Poll: The NHS
Total Members Polled: 272
Discussion
The NHS system is so monumentally feked. There is all the technology to treat and cure people but no one appears to get access to it.
4 years ago I was finally diagnosed with a basal cell carcinoma, a thankfully not scary skin cancer. It took ages to even get to point where I was to have a biopsy and in all that time it got bigger and bigger.
When the results came through I was sent off to make an appointment to have it cut out and the earliest they could do was 3 months away. Even the nurse seemed shocked that it would take so long.
Finally the day came and the surgeon remarked that he thought that he was supposed to be doing a quick nip and tuck but as what was on my face was far larger than the pics, taken 4 months earlier, he ended up having to do quite a big skin graft.
WHAT A FEKIN! WASTE OF RESOURCES!!
I am now going through the same bo!!ox again!
Beginning of 2011 I show my GP a small bump on head, size of a zit, that won't heal. May of 2011 I finally get seen at a mole clinic and the Doc there said it was nothing to worry about and hit it with some liquid nitrogen.
It went red, scabbed and fell off. 2 months later I returned for a check up and was told that all was fine.
About a month later something returned in the same place so I called the hospital only to be told that I would need to go back to my GP to be referred again. FEK! I'm in their system so they easily could have seen me.
My male complacency kicked in and it was about 2 months before I saw my GP who was convinced it was something else and gave me a cream to apply to it for 6 weeks. It got worse so I returned and he then tried to get me referred but the earliest I could be seen was 3 months (It's always 3 months) and this would be at a different hospital as my local one could not see me for the foreseeable future.
The new doctor reckoned I had a rodent ulcer and a basal cell which had spread a lot so sent me off for a biopsy but wait for it........3 months to be seen. I called her at her private practice and complained and to give her her due, she got me into a hospital even further away for the biopsy with just 3 weeks to wait.
I had the biopsy 2 weeks ago and was told to make an appointment for the results and again I was told 3 months. I have been in contact with her, the doctor, directly and it is to be next week now.
Now this will be a year and 4 months since I first flagged this up and hopefully it is 'just' Basal Cell but there is going to be a pretty big skin graft to do and I won't look so nice afterwards. Of course we have no idea how long I will have to wait for the procedure.
Don't get me started on my heart attack of 2009 or the fact the my Dad had bowel cancer and was told that his son's will all have to be checked out but our GPs cannot check us until we are 60 as there is no budget to check younger, not much, people.
What the NHS needs to realise is that it's primary aim should be to keep us tax payers working and paying tax. Sorry rant over.
4 years ago I was finally diagnosed with a basal cell carcinoma, a thankfully not scary skin cancer. It took ages to even get to point where I was to have a biopsy and in all that time it got bigger and bigger.
When the results came through I was sent off to make an appointment to have it cut out and the earliest they could do was 3 months away. Even the nurse seemed shocked that it would take so long.
Finally the day came and the surgeon remarked that he thought that he was supposed to be doing a quick nip and tuck but as what was on my face was far larger than the pics, taken 4 months earlier, he ended up having to do quite a big skin graft.
WHAT A FEKIN! WASTE OF RESOURCES!!
I am now going through the same bo!!ox again!
Beginning of 2011 I show my GP a small bump on head, size of a zit, that won't heal. May of 2011 I finally get seen at a mole clinic and the Doc there said it was nothing to worry about and hit it with some liquid nitrogen.
It went red, scabbed and fell off. 2 months later I returned for a check up and was told that all was fine.
About a month later something returned in the same place so I called the hospital only to be told that I would need to go back to my GP to be referred again. FEK! I'm in their system so they easily could have seen me.
My male complacency kicked in and it was about 2 months before I saw my GP who was convinced it was something else and gave me a cream to apply to it for 6 weeks. It got worse so I returned and he then tried to get me referred but the earliest I could be seen was 3 months (It's always 3 months) and this would be at a different hospital as my local one could not see me for the foreseeable future.
The new doctor reckoned I had a rodent ulcer and a basal cell which had spread a lot so sent me off for a biopsy but wait for it........3 months to be seen. I called her at her private practice and complained and to give her her due, she got me into a hospital even further away for the biopsy with just 3 weeks to wait.
I had the biopsy 2 weeks ago and was told to make an appointment for the results and again I was told 3 months. I have been in contact with her, the doctor, directly and it is to be next week now.
