How can the UK honestly view their healthcare as better than that of the US?

The-United-States-of-America">—The United States of America — A Selection Appearing on Quora

[dropcap]L[/dropcap]et us cover two examples:

A 70-year-old man collapses from a ruptured brain aneurysm. Rushed to an emergency room, they first suspect it may be a stroke. When they realize what’s actually happening, he is taken by ambulance to the premier neurological center in the UK.

Over the next 12 days, he is given round-the-clock care by an RN and an LPN who work only with him. He is monitored with state-of-the-art machines. He is assigned to a neurosurgeon, so she becomes familiar with his case; her team - who are part of his on-going consistent care - is made up of two specialists and two first-year neurologists.

He is given expensive medications. He has a dietitian who sees him every day to assess his nutrition and who regulates his caloric intake. He has an RN who specializes in skin care, who evaluates him twice each day. During these twelve days he has two brain surgeries as well as numerous diagnostic tests.

At the end of the twelve days he still cannot breathe on his own; as his condition continues to deteriorate, he is finally declared “brain dead” and his family authorizes the removal of the machines keeping him alive. He dies within minutes.

The total cost for the care was estimated to be the equivalent of $300,000. I don’t know of a plan in the US that would cover it all. In America, the patient - or in this case, his estate / surviving family - would be liable for all costs not covered by insurance (many medications are not covered by even very good plans)… would have to pay co-pays to doctors, clinics, etc…. would have to pay percentages for hospitalization, medical supplies, operating rooms…

At the end of the day, a conservative estimate would place the patient’s financial responsibility in the neighborhood of 20%. That’s $60,000.

In the UK, under the NHS, there was no bill. There was no cost to the patient, to the estate, to the family. Not. One. Penny. Everything was covered, every single thing.

In the US I have Medicare, parts A and B. The original Medicare (A) covers essentially a hospital bed and little else. The adjunct coverage (B) helps with costs beyond Part A - but does not cover everything. There’s a deductible that must be met, and there are percentages and co-pays that are out-of-pocket expenses.

In June I broke a bone in my foot. That snowballed into needing surgery. Numerous doctors’ visits were involved. All sorts of medical supplies (everything from a cast to an orthotic boot to a walker to bandages) were needed - and there is nothing in all this that I didn’t personally contribute toward the cost, paying out of pocket for all sorts. By the end, I paid the better part of $3000 of my own money.

In the US I contributed toward the coffers of Medicare with every paycheck. Medicare started in 1965 and I wasn’t far behind it when I started my working life. Once I retired, I was still liable for deductibles and co-pays and percentages for medical care.

In the UK, the man with the brain aneurysm paid taxes with every paycheck - the NHS is funded out of UK taxes. Once he retired, he owed nothing more for his medical care. It was all covered.

If I had broken my foot in the UK, I’d have received the same care, the same supplies, the same prescriptions that I did in the US - and paid nothing. Not. One. Penny.

If the man with the brain aneurysm had collapsed in the US, he or his family would’ve paid tens of thousands of dollars. Or they might’ve been able to set up a GoFundMe collection. That’s pretty pathetic when you have to beg publicly for money and hope enough kind-hearted people will send it to you… and a pretty dicey way to live if you have only that as a safety net.

Compare those two cases, then explain to me why you think the Brits are being somehow dishonest in viewing their healthcare as better than the US system?