Interestingly, this report came out today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4062067.stm
"In his analysis, Professor Berwick said the US and UK healthcare systems faced similar problems, including improving safety and reducing medical errors, making care more effective and efficient, ensuring care focuses on patients rather than diseases or numbers, reducing waits, and offering everyone the same access to treatment. But he said that, if asked to bet on which country will succeed in resolving them, "my money will be on the UK"." To be fair there are still problems with the NHS with some old hospitals and long waiting times for treatment in some areas, but I honestly can't praise the service my wife has received enough - for example the time taken from being examined by a Dr to having an MRI scan was less than three hours. -----Original Message----- From: dana tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 December 2004 19:24 To: CF-Community Subject: Re: feeling kinda foolish the question in my mind is, do you prefer cheap or do you prefer available? In the US access to care is rationed through insurance coverage and costs. In Canada and in Great Britain the rationing is more explicit and probably more effective. When it works. Personally, though... I prefer to have the best available as soon as it is available. Using CAT scan to detect pulmonary embolism is just now hitting the journals. Based on my experience of Canadian medecine, I suspect that in Toronto I would have been given an inhaler and sent home. The interferon treatment I had over the summer is not yet available there last I heard. Don't get me wrong.. I think the Canadian and British systems do well at treating known issues with established cures. But for finding stuff and treating it aggressively... the American way is better. my .02 Dana On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 10:30:03 -0600, G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's gotta be cheaper than the US system. Health insurance in this country > is such an incredible scam. Here's the problem: it's making an awful lot of > powerful people/entities awfully rich. Namely, doctors and insurance > companies. > > Problem is, few would trust our government to be in charge of disbursing and > maintaining a general health fund. So I wonder out loud again...how come the > whole thing can't be market driven? Why shouldn't a doctor charge what the > market says the average sick person can afford and will pay? > > This would be considerably less than the 9800 dollars for 30 minutes my > surgeon charged, that I can gaurantee. > > > > > > Everyone. > > > > For instance in Canada, depending on the province, the money for > > Medicare (which is the single payer health insurance) comes out of > > general tax revenue, as in Manitoba, or as part of an annual premium, > > as in Alberta. In either case on a per person basis its substantially > > cheaper than the US system, and according to the stats, as good if not > > better. > > > > larry > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Silver Sponsor - CFDynamics http://www.cfdynamics.com Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:138642 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