Now this will be a year and 4 months since I first flagged this up and hopefully it is 'just' Basal Cell but there is going to be a pretty big skin graft to do and I won't look so nice afterwards. Of course we have no idea how long I will have to wait for the procedure.
Don't get me started on my heart attack of 2009 or the fact the my Dad had bowel cancer and was told that his son's will all have to be checked out but our GPs cannot check us until we are 60 as there is no budget to check younger, not much, people.
What the NHS needs to realise is that it's primary aim should be to keep us tax payers working and paying tax. Sorry rant over.
0000 said:
The NHS is great if you're suddenly missing a limb or other obvious emergency. It's a slow, frustrating behemoth beyond that.
I agree. I think you should keep the NHS but have the option for tax relief if you go private. I pay for private medical because, apart from emergencies, the NHS simply takes far too long, yet I still have to also pay for the NHS.
Keep it! It saw me into this world, kept me in when things went wrong, fixed me up, put me back together and will no doubt see me out. The people at the business end are beyond angels, and the service IME has been nothing short of amazing. And all for a little bit of tax every month? I can live with that. One of many things that make this wet 'n' windy Isle great 
It's the suits in the back offices and the pricks in the Government that cause the problems. I say get rid of them.
It's the suits in the back offices and the pricks in the Government that cause the problems. I say get rid of them.
The fundamental concept of the NHS of free health care is both inspired and flawed.
I was once flying home from turkey and became unwell at istanbul airport, that's ok i have travel insurance, no problem. Pull out the documents and to my horror discover it had expired two days before. It had been fine when i flew out but my trip had ended up being extended. It is hard to explain the fear of, I am sick but am now worried about how much this is going to cost me. The concept that without the NHS I as well as a massive percent of the population would have to decide if they could afford to call an ambulance is scary.
The reality is the cost healthcare is stupidly high and runs at a rate of inflation of 9% without taking into account our ageing population. Ironically when it was set up, it was thought it would be expensive for the first few years then year on year get cheaper as the population got healthier.
The main workload of the NHS is caring for those that don't contribute to it, the fact that only 15% of prescriptions are paid for because most are for the elderly, children, the chronically ill shows us this, plus you just have to walk around a hospital ward or a GP surgery waiting room. Those who are invariably paying for it resent how much it costs so the spending on the NHS is squeezed and limited.
The public have their sense of entitlement, i've paid for it, so i want everything and i want it now, so it's squeezed by it's end users who have ever greater demands.
Then to compound it, the government always wants to show how they've made it better for the money they've spent by making targets many of them artificial forcing the nhs to jump through the hoops, it's not only the cost of doing this but the costs of designing and developing the processes to do it, every few years new ones come along, some old ones stay some get lost. So it also wastes money chasing it's tail and employing a whole tier of staff to do it.
There are some good effects, the NHS subsidises private health insurance as the private companies need not pay for training, A&E, ITU, you know all those bothersome expensive things that don't return the bottom line. They also can avoid chronic conditions and the elderly by having exclusions or just making the premiums stupidly expensive.
The NHS is also a such a massive employer and holds a virtual monopoly on healthcare in the UK it distorts the market, without the NHS nursing and medical pay would much more closely resemble the states.
So what is the alternative? Since we handed over the utilities to the private sector, did the service get better? did the bills go down? what makes you think it would happen with healthcare, think how much over capacity you would need for there to be genuine competition, each big town having two hospitals each big enough for the whole town in a struggle for dominance, but as soon as one goes, why bother competing any more. Who would end up paying the 100K that newly qualified docs are going to come out of med school in debt to?
Do we go straight fee paying, where if you're wealthy or well you're ok? if you can't pay you're left as you are, or if they are to be treated who will pay for it?
Do we go for insurance, what happens about those that can't get insurance due to chronic conditions or due to age, do you trust insurance companies facing a bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds for chronic conditions not to try and wriggle out of paying up? what would happen to those who choose not to get insurance? Are we ready to wheel them out to die?
But then is it fair that people are not responsible for their actions and then subsidised by everyone else? I guess it depends on what you think the role of society is and what point does it stop supporting those who have been unlucky in life
The fact is i believe in personal responsibility i think the welfare state is massively abused, but if we can't even get people earning over 50K pa to loose their child benefits without a fight, what hope do we have of cutting this. If we can't even get people to willing agree to pay towards the 2K a week for their nursing home, what makes you think people will be willing to pay towards their healthcare. We are a spoilt people not willing to pay the true costs of our lives.
