Britain's Version Of 'Medicare For All' Is Struggling

[Cow Poke]

Britain's Version Of 'Medicare For All' Is Struggling With Long Waits For Care

Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.

Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.

Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That's well below the country's goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours -- a target the NHS hasn't hit since 2015.

Now, instead of cutting wait times, the NHS is looking to scrap the goal.

Wait times for cancer treatment -- where timeliness can be a matter of life and death -- are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn't start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. That's the worst performance since records began in 2009.

And keep in mind that "on time" for the NHS is already 62 days after referral.

Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America.

[Mountain Man]

This has been the status quo in England's medical system for decades.

[Sparko]

Probably the same in Canada. Didn't mossy say her husband had to wait a very long time for a procedure or test?

Last year I went in to see a Cardiologist after both of my brothers had bypass surgery in the last year. They had me on the table for a heart catheterization procedure within a week. They wanted to do it sooner but I had to schedule my time off.

[mossrose]

Probably the same in Canada. Didn't mossy say her husband had to wait a very long time for a procedure or test?

Last year I went in to see a Cardiologist after both of my brothers had bypass surgery in the last year. They had me on the table for a heart catheterization procedure within a week. They wanted to do it sooner but I had to schedule my time off.

Yes.

They just throw more money at it and it doesn't get any better. My sister is currently waiting until November for a knee replacement. Since January.

[Sparko]

Yes.

They just throw more money at it and it doesn't get any better. My sister is currently waiting until November for a knee replacement. Since January.

When the government controls how much the doctor's gets paid, then there is less incentive to become a doctor. Plus an incentive to pack as many patients in as possible to maximize their pay, meaning long wait times. So you end up with a shortage of doctors and a long waiting list for seeing them.

[oxmixmudd]

Britain's Version Of 'Medicare For All' Is Struggling With Long Waits For Care

Nearly a quarter of a million British patients have been waiting more than six months to receive planned medical treatment from the National Health Service, according to a recent report from the Royal College of Surgeons. More than 36,000 have been in treatment queues for nine months or more.

Long waits for care are endemic to government-run, single-payer systems like the NHS. Yet some U.S. lawmakers want to import that model from across the pond. That would be a massive blunder.

Consider how long it takes to get care at the emergency room in Britain. Government data show that hospitals in England only saw 84.2% of patients within four hours in February. That's well below the country's goal of treating 95% of patients within four hours -- a target the NHS hasn't hit since 2015.

Now, instead of cutting wait times, the NHS is looking to scrap the goal.

Wait times for cancer treatment -- where timeliness can be a matter of life and death -- are also far too lengthy. According to January NHS England data, almost 25% of cancer patients didn't start treatment on time despite an urgent referral by their primary care doctor. That's the worst performance since records began in 2009.

And keep in mind that "on time" for the NHS is already 62 days after referral.

Unsurprisingly, British cancer patients fare worse than those in the United States. Only 81% of breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom live at least five years after diagnosis, compared to 89% in the United States. Just 83% of patients in the United Kingdom live five years after a prostate cancer diagnosis, versus 97% here in America.

There is a fundamental correlation between rewarding high performance and creating disparity. If we set things up so that the best can truly do their best, then the worst look a good bit worse by comparison. It's fundamental to being human, and to human nature. BUT, If the best are kept from doing their best, we end up with mediocrity.

Universal health care almost always ends up taking away the incentive and the reward to the doctors and to the hospitals for being the best. And so instead of having the best medical care available (for a price) you end up with a a mediocre medical system available to all.

But what that does then is hurt the most needy out there, because they can no longer get the care they need at any price. If great care is available for a price, then it is always possible some one or some organization can foot the bill for a sufficiently needy person unable to aford that care. But if it doesn't exist at all, there is now no hope for them.

Jim

[Sparko]

There is a fundamental correlation between rewarding high performance and creating disparity. If we set things up so that the best can truly do their best, then the worst look a good bit worse by comparison. It's fundamental to being human, and to human nature. BUT, If the best are kept from doing their best, we end up with mediocrity.

Universal health care almost always ends up taking away the incentive and the reward to the doctors and to the hospitals for being the best. And so instead of having the best medical care available (for a price) you end up with a a mediocre medical system available to all.

But what that does then is hurt the most needy out there, because they can no longer get the care they need at any price. If great care is available for a price, then it is always possible some one or some organization can foot the bill for a sufficiently needy person unable to aford that care. But if it doesn't exist at all, there is now no hope for them.

Jim

Exactly, which is why you see rich people coming to the USA from these countries to get medical treatment. Because they can afford it and they know they are getting the best care.

[Mountain Man]

Here's the healthcare debate in a nutshell:

• High quality
• Low cost
• Everybody covered

Pick two.

[Littlejoe]

Exactly, which is why you see rich people coming to the USA from these countries to get medical treatment. Because they can afford it and they know they are getting the best care.

FWIU, folks in the UK can buy separate insurance and use it at private hospitals/Dr's offices. But, I believe it's pretty pricey...

[Cow Poke]

Here's the healthcare debate in a nutshell:

• High quality
• Low cost
• Everybody covered

Pick two.

Kinda like my mechanic:

We can fix your car

• fast
• cheap
• good

Pick two.

[mossrose]

FWIU, folks in the UK can buy separate insurance and use it at private hospitals/Dr's offices. But, I believe it's pretty pricey...

We have to buy separate insurance if we want vision and dental care, or prescriptions, because those things aren't covered by the health care system. Vision exams are covered if you are under 18 or over 65, but there is no coverage for any dental or glasses or any scripts.

But, abortions and "gender reassignment" surgeries are fully covered.

[rogue06]

Exactly, which is why you see rich people coming to the USA from these countries to get medical treatment. Because they can afford it and they know they are getting the best care.

The latest is Mick Jagger who is coming to New York for heart surgery rather than getting treated in Britain.