warrenm2

Think this through. The Government has increased health spending by approx 80% of the last 10 years. And yet outcomes per pound spent have fallen markedly. Is this under funding? What is the correct level of funding? Surely a better explanation is the whole system is crap and we need a new one? Like state provided health insurance vouchers maybe?

SunnySideUp

I think you will discover that, in the final analysis, it will be at YOUR expense!

busby330

thing i am trying to is,

when you have worked in the NHS environment(SP?) you realise how much pressure they are put under from the pen pushers!!!.

I no longer work for the NHS and havent for the past 4 years.

as for your comment about health insurance vouchers, possibly a good idea, but then think of this.........
IF the NHS were to stop trading etc, who would take over there hospitals AND where would those doctors/nurses go to work, i cant see people like BUPA etc taking on ALL of the NHS hospitals.

warrenm2

I agree. That is my point. The system as structured doesnt work properly and there are better ways of doing things. And getting rid of unfit hospitals is a good thing, is it not? And how many NHS staff would welcome a reduction in meaningless targets, and endless bureaucracy?

stilover

The NHS is adequately funded. Maybe too over funded. The money is being wasted on red tape and middle managers.

As said above, bring back Matron. My mate wife is a nurse. She has a manager, who has a manager, who has a manager, who has a manager. See where this is going?

New Labour has created so much red tape and bureaucracy, that they had a hire more managers to cope with the ever growing bullsh!t.

Cut the red tape, sack all the managers, and let nurses be managed by Matrons. Money will be spent to actual health care then.

Plus, stop treating foreigners on NHS holidays. Without insurance, let them go without.

warrenm2

the managers and red tape are simply symptons of the underlying structural problem though...

busby330

Sorry i obviously didnt make it clear, when i say under funded, i meant the funds arent being spent on things that matter, i.e doctors nurses beds equipment, instead its being wasted on managers, middle managers.

Hope this clears what i meant

hodgy0_2

I did not suggest they should work for free, it is how healthcare is funded that is the issue

the debate is about access to healthcare, imo its no good having the best hospitals in the world if only a subset of the population can use them

SunnySideUp

And, yes, good name ..... but, do you know something? You would STILL post on every thread I started!

Maybe the Irony of your request is lost on you though?

warrenm2

Well it comes out of our pockets! Its just a question of whether you pay for it directly (ok, via a health insurer) or by taxes. I would claim the former is a better way of doing things, however to at least get to a system of health care vouchers (ie state funded via taxation but privately provided) would be a big step forward

hodgy0_2

but insurance works on the basis of continually minimising financial exposure to both risk and claims

annoying when dealing with car insurance, really annoying when dealing with cancer etc

Wendell Potter a former head of communications at CIGNA (big US health insurer) turned whistle blower recently (after seeing charity run MASH style field hospitals in rural America) and delivered a withering critic on the US health insurance industry.

Kiwi

The NHS is far from perfect but you do get treated.

Even if you have private cover If you get something really serious it's the NHS
that will come to your rescuse as the private hospitals are generally only good
for elective stuff.

As far as getting sick in the USA is concerned it good if you have healthcover
but if you don't you will end up not getting treated for things that are survivable
eg cancer.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I pay either way:

Just at the moment, I have to pay for someone else to get treated as well!

Nope, I'd like to pay for my own treatment, rather than being forced to pay for someone else's treatment.

hodgy0_2

nice world you live in

TurboKitty

Furthermore, you'll see I made a suggestion, not a request. Surely a man of your great intellect can grasp the difference?

As for irony, there is none. It's perfectly possible to post on one of your threads without paying any attention to the nonsense you are (inevitably) spouting there. In fact, given the rapidly declining quality of that nonsense, it's getting easier all the time.

cster

It is interesting that dependance on the NHS is so ingrained, that it basically cannot be challenged by any political party.
What a sad state of affairs.
People seem to go on about how good it is - but because it is a monopoly, they don't know any better.
Quite why the state should force people to pay in order to have this lack of choice is beyond me.
Socialism I guess.

stuart n

Should we keep the NHS? Yes.
However it does need a huge overhaul, mainly because the huge sums of money Labour have invested in it went on payrises and creating more management positions that weren't needed.
Get rid of the deadwood and invest that money in recruiting much needed doctors and nurses for starters and then see how things stand.

BTW, when I was in the States at the end of April they were having this debate on their healthcare then. They were playing footage of "Tony" saying we don't have the ability to choose the hospital or doctor we want to perform operations like they do in the States. He implied that the NHS should be more like the US system. Funny how that went unreported over here

hodgy0_2

the nhs grew out of the sacrifices men and women of all ages and social backgrounds made in the 2nd world war

the prevailing opinion of the time was that if the state asked (told) people to be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, then perhaps their county owed them something in return i.e. a decent health system and a welfare state

That partly explains why Churchill (an undoubtedly great prime minister/leader) was swept from power in the 1945 elections.

It amazes me how little people trust the “state” which acts in the main for the communal good; when in the last year we have seen private enterprise bring the world economic system to its knees – to be baled out across the western world by the state, even in the US

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Yup;

Face it: A nationalised system will only work to cover everyone's health if EVERYONE pays enough into it. Currently nobody does; the poor pay nothing and the rich avoid it via clever investments, leaving the most econmically vunerable classes (the middle) to bear the brunt - like with everything else.