The reality is if we spend X% of our GDP on healthcare now and we are able to keep everything else from going up ( we won't as we have a shortage of clinical staff) it will rise to X%+company profits if it we hand it over to the private sector.
It's flawed, it's abused but it's the best of list of bad choices unless you want to go down the way of the states where the commonest cause of personal bankruptcy is outstanding medical bills.
From a purely personal view, i would be better off should the nhs go and be replaced with private providers, i wouldn't be out earnt by GPs and Dentists, the costs of getting me to work over the easter weekend would be reassuringly expensive. But it would mean people would choose not to seek help because they couldn't afford it or would be more scared of the bill then the treatment and just to avoid that, we need to keep the NHS.
I was once flying home from turkey and became unwell at istanbul airport, that's ok i have travel insurance, no problem. Pull out the documents and to my horror discover it had expired two days before. It had been fine when i flew out but my trip had ended up being extended. It is hard to explain the fear of, I am sick but am now worried about how much this is going to cost me. The concept that without the NHS I as well as a massive percent of the population would have to decide if they could afford to call an ambulance is scary.
The reality is the cost healthcare is stupidly high and runs at a rate of inflation of 9% without taking into account our ageing population. Ironically when it was set up, it was thought it would be expensive for the first few years then year on year get cheaper as the population got healthier.
The main workload of the NHS is caring for those that don't contribute to it, the fact that only 15% of prescriptions are paid for because most are for the elderly, children, the chronically ill shows us this, plus you just have to walk around a hospital ward or a GP surgery waiting room. Those who are invariably paying for it resent how much it costs so the spending on the NHS is squeezed and limited.
The public have their sense of entitlement, i've paid for it, so i want everything and i want it now, so it's squeezed by it's end users who have ever greater demands.
Then to compound it, the government always wants to show how they've made it better for the money they've spent by making targets many of them artificial forcing the nhs to jump through the hoops, it's not only the cost of doing this but the costs of designing and developing the processes to do it, every few years new ones come along, some old ones stay some get lost. So it also wastes money chasing it's tail and employing a whole tier of staff to do it.
There are some good effects, the NHS subsidises private health insurance as the private companies need not pay for training, A&E, ITU, you know all those bothersome expensive things that don't return the bottom line. They also can avoid chronic conditions and the elderly by having exclusions or just making the premiums stupidly expensive.
The NHS is also a such a massive employer and holds a virtual monopoly on healthcare in the UK it distorts the market, without the NHS nursing and medical pay would much more closely resemble the states.
So what is the alternative? Since we handed over the utilities to the private sector, did the service get better? did the bills go down? what makes you think it would happen with healthcare, think how much over capacity you would need for there to be genuine competition, each big town having two hospitals each big enough for the whole town in a struggle for dominance, but as soon as one goes, why bother competing any more. Who would end up paying the 100K that newly qualified docs are going to come out of med school in debt to?
Do we go straight fee paying, where if you're wealthy or well you're ok? if you can't pay you're left as you are, or if they are to be treated who will pay for it?
Do we go for insurance, what happens about those that can't get insurance due to chronic conditions or due to age, do you trust insurance companies facing a bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds for chronic conditions not to try and wriggle out of paying up? what would happen to those who choose not to get insurance? Are we ready to wheel them out to die?
But then is it fair that people are not responsible for their actions and then subsidised by everyone else? I guess it depends on what you think the role of society is and what point does it stop supporting those who have been unlucky in life
The fact is i believe in personal responsibility i think the welfare state is massively abused, but if we can't even get people earning over 50K pa to loose their child benefits without a fight, what hope do we have of cutting this. If we can't even get people to willing agree to pay towards the 2K a week for their nursing home, what makes you think people will be willing to pay towards their healthcare. We are a spoilt people not willing to pay the true costs of our lives.
The reality is if we spend X% of our GDP on healthcare now and we are able to keep everything else from going up ( we won't as we have a shortage of clinical staff) it will rise to X%+company profits if it we hand it over to the private sector.
It's flawed, it's abused but it's the best of list of bad choices unless you want to go down the way of the states where the commonest cause of personal bankruptcy is outstanding medical bills.
From a purely personal view, i would be better off should the nhs go and be replaced with private providers, i wouldn't be out earnt by GPs and Dentists, the costs of getting me to work over the easter weekend would be reassuringly expensive. But it would mean people would choose not to seek help because they couldn't afford it or would be more scared of the bill then the treatment and just to avoid that, we need to keep the NHS.
