5 ms·
The NHS in the UK seems to cost about $3,000/year/person. Admittedly, that probably needs to go up by $500-$1000 to provide a better service, but that seems to
by zelos 10y ago
The NHS in the UK seems to cost about $3,000/year/person. Admittedly, that probably needs to go up by $500-$1000 to provide a better service, but that seems to be comparable to federal spending in the US already?
- beaconstudios 10y agothe level of service that the NHS provides is pretty poor for people with ongoing conditions. They're great for providing emergency treatment but if you require ongoing treatment you will likely get much, much better service from BUPA or another health insurer. One thing the NHS does really well is providing downwards pressure on health insurers' rates though.
- tracker1 10y agoFrankly, what I wish would have happened here would have been to gather up all the federally funded healthcare initiatives and create a government owned, non-profit healthcare corp to cover the same people (va, medicare, medicaid, federal employees, etc). To provide for downward pressure and a baseline for private insurers to compete against... allowing anyone to get a private policy from said corp. Would likely have cost less, reduced redundant agencies and staff, and had a chance at making things better.
- beaconstudios 10y agoI totally agree. I think the conversation around healthcare in the US seems incredibly polarised, to the point where no reasonable middle-ground can be achieved that works for both Democrats and Republicans. The system you've described seems to cover both bases, with coverage for all in times of need but the ability to leverage the market to drive innovation and improved quality. It seems to work well in the UK, for those that can afford BUPA cover.