What can you tell us Yanks about Healthcare in the UK

I had to look at this thread while stumbling around for the garage rock one. I haven't even read all of it, and to be honest, don't really feel a desire to do so. Feel free to quit reading here.

We can all provide anecdotal evidence, as I did, and many others. It's anecdotal and while it shapes our opinions is not necessarily a firm foundation for healthcare policy.

Universal healthcare is an admirable goal, but nothing comes free and eventually somebody is paying the piper and somebody is going to come up short. If you are unlucky enough to get cancer you are statistically better off being an American than a Brit as the survival rate is higher. Some Americans, perhaps even many, lack healthcare insurance but every British citizen has it but still might find the care subpar or inadequate and have a reduced survival rate.

In Britain you pay for your healthcare through your taxes. If you choose to supplement that with private insurance, you pay even more. In America there are programs such as Medicaid and Medicare that are government funded for the poor and elderly. Most people need to choose their own healthcare insurance either subsidised through their employer or by doing it themselves.

The problem I have with the "Universal is good and fair and private is bad" argument is that it dismisses a lot of real world issues in healthcare. Somebody has to pay for medicines. Pharmaceutical companies are easy to demonise but it's often done without looking at the facts. The lion's share of pharmaceutical companies exist in only a handful of countries for a reason.

It is incredibly expensive and time consuming to bring a drug to market. It takes decades. And every successful drug must pay for the research into the 999 drugs that somewhere along the line went from promising to failure. If your country has price controls then you benefit, and countries that do not, like the US, pick up the extra price. However if every country decided that nobody should have to pay more than X amount of pounds/dollars/euros then how many drugs will be researched?

It's expensive. And the reason it is so is because it's difficult. But look at the accomplishments that have been made because of it. 25 years ago HIV was a death sentence. It is now largely treated as a life-long disease that can be managed. Look at the leaps and strides healthcare has made and our quality of life and longevity that has benefitted. We can't simply take that for granted and assume somehow, somewhere, someone is going to pay for that, as long as it's not us or anyone we know, and believe that development will continue.

I'm biased. I worked for a pharmaceutical company that brought a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis to millions of sufferers. I showed up in the last 12 months and got to partake in the celebrations, but that journey started in the late 70s. My mom requires a treatment for her leukemia that NICE will not approve as it's too expensive and decided it's not worth whatever extension of her life it grants. That's not being argumentative, it's just a fact that when one payer shoulders the burden, they have to make cost/benefit decisions. I appreciate the fact that she is able to have that treatment because she has private insurance in a competitive market.

I think it's great that I see people putting up honest opinions, beliefs and experiences here. I get frustrated when I see knee-jerk reactions or bumper sticker philosophies. This is a serious issue and it's not just a political divide or difference in cultures that makes people hold different views. If you love or hate the NHS, fine; I'm not going to try to change your opinion because I don't care. I've had good and bad experiences here like I've had in the States, but I too have an opinion based on those personal experiences. I'm simply saying there is much, much more to this debate than a 'healthcare for all or healthcare for the rich' or 'I don't want to pay for someone else' point of view.