I've spent a lot of time under the care of the NHS in the last couple of years, and had a couple of goes at Private Care.
Firstly my first-hand experience of the NHS is so far removed from the nonsense you read about in the press (and on PH sadly) sometimes it's not even funny anymore.
It's not as efficient as it could be, but that's not always a bad thing - a private company would probably consider having a brigade of doctors, registrars and consultants on hand as waste - but if you turn up in the back of a ambulance all smashed to bits you're pretty glad of a half dozen specialists checking you out and there's no point discussing when you'd like your procedure over a coffee when you're bleeding to death, you want seeing to proto by a organisation that's got the size, manpower and depth of experience to fix you.
I've never waited to see a physio, consultant, doctor, home care nurse they were always available just when I needed.
There's waste, but they're not dropping tonnes of cash on swanky looking waiting rooms or advertising which is a whole lot more wasteful IMHO.
Firstly my first-hand experience of the NHS is so far removed from the nonsense you read about in the press (and on PH sadly) sometimes it's not even funny anymore.
It's not as efficient as it could be, but that's not always a bad thing - a private company would probably consider having a brigade of doctors, registrars and consultants on hand as waste - but if you turn up in the back of a ambulance all smashed to bits you're pretty glad of a half dozen specialists checking you out and there's no point discussing when you'd like your procedure over a coffee when you're bleeding to death, you want seeing to proto by a organisation that's got the size, manpower and depth of experience to fix you.
I've never waited to see a physio, consultant, doctor, home care nurse they were always available just when I needed.
There's waste, but they're not dropping tonnes of cash on swanky looking waiting rooms or advertising which is a whole lot more wasteful IMHO.
piquet said:
The fundamental concept of the NHS of free health care is both inspired and flawed.
I was once flying home from turkey and became unwell at istanbul airport, that's ok i have travel insurance, no problem. Pull out the documents and to my horror discover it had expired two days before. It had been fine when i flew out but my trip had ended up being extended. It is hard to explain the fear of, I am sick but am now worried about how much this is going to cost me. The concept that without the NHS I as well as a massive percent of the population would have to decide if they could afford to call an ambulance is scary.
The reality is the cost healthcare is stupidly high and runs at a rate of inflation of 9% without taking into account our ageing population. Ironically when it was set up, it was thought it would be expensive for the first few years then year on year get cheaper as the population got healthier.
The main workload of the NHS is caring for those that don't contribute to it, the fact that only 15% of prescriptions are paid for because most are for the elderly, children, the chronically ill shows us this, plus you just have to walk around a hospital ward or a GP surgery waiting room. Those who are invariably paying for it resent how much it costs so the spending on the NHS is squeezed and limited.
The public have their sense of entitlement, i've paid for it, so i want everything and i want it now, so it's squeezed by it's end users who have ever greater demands.
Then to compound it, the government always wants to show how they've made it better for the money they've spent by making targets many of them artificial forcing the nhs to jump through the hoops, it's not only the cost of doing this but the costs of designing and developing the processes to do it, every few years new ones come along, some old ones stay some get lost. So it also wastes money chasing it's tail and employing a whole tier of staff to do it.
There are some good effects, the NHS subsidises private health insurance as the private companies need not pay for training, A&E, ITU, you know all those bothersome expensive things that don't return the bottom line. They also can avoid chronic conditions and the elderly by having exclusions or just making the premiums stupidly expensive.
The NHS is also a such a massive employer and holds a virtual monopoly on healthcare in the UK it distorts the market, without the NHS nursing and medical pay would much more closely resemble the states.
So what is the alternative? Since we handed over the utilities to the private sector, did the service get better? did the bills go down? what makes you think it would happen with healthcare, think how much over capacity you would need for there to be genuine competition, each big town having two hospitals each big enough for the whole town in a struggle for dominance, but as soon as one goes, why bother competing any more. Who would end up paying the 100K that newly qualified docs are going to come out of med school in debt to?
Do we go straight fee paying, where if you're wealthy or well you're ok? if you can't pay you're left as you are, or if they are to be treated who will pay for it?
Do we go for insurance, what happens about those that can't get insurance due to chronic conditions or due to age, do you trust insurance companies facing a bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds for chronic conditions not to try and wriggle out of paying up? what would happen to those who choose not to get insurance? Are we ready to wheel them out to die?
