Thursday, August 13, 2009

UK vs. US Healthcare

I was born in the UK in 1960. I lived in the US from 1987-2007 - and always had good insurance. I paid taxes, etc, in both countries. And I NOW LIVE WITH AIDS, as I have since 1990. So I know what good healthcare means.

Even if, as I did, you have the best possible US insurance plans, you still face massive co-payments for meds (max. required in the UK is £102/$172 per year, for anyone, on any income). But for any procedure in the US you got co-payment bills from 2-3-4-5 participants. If any single thing was mistaken, you faced weeks of paperwork.

The doctors and nurses are fine in the US - they are not all profit-driven nuts. But the paperwork you deal with is incredible.

Here in the UK, I get healthcare which is just as good, or in some respects better. And face no paperwork at all.

Who was paying for all that paperwork in the US? Who was wasting time processing it? Here in the UK we save money simply by treating people as needed.


Bearded Socialist said...

I personally think the UK model is excellent. To be fair to the Americans, they are having the same arguements we had in the 1940s. Bevan was compared to Hitler for trying to set up the NHS, then it came to pass and everyone wondered what the fuss was about. As usual, the UK is 60 years ahead of the Americans

Quietzapple said...


Some americans are claiming that the larger profits they pay the drug companies are necessary to fund research. The international drug companies whinge like that worse than any farmer.

Would the NHS have to pay more for drugs if the US exercised greater cost discipline?