already over-stretched NHS resources.
Perhaps I should have qualified my statement to say private health insurance is affordable for a lot of people but I assumed that was implicit.
As I said the monthly premium for an individual is about the same as a standard gym membership. It may prove to be better value than the gym membership given a lot of people end up going to the gym infrequently despite paying for it whereas they would use private healthcare if the need arose and find it particularly useful.
Most people are happy to rely on the NHS however and use their money for something else. That said, one of the biggest issues people have with the NHS is waiting times which private insurance gets round. Also, the NHS is particularly stretched when it comes to mental health services so again private insurance is handy there.
Being sent home to wait months for a needed procedure isn't good service anymore than waiting an hour for a meal in restaurant is good service..
Having a waiter take your order quickly isn't the sign of a good restaurant. Service encompasses a bit more than that..
In general, cancer survival rates are better in the US than in the UK, though some specific cancers show varying outcomes. A Lancet Oncology study indicated that 91.9% of Americans with cancer survived for five years, compared to 51.1% in the UK. The UK struggles with lower survival rates for certain cancers like lung, liver, brain, and others.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Overall:
The US tends to have better overall cancer survival rates compared to the UK.
Specific Cancers:
Lung cancer: US lung cancer patients have better survival rates than those in England.
Oesophageal, rectal, and ovarian cancers: The UK has made progress in these specific cancers.
Prostate cancer: UK men with early-stage prostate cancer have high survival rates.
Less survivable cancers: The UK has some of the worst survival rates in the developed world for cancers like lung, liver, brain, oesophageal, pancreatic, and stomach.
Possible Reasons:
Access to Care: The US system may have advantages in access to advanced treatments and screenings, potentially leading to earlier diagnoses and better survival outcomes.
Funding and Innovation: Medicare in the US may cover more cancer drugs and medical innovations, including immunotherapy and clinical trials.
Delayed Diagnosis and Treatment: Some experts believe the UK's poorer survival outcomes may be related to delays in diagnosis and access to treatment.
Maybe we should spend it elsewhere.
The Canadians have adopted a program where they encourage you ending your life with these diagnoses. Maybe that's the way to do it. Guilt people into not using the precious resources that could be used for those with better chances of survival..🤷
"Currently the US, compared to similar Western countries, has the lowest life expectancy at birth, highest reported maternal and infant mortality, highest hospitalization rate from preventable causes, highest death rate for avoidable and treatable conditions, highest suicide rate, and highest chronic disease burden rate in the world.
...recent World Health Organization metrics suggest that the US does an incredibly poor job with healthcare delivery, with the US ranked 37th overall to comparable Western country metrics and last among the 11 highest-income countries."
Everyone receives emergency care at any hospital. They might get transferred to a county hospital once they are stable..
All property owners, in Texas anyway, pay a tax every year for the county hospital..These placed usually have clinics for the indigent to get regular non emergency care. Or they work in conjunction with local cities and charities..
While these hospitals have a more spartan approach, they are also where the best trauma teams are. For instance Kennedy was taken to Parkland in Dallas. It might have been the closest but it definitely had the best trauma teams..