But then is it fair that people are not responsible for their actions and then subsidised by everyone else? I guess it depends on what you think the role of society is and what point does it stop supporting those who have been unlucky in life
The fact is i believe in personal responsibility i think the welfare state is massively abused, but if we can't even get people earning over 50K pa to loose their child benefits without a fight, what hope do we have of cutting this. If we can't even get people to willing agree to pay towards the 2K a week for their nursing home, what makes you think people will be willing to pay towards their healthcare. We are a spoilt people not willing to pay the true costs of our lives.
The reality is if we spend X% of our GDP on healthcare now and we are able to keep everything else from going up ( we won't as we have a shortage of clinical staff) it will rise to X%+company profits if it we hand it over to the private sector.
It's flawed, it's abused but it's the best of list of bad choices unless you want to go down the way of the states where the commonest cause of personal bankruptcy is outstanding medical bills.
From a purely personal view, i would be better off should the nhs go and be replaced with private providers, i wouldn't be out earnt by GPs and Dentists, the costs of getting me to work over the easter weekend would be reassuringly expensive. But it would mean people would choose not to seek help because they couldn't afford it or would be more scared of the bill then the treatment and just to avoid that, we need to keep the NHS.
Smashing post sir I was once flying home from turkey and became unwell at istanbul airport, that's ok i have travel insurance, no problem. Pull out the documents and to my horror discover it had expired two days before. It had been fine when i flew out but my trip had ended up being extended. It is hard to explain the fear of, I am sick but am now worried about how much this is going to cost me. The concept that without the NHS I as well as a massive percent of the population would have to decide if they could afford to call an ambulance is scary.
The reality is the cost healthcare is stupidly high and runs at a rate of inflation of 9% without taking into account our ageing population. Ironically when it was set up, it was thought it would be expensive for the first few years then year on year get cheaper as the population got healthier.
The main workload of the NHS is caring for those that don't contribute to it, the fact that only 15% of prescriptions are paid for because most are for the elderly, children, the chronically ill shows us this, plus you just have to walk around a hospital ward or a GP surgery waiting room. Those who are invariably paying for it resent how much it costs so the spending on the NHS is squeezed and limited.
The public have their sense of entitlement, i've paid for it, so i want everything and i want it now, so it's squeezed by it's end users who have ever greater demands.
Then to compound it, the government always wants to show how they've made it better for the money they've spent by making targets many of them artificial forcing the nhs to jump through the hoops, it's not only the cost of doing this but the costs of designing and developing the processes to do it, every few years new ones come along, some old ones stay some get lost. So it also wastes money chasing it's tail and employing a whole tier of staff to do it.
There are some good effects, the NHS subsidises private health insurance as the private companies need not pay for training, A&E, ITU, you know all those bothersome expensive things that don't return the bottom line. They also can avoid chronic conditions and the elderly by having exclusions or just making the premiums stupidly expensive.
The NHS is also a such a massive employer and holds a virtual monopoly on healthcare in the UK it distorts the market, without the NHS nursing and medical pay would much more closely resemble the states.
So what is the alternative? Since we handed over the utilities to the private sector, did the service get better? did the bills go down? what makes you think it would happen with healthcare, think how much over capacity you would need for there to be genuine competition, each big town having two hospitals each big enough for the whole town in a struggle for dominance, but as soon as one goes, why bother competing any more. Who would end up paying the 100K that newly qualified docs are going to come out of med school in debt to?
Do we go straight fee paying, where if you're wealthy or well you're ok? if you can't pay you're left as you are, or if they are to be treated who will pay for it?
Do we go for insurance, what happens about those that can't get insurance due to chronic conditions or due to age, do you trust insurance companies facing a bill of hundreds of thousands of pounds for chronic conditions not to try and wriggle out of paying up? what would happen to those who choose not to get insurance? Are we ready to wheel them out to die?
But then is it fair that people are not responsible for their actions and then subsidised by everyone else? I guess it depends on what you think the role of society is and what point does it stop supporting those who have been unlucky in life
The fact is i believe in personal responsibility i think the welfare state is massively abused, but if we can't even get people earning over 50K pa to loose their child benefits without a fight, what hope do we have of cutting this. If we can't even get people to willing agree to pay towards the 2K a week for their nursing home, what makes you think people will be willing to pay towards their healthcare. We are a spoilt people not willing to pay the true costs of our lives.
The reality is if we spend X% of our GDP on healthcare now and we are able to keep everything else from going up ( we won't as we have a shortage of clinical staff) it will rise to X%+company profits if it we hand it over to the private sector.
It's flawed, it's abused but it's the best of list of bad choices unless you want to go down the way of the states where the commonest cause of personal bankruptcy is outstanding medical bills.
From a purely personal view, i would be better off should the nhs go and be replaced with private providers, i wouldn't be out earnt by GPs and Dentists, the costs of getting me to work over the easter weekend would be reassuringly expensive. But it would mean people would choose not to seek help because they couldn't afford it or would be more scared of the bill then the treatment and just to avoid that, we need to keep the NHS.
Deva Link said:
Where did you get that number from? It's more like £7Bn a month.
One of the the issues with the NHS is, compared to other developed countries, we don't spend enough on health care.
Deva, One of the the issues with the NHS is, compared to other developed countries, we don't spend enough on health care.
So very true, but don't forget your audience, this is PH. It sounds much better if you pull ridiculous figure out of your ass. For people who think that USoA system is better, you should read on list of exclusions, applicable to even 'gold plated' health insurance policies, for chronic conditions. After experiencing all three systems, I'd say that French system is as good as it gets.
L67.
Edited by league67 on Friday 20th April 23:58
The NHS is one of the United Kingdom's most finest achievements and one of the greatest things about our country. Yes it costs a lot of money but healthcare is something I feel Government should spend its money on, unlike plenty of the other nonsense they throw notes at. In America the number one aim of a healthcare provider is to make money, thats something the UK population would find quite disgusting. Yes we have NICE which is the closest thing we have to sacrificing patients quality of life on financial grounds.
There will be some trumpeting of the uber capitalist American style system but for me the US Healthcare system demonstrates the harshest problems and shortcomings of capitalism. The free market decided around 30 million Americans shouldn't have health insurance. Government's role is to plug the gaps the free market cannot plug and to help those the free market dictates should be left behind.
The NHS costs each of us a low amount of money, people whinge about problems in the NHS but its still value for money and free at the point of use which I think we often take for granted. My mother has health issues and will be on a variety of meds for the rest of her life, meds which would cost a fortune if it wasnt for the state funded health system we have here. I know a couple of emergency responders who work for the ambulance service and these are some of the most committed people I've ever met. They are not a drain on taxpayers wallets in the slightest.
The NHS does waste a lot of money though, £14billion on an IT system which everybody said wouldn't work and indeed it doesn't work. Horrendous waste especially at managerial level and lots of money generally going to the wrong places. I believe we can make the NHS function much better for the money it gets - £14million per day goes into the NHS - but I dont think we should ever scrap it.
There will be some trumpeting of the uber capitalist American style system but for me the US Healthcare system demonstrates the harshest problems and shortcomings of capitalism. The free market decided around 30 million Americans shouldn't have health insurance. Government's role is to plug the gaps the free market cannot plug and to help those the free market dictates should be left behind.
The NHS costs each of us a low amount of money, people whinge about problems in the NHS but its still value for money and free at the point of use which I think we often take for granted. My mother has health issues and will be on a variety of meds for the rest of her life, meds which would cost a fortune if it wasnt for the state funded health system we have here. I know a couple of emergency responders who work for the ambulance service and these are some of the most committed people I've ever met. They are not a drain on taxpayers wallets in the slightest.
The NHS does waste a lot of money though, £14billion on an IT system which everybody said wouldn't work and indeed it doesn't work. Horrendous waste especially at managerial level and lots of money generally going to the wrong places. I believe we can make the NHS function much better for the money it gets - £14million per day goes into the NHS - but I dont think we should ever scrap it.
There are some terrible GP's and poorly run doctors surgeries out there for sure but it'd be ridiculous to judge the entire NHS on that. I had a skin problem a few years ago which my GP was no help at all with, told me I must've washed my clothes in something stupid. Eventually got to see someone else at the hospital who was a foreign student doctor who identified within five minutes the problem was caused by an allergic reaction to a medication my GP put me on!
I think a NHS is a good idea. The way it's funded may become contentious however due to the population bulge heading towards the expensive bit in their lives (much like pensions).
It's always seemed strange to me that a lot of healthcare funding and policy seems to be aimed at treating people with health problems that where preventable with early intervention. Perhaps a cheaper way to do this would be to take a more holistic approach to healthcare especially around alcoholism, smoking and obesity. Also we seem to have an ideological bent on keeping people alive at great expense even when their quality of life is miserable and they'd prefer to die.