Mind, if I was poor what incentive is there for me to get off my **** and pay into the system? Throw my self-respect out the window and live off everyone else, they'll keep me fit and healthy. Now THAT is a nice little world to live in - living of everyone else.

hodgy0_2

why dont you concentrate on yourself and your family instead of whinging about everything else -- you will always get spongers and slopey shouldered people -- move on its much healthier

I had the cause to rely on the NHS last week -- as I caught an infection whilst on holiday in Greece, first day back, appointment at my local GP's surgery, sent straight to A&E -- operated on same day which resulted in a night in hospital

whilst lying on the bed did I think --

a. wow what great service by fantatsic commited staff or

b. fvck me some Polish immigrant might get the same treatment and i probably pay more tax in a month than they earn in a year

P1 Daveyboy

From my experence with the NHS hospitals most of the treating staff do the best they can,
They also deserve a better pay deal IMHO. Bring back Matron as well
Mangers do put restraints on the treating staff with the amount of paperwork involved
Some of the specialists who work nhs hospitals also work Bupa and so on as well
Its not ideal but at least you get treatment when needed in most urgent cases
Lets not go back in time before NHS was created. We would all be a lot worse of thats for sure
Cut the amount of chiefs and paperwork then get more treating staff and equipment IMHO

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Wow, Your lucky!

VERY lucky to get that kind of service.

Pity my grandad didn't: Dead (heart bypass two years too late from numerous cancelations)
Pity my other grandad didn't: Dead (kidney failure - undiagnosed until it was too late)
Pity dad didn't: Dead (15minute Ambulance response time - and A&E is 5mins away)

OK my Mum's alive; 3 months to get referred to a specialist for her fractured vertebrae and osteoporosis; GP writing perscriptions for the wrong drugs and losing correspondance between the specialist doesn't help.

This when I said enough is enough and put her through private. Despite her opposition - on the premise she paid into the system without taking from it for the best part of 50 years.

Concentration enough for you?

I'm not knocking the staff in any way, it just they are so under-resourced and overwhemled (barring a few exceptions)

hodgy0_2

I’m sorry for your personal experiences Ali_B

But in my mind it does not change my basic beliefs in a universal health care system free at the point of delivery, based on clinical need paid for by general taxation.

My Nan smoked till she was 89 – but I would never use that fact to convince myself that smoking did smokers no harm

warrenm2

Funny, 'cos it amazes me how people can make so grossly ignorant statements

cster

I wouldn't mind it so much if there was a little choice involved.
As we know, even the proposal of making tax allowances for Private Health Insurance is politically taboo.
Obviously, such contributions would directly lessen the burden on the NHS and therefore the taxpayer.
Can this be right?
Is the NHS system so weak, it can't brook competition? It has had a good headstart after all.
I don't mind helping others who need helping.
But that is not what the NHS is about, is it?

hodgy0_2

well thats fine from someone who seems to assumes that the statistic (given in a fox broadcast) regarding the relative survival rate of postrate cancer being 100% somehow means no one dies of prostrate cancer in the US.

its just such a rubbish meaningless statistic that gets bandied about --- but you seem to have swollowed it (like most americans) hook line and sinker.

stilover

If we adopted the American Insurance scheme, you'd have still got the same fast response treatment (but all the time, not just this time) and you will have paid for your treatment via your insurance plan. While at the minute, we all chipped in to pay for it.

It's no secret that one of the reasons the NHS is strained in it's resources is the influx of immigrants that yes, some do contribute, but others don't. The NHS get X amount of money to treat patients, but there are far more patients than contributers. Insurance schemes would eliminate this lop-sided calculation

Deep Singh

The NHS should concentrate on things that will kill you, cancer, heart attacks, trauma. This should be state funded.

Everything else should be paid for. Why not? Why should I pay for lay abouts to have their hernia fixed? Or worse still for the unemployed to have their teeth fixed for free when I have to pay?

This govt even took away tax relief on private insurance, why should I pay twice? I'm relieving the burden on the NHS. While I'm at it, why is there no tax relief on private school fees.

Why can't I opt out of socialist healthcare and education system? For example the avge cost of a private school is about £10k a year, that iirc is about the same as the govt spends per child. I know which one I would rather send my kids to.

Even if its not the same amount, why can't I have the govt money and then top up? Why must I be forced to educate my children with ones who have NO interest in learning, and neither do their parents. Or pay all over again to go private.

Why must everybody be the same, at the expence of just some?

hodgy0_2

go to America or dubai and live in the gated communities that they have created especially for people like you Deep

Snazy

Blimey proper hotcake this one.

From my experience, I have always been treated well under the NHS, op's have come up in a reasonable time, treatments have been worthwhile and effective, and not once have they put my premiums up for too many claims (thats a private insurance joke btw)

Others who I have seen treated on the NHS have also come out of it ok. Mums ongoing cancer treatments etc are all being done well.

I have to say though, reading some of the comments, I dont think some of it is anything to do with the NHS, more the people they employ. Mis diagnosing, etc is down to a person not a service. Yes the service employs them but you cant directly "blame" the service.

All in all the NHS is a wonderful thing. But like most other things that are public based, benefits, health care, transport etc... its the people who work for a living that ultimately pay for all these services, while the lazy and unwilling sit back and scrounge. Unfair, but for someone who spends a lot of time in medical facilities... I like to focus on the positives..... Such as its there for me when it counts.

Bit like thinking about plane crashes everytime you are about to fly. There are good and bad sides to everything. But if you are benefitting from it, just focus on the good and try blanking out the bad.

Interesting comment about Tony B-Liar's piece on USA TV though. Of course it went unreported. Mr Fantastic make a comment AGAINST the UK... surely not lol