List Of Doctors For Laser Treatment Of Eye Floaters Which Is Better? Britain's NHS Or America's Health Service?
Which is better? Britain's NHS or America's Health Service? - list of doctors for laser treatment of eye floaters
I am not aware what they have decidedly different countries, since their system, with the exception of the United Kingdom and the United States.
For those who like the British system of NHS (National Health Service) to emphasize focused on that their freedom, but it? and does not make it a good service? Why is what they describe as state of the rationing. Govt, that her department as "Nice" has to decide which diseases should be treated and what is not, because of their limited budget. It is, therefore, rationing, the selection of diseases, more frequent and necessary, while for those who say they suffer from rare diseases, it is unfair on its own legs. One example is those who want a laser treatment for eyes, he decided to "Nice" is too expensive and therefore you must give the private sectorctor. So all this talk about the NHS is completely free, is not quite right. Moreover, because of rationing, there are not enough doctors, in other words, you want to book an appointment, and expect that 6 months waiting list for it. In addition, the British NHS is free because its paid by the Govt, Govt, but makes money through taxes so that their payment anyway.
Pay the U.S. system is like a bit like driving a car if you insurance if you are injured then you will have (treated not free, you must pay for insurance) but if you do not want to have insurance, then no, but if You violate, you are invited to the law, which could be extremely expensive, depending on the wound back. However, the health system treats all diseases, notDiscrimination against persons on the basis of the common and the severity of their disease.
I'm pretty sure that the above information is correct, correct me if I'm wrong?
So who is better? I'm English, but my experience of the NHS in the UK, tend to lean on the American version. His thoughts and opinions?
|
1 comments:
I think both have their problems and have studied the question, I discovered that Singapore, the "perfect" system:
"The average lifespan of Singapore to eighty, and the cost of the system (both public and private) is one thousand dollars per person - less than the cost of bureaucracy in the United States alone. Every year, France will generally pay about $ 700 in private (the average American pays $ 2,500 in private) and the government spends $ 300 per person (five Tuim unless the British government and seven times less than the U.S.) government. "
In principle, all Singaporeans should have to pay this money (can be, on average, the cumulative amount of $ 1,000 per year) in a special savings account - made by "refund" any person who is a major part of their incomeTaxes. So people can from this pot of money should use it for their own treatment, and if it is without a job to transfer to the account of his family savings accounts. Everyone has a savings account, but the government has in the case of the poor and in critical condition.
There is also a safety net - Insurance Disaster May questioned patients, the treatment is very expensive, but the insurance is fairly inexpensive.
It may be a little complicated, but this system really is the best US-American and the approach of the United Kingdom with the added advantage that they are cheaper. The patients feel in control of their health care costs so that it has the advantage that you as a customer treated by private health care facilities "such as the United States, while theAre, we are truly in need treated, as well as in the United Kingdom.
Everybody wins, and as a bonus, PHI, however, at the request, if not money in the pot of your savings are not lost, because it can be transmitted to their children.
Post a Comment