Healthcare costs are increasing at a rate exceeding inflation but I suspect quite a substantial part of this is down to the increasing costs of developing drugs and taking them to market. How comprehensive does the NHS need to be for those rare diseases that afflict only a small number people and the costs are very high (in the millions like) to treat? I suppose the counter argument to this would be that the whole point of a National Health Service is to treat diseases individuals couldn't afford to.
It's always seemed strange to me that a lot of healthcare funding and policy seems to be aimed at treating people with health problems that where preventable with early intervention. Perhaps a cheaper way to do this would be to take a more holistic approach to healthcare especially around alcoholism, smoking and obesity. Also we seem to have an ideological bent on keeping people alive at great expense even when their quality of life is miserable and they'd prefer to die.
Healthcare costs are increasing at a rate exceeding inflation but I suspect quite a substantial part of this is down to the increasing costs of developing drugs and taking them to market. How comprehensive does the NHS need to be for those rare diseases that afflict only a small number people and the costs are very high (in the millions like) to treat? I suppose the counter argument to this would be that the whole point of a National Health Service is to treat diseases individuals couldn't afford to.
The NHS is fantastic, it was never intended to be free, it is 'free at the point of treatment'. I live in a country without NHS now and I've seen people turned away from emergency rooms when their creidt card dosn't work or their insurance is out. its awfull to see.
The thing is the NHS need to decide what it dosn't treat, the principle is established it dosn't do optical or dentist, it should not do, minor cosmetic, IVF or other non life threating conditions than it would be affordable.
And the admin need to be sorted out, 20 years ago I was aked to do some consultancy work for an NHS trust that did not even have purchase ledger system and had no idea of what debts it had, I refused as I did not want the work on my CV, would never happen in the private scector.
The thing is the NHS need to decide what it dosn't treat, the principle is established it dosn't do optical or dentist, it should not do, minor cosmetic, IVF or other non life threating conditions than it would be affordable.
And the admin need to be sorted out, 20 years ago I was aked to do some consultancy work for an NHS trust that did not even have purchase ledger system and had no idea of what debts it had, I refused as I did not want the work on my CV, would never happen in the private scector.
speedy_thrills said:
It's always seemed strange to me that a lot of healthcare funding and policy seems to be aimed at treating people with health problems that where preventable with early intervention.
The whole of our society would need a paradigm shift. Western culture loves s
t food, bad habits and lethargy.
I don't know what to do with the NHS. I didn't vote but if pushed would probably vote to keep it since I believe health care should be free at the point of delivery.
The problem is not just the cost, it is the variability in standard. Many people believe that the NHS is excellent for serious problems; it can be, if you get lucky and end up at the right hospital. Sadly in my experience the opposite can also be true and the standard of care can be truly dire. Shockingly so. At that level it is not about politics or money, it is about caring whether somone lives or dies and has any dignity in life if you are a nurse, and maintinaning a basic knowledge of medicine and diagnostic techniques if a doctor. Really, it can be that bad. Of course, it can also be excellent - so expecting basic competence in a medical 'team' is not an unreasonable dream.
The problem is not just the cost, it is the variability in standard. Many people believe that the NHS is excellent for serious problems; it can be, if you get lucky and end up at the right hospital. Sadly in my experience the opposite can also be true and the standard of care can be truly dire. Shockingly so. At that level it is not about politics or money, it is about caring whether somone lives or dies and has any dignity in life if you are a nurse, and maintinaning a basic knowledge of medicine and diagnostic techniques if a doctor. Really, it can be that bad. Of course, it can also be excellent - so expecting basic competence in a medical 'team' is not an unreasonable dream.
I think the law should change to allow the NHS to bill fast food companies for those conditions they treat that are related to unhealthy eating habits. In fact, any business that provides a product or service that leads to unnecessary poor health should be made liable to the NHS. It would push up the cost of 'unhealthy' products and achieve a natural balance between freedom and regulation.
Brink said:
I think the law should change to allow the NHS to bill fast food companies for those conditions they treat that are related to unhealthy eating habits. In fact, any business that provides a product or service that leads to unnecessary poor health should be made liable to the NHS. It would push up the cost of 'unhealthy' products and achieve a natural balance between freedom and regulation.
And who gets to establish cause, and determine which companies pay what proportion? Sounds like a nightmare to me. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff