Public satisfaction with NHS at lowest ever level
Discussion
Electro1980 said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
If so let's privatize it ASAP so we get the health care we want without the Government deliberately sabotaging it.
Every other country manages fine without an NHS. We should stop it and adopt something like the French system ASAP. ~£3k a year funded by the taxpayer and people bump it up, if that base level isn't good enough for them. It's insane that we all a) Think our system is failing to deliver over at least 40 years. b) Think it's better than all the others. c) Stick with it!
Would you go to a garage the deliberately sabotaged your car?
France spends far more than the UK per capita. The tax payer funded part is more than the UK.Every other country manages fine without an NHS. We should stop it and adopt something like the French system ASAP. ~£3k a year funded by the taxpayer and people bump it up, if that base level isn't good enough for them. It's insane that we all a) Think our system is failing to deliver over at least 40 years. b) Think it's better than all the others. c) Stick with it!
Would you go to a garage the deliberately sabotaged your car?
Electro1980 said:
All irrelevant. You accept that the only important metric of funding, per capita, has been cut. All of the rest is irrelevant to the conversation about why services have got worse. The rest, about tax take, total spending, percentage of GDP etc irrelevant to the discussion about why the NHS is worse.
No it is very relevant as the government cannot spend money it doesn't have unless you operate in a world of infinite money.The government is spending significantly more in real terms than it did in 2010 and a bit more as a percentage of GDP. So there has been no drop in the proportion of the nations resources devoted to health and social care and in fact a small rise.
How we improve it from where we are now is a different question. Many people are already complaining that taxes are too high, and indeed the tax take is at a post WW2 high. You could look at structures, but politically the time to look at the models used in the rest of Europe would have been in 1945 and not now. So even though changes may improve matters they are unlikely to take place.
You could also look at the scope of work carried out and seek to restrict in non-essential areas, or try and put more of the burden on private wealth in social care.
What is unlikely to suceed is pretending there are infinite resources.
We can get a GP appointment within days. If it’s urgent usually same day. I can be on hold for a few minutes and sometimes it can be engaged but I’ll always get to speak to someone. This is not what I hear from people in other areas though, it sounds like some surgeries just can’t cope.
Wife recently had an op. It was delayed once but then carried out and all the follow up appointments and care have been great. Previous hysterectomy care was also faultless.
I used A&E for the first time in my life after falling from a great height (2 feet) and dislocating a finger.
Entered A&E at 6pm on a Thursday, assessed, x rayed, manipulated, x rayed twice more, strapped up and kicked out all in less than 2.5 hours. It would have been quicker but my second X-ray hit the shift changeover which seemed to involve 30 minutes of talking and nothing happening.
Hospital has the builders in building new buildings.
It all seems to be hanging together ok to me. Could be better obviously but when you need it it does seem to work.
Wife recently had an op. It was delayed once but then carried out and all the follow up appointments and care have been great. Previous hysterectomy care was also faultless.
I used A&E for the first time in my life after falling from a great height (2 feet) and dislocating a finger.
Entered A&E at 6pm on a Thursday, assessed, x rayed, manipulated, x rayed twice more, strapped up and kicked out all in less than 2.5 hours. It would have been quicker but my second X-ray hit the shift changeover which seemed to involve 30 minutes of talking and nothing happening.
Hospital has the builders in building new buildings.
It all seems to be hanging together ok to me. Could be better obviously but when you need it it does seem to work.
JagLover said:
Electro1980 said:
All irrelevant. You accept that the only important metric of funding, per capita, has been cut. All of the rest is irrelevant to the conversation about why services have got worse. The rest, about tax take, total spending, percentage of GDP etc irrelevant to the discussion about why the NHS is worse.
No it is very relevant as the government cannot spend money it doesn't have unless you operate in a world of infinite money.The government is spending significantly more in real terms than it did in 2010 and a bit more as a percentage of GDP. So there has been no drop in the proportion of the nations resources devoted to health and social care and in fact a small rise.
How we improve it from where we are now is a different question. Many people are already complaining that taxes are too high, and indeed the tax take is at a post WW2 high. You could look at structures, but politically the time to look at the models used in the rest of Europe would have been in 1945 and not now. So even though changes may improve matters they are unlikely to take place.
You could also look at the scope of work carried out and seek to restrict in non-essential areas, or try and put more of the burden on private wealth in social care.
What is unlikely to suceed is pretending there are infinite resources.
Blue62 said:
JagLover said:
Electro1980 said:
All irrelevant. You accept that the only important metric of funding, per capita, has been cut. All of the rest is irrelevant to the conversation about why services have got worse. The rest, about tax take, total spending, percentage of GDP etc irrelevant to the discussion about why the NHS is worse.
No it is very relevant as the government cannot spend money it doesn't have unless you operate in a world of infinite money.The government is spending significantly more in real terms than it did in 2010 and a bit more as a percentage of GDP. So there has been no drop in the proportion of the nations resources devoted to health and social care and in fact a small rise.
How we improve it from where we are now is a different question. Many people are already complaining that taxes are too high, and indeed the tax take is at a post WW2 high. You could look at structures, but politically the time to look at the models used in the rest of Europe would have been in 1945 and not now. So even though changes may improve matters they are unlikely to take place.
You could also look at the scope of work carried out and seek to restrict in non-essential areas, or try and put more of the burden on private wealth in social care.
What is unlikely to suceed is pretending there are infinite resources.
As you say per capita is what matters, and there's no better way for each of us to decide the percapita spend than if we scrap government involvement and decide individually what we want to spend above the base level the taxpayer dishes out.
Having experienced other systems, the NHS is about the worst at delivering healthcare.
The "free at the point of use" principle is admirable, sound and something to be proud of.
However, it does create infinite demand and the typical avoidance of personal responsibility which is endemic - no pun intended - among those social strata who look at the state for everything. Labour love it. That's their bedrock.
It's inevitable that healthcare will cost more, and we'll all have to pay more - especially those who earn more and perversely - don't use it (go private, same as the schools).
The "free at the point of use" principle is admirable, sound and something to be proud of.
However, it does create infinite demand and the typical avoidance of personal responsibility which is endemic - no pun intended - among those social strata who look at the state for everything. Labour love it. That's their bedrock.
It's inevitable that healthcare will cost more, and we'll all have to pay more - especially those who earn more and perversely - don't use it (go private, same as the schools).
BikeBikeBIke said:
Yes, and the only way we get choice is if we take it out of government hands.
As you say per capita is what matters, and there's no better way for each of us to decide the percapita spend than if we scrap government involvement and decide individually what we want to spend above the base level the taxpayer dishes out.
Politically that would be suicide, better to just run it down slowly as they did with British Rail. The energy and water industries raise concerns about the ability of the private sector to provide essential services, but how would people living on the poverty line get access? Are you going to means test the nation? As you say per capita is what matters, and there's no better way for each of us to decide the percapita spend than if we scrap government involvement and decide individually what we want to spend above the base level the taxpayer dishes out.
stuckmojo said:
Having experienced other systems, the NHS is about the worst at delivering healthcare.
The "free at the point of use" principle is admirable, sound and something to be proud of.
However, it does create infinite demand and the typical avoidance of personal responsibility which is endemic - no pun intended - among those social strata who look at the state for everything. Labour love it. That's their bedrock.
It should be emphasised that in most European healthcare systems they also have universal coverage. The costs for the poor are paid by the state and any fees paid by patients who are obliged to pay are often nominal.The "free at the point of use" principle is admirable, sound and something to be proud of.
However, it does create infinite demand and the typical avoidance of personal responsibility which is endemic - no pun intended - among those social strata who look at the state for everything. Labour love it. That's their bedrock.
It is more a contrast of structure rather than a difference between who is ultimately paying. So the significant differences are on the delivery side and it is not that surprising to get better service if that is where the money flows from.
Blue62 said:
Politically that would be suicide,
b
ks. Keir will be PM next year. Says "As we all know governments other than mine deliberately ruin your health care as a matter of policy. To prevent that and ensure we all get the healthcare we want forever more we're taking the government out it so whenever we are not in power you still get first class healthcare."Who could possibly disagree with that?
Vanden Saab said:
Randy Winkman said:
Vanden Saab said:
200bhp said:
Its almost like the government those running itwant it to fail so they can say "we tried, but the only way to fix it is to privatise it"grrr tories
NHS... no thanks we do not want you. .
But yeah grrr tories we are 50,000 nurses short. It is all the government's fault
JagLover said:
It should be emphasised that in most European healthcare systems they also have universal coverage. The costs for the poor are paid by the state and any fees paid by patients who are obliged to pay are often nominal.
It is more a contrast of structure rather than a difference between who is ultimately paying. So the significant differences are on the delivery side and it is not that surprising to get better service if that is where the money flows from.
...and best of all in most systems you can top up. So if you want to spend 10pc more you can. You don't have to start a political party and win power.It is more a contrast of structure rather than a difference between who is ultimately paying. So the significant differences are on the delivery side and it is not that surprising to get better service if that is where the money flows from.
Can you imagine if the only way to get an optional extra in your car was to become the prime minister!!!!
BikeBikeBIke said:
Every other country in Europe deals with that problem easily.
My view is essentially the govt gives you cash to fund you health care. If it's less than you want you top it up.
Could you provide some evidence to support your assertion that ‘every other country in Europe deals with that problem (what specific problem?) easily’.My view is essentially the govt gives you cash to fund you health care. If it's less than you want you top it up.
BikeBikeBIke said:
If so let's privatize it ASAP so we get the health care we want without the Government deliberately sabotaging it.
Every other country manages fine without an NHS. We should stop it and adopt something like the French system ASAP. ~£3k a year funded by the taxpayer and people bump it up, if that base level isn't good enough for them. It's insane that we all a) Think our system is failing to deliver over at least 40 years. b) Think it's better than all the others. c) Stick with it!
Would you go to a garage the deliberately sabotaged your car?
I am going to hazard a guess that first of all you have no idea what things cost the NHS and if you had to pay for them privately you would be shouting how expensive things areEvery other country manages fine without an NHS. We should stop it and adopt something like the French system ASAP. ~£3k a year funded by the taxpayer and people bump it up, if that base level isn't good enough for them. It's insane that we all a) Think our system is failing to deliver over at least 40 years. b) Think it's better than all the others. c) Stick with it!
Would you go to a garage the deliberately sabotaged your car?
Electro1980 said:
11 years of real term cuts. How could the government possibly have supported the NHS more… [/sarcasm]
pavarotti1980 said:
I am going to hazard a guess that first of all you have no idea what things cost the NHS and if you had to pay for them privately you would be shouting how expensive things are
Funnily enough I do and I've found private care to be suprisingly cheap.My neighbour got a hip done for 12 grand.
I had a bit of a scare and got an appointment with a consultant for £255.
Abolsute bargain in both cases compared to what the NHS were offering. (Which was nothing.)
Does it matter? We all agree the NHS is providing deliberately bad care in order to privatize it. So let's miss out the bad care step and adopt an approach that we prefer. Preferably the French system which combines the best of both because it can be topped up.
Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Wednesday 27th March 09:52
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff