Poll: The NHS
Total Members Polled: 272
Discussion
We always hear that NHS is a treasured part of the British state and provides adequate healthcare at a fraction of the cost of other countries, and so forth.
Yet it seems to lumber from one scandal to the next, never be able to meet demand, and according to many is positively third world compared to other developed countries.
It seems to have defied every reform thrown at it since inception, and at least as far as I can see utterly fails to meet the needs of the country.
So - a simply choice. No more taxing the rich to pay for even more of it, no more reforming it. AJS has deposed CMD as leader of the Conservatives and is heading into the next election proposing to abolish the NHS, sell off the hospitals to charities, companies or whoever else wants them. Insurance will be encouraged, no-one will be refused treatment on financial grounds.
Haven't worked out all the details of the system I would replace it with, but the obvious choice to me appears to be a requirement to treat first, and then collecting either by cash payment, insurance or installments, with the debt treated as an ordinary debt and sold to a collection agency if not paid. Insurance would be encouraged but not mandatory.
Can I count on your support?
Yet it seems to lumber from one scandal to the next, never be able to meet demand, and according to many is positively third world compared to other developed countries.
It seems to have defied every reform thrown at it since inception, and at least as far as I can see utterly fails to meet the needs of the country.
So - a simply choice. No more taxing the rich to pay for even more of it, no more reforming it. AJS has deposed CMD as leader of the Conservatives and is heading into the next election proposing to abolish the NHS, sell off the hospitals to charities, companies or whoever else wants them. Insurance will be encouraged, no-one will be refused treatment on financial grounds.
Haven't worked out all the details of the system I would replace it with, but the obvious choice to me appears to be a requirement to treat first, and then collecting either by cash payment, insurance or installments, with the debt treated as an ordinary debt and sold to a collection agency if not paid. Insurance would be encouraged but not mandatory.
Can I count on your support?
AJS- said:
Insurance will be encouraged, no-one will be refused treatment on financial grounds.
So how will that work then?You won't stop treating chavs but who will pay for this
The government or the companies running the hospitals
The government pays then that money comes from me
The companies pays then the money comes from me
Either way i'm stuffed
thinfourth2 said:
The biggest problem with the NHS is it is used as a political football
Remove it from the hands of politicians and it would probably work fine
Agree and disagree.Remove it from the hands of politicians and it would probably work fine
Agree that it ought not to be used as a political football, and it must be quite annoying for those who work in it, but it needs somebody to keep the damned thing under control.
Sadly, what was a viable model back when you grew up, were ill a couple of times then died of asbestosis now costs the country £7bn a DAY. I'm not sure that we can, or should afford this. The range of services is utterly astonishing, matching anything else in the world, and yet there are silly practices like having a billion loopholes surrounding prescription charges.
Perhaps there should be another box for keeping it but giving it a major overhaul.
The idea of the NHS was great but it's now got to a point where it is huge, hugely expensive to run and hugely inefficient. It needs to get back to basics and needs to be run by people who understand how to cut costs while still providing a good service.
There have been a couple of programmes on TV recently (James Martin's being the most recent) where outside 'experts' were invited into a hospital to see if they could improve things only to find that little or nothing could be done because there were so many tiers of management that had to approve any changes and even if they approved the changes it took months to get a decision.
We need the NHS but we need a better NHS. Can we start from scratch please and this time get it right?
The idea of the NHS was great but it's now got to a point where it is huge, hugely expensive to run and hugely inefficient. It needs to get back to basics and needs to be run by people who understand how to cut costs while still providing a good service.
There have been a couple of programmes on TV recently (James Martin's being the most recent) where outside 'experts' were invited into a hospital to see if they could improve things only to find that little or nothing could be done because there were so many tiers of management that had to approve any changes and even if they approved the changes it took months to get a decision.
We need the NHS but we need a better NHS. Can we start from scratch please and this time get it right?
Personally I would like to opt-out of national insurance and then pay for my own health care.
I needed some extensive physiotherapy a couple of years ago after an accident, I had to wait 9 weeks for my first appointment. I ended up paying for it privately in the end as I could not wait that long in the pain I was in.
I needed some extensive physiotherapy a couple of years ago after an accident, I had to wait 9 weeks for my first appointment. I ended up paying for it privately in the end as I could not wait that long in the pain I was in.
I voted to keep it.
If your plan was to truly make it a "No Insurance and no money to pay = then no treatment" you would be moving nearer to a business model.
I suppose that even more mney could be given in Welfare to a Basic National Insurance type scheme which would guarantee verybody £5k?, £10k? of treatment, and then after that has gone your allocation is up.
I have experienced the French system as a holiday maker, and their A&E seemed great. I have friend who retired out there and pays heir insurance stamp, and they have had a splendid service.
If your plan was to truly make it a "No Insurance and no money to pay = then no treatment" you would be moving nearer to a business model.
I suppose that even more mney could be given in Welfare to a Basic National Insurance type scheme which would guarantee verybody £5k?, £10k? of treatment, and then after that has gone your allocation is up.
I have experienced the French system as a holiday maker, and their A&E seemed great. I have friend who retired out there and pays heir insurance stamp, and they have had a splendid service.
thinfourth2 said:
AJS- said:
Insurance will be encouraged, no-one will be refused treatment on financial grounds.
So how will that work then?You won't stop treating chavs but who will pay for this
The government or the companies running the hospitals
The government pays then that money comes from me
The companies pays then the money comes from me
Either way i'm stuffed
As I said I haven't got all the details worked out just yet. There probably would have to be an element of public funding to cover those who couldn't pay their bills. People are seemingly wedded to that idea, perhaps more than the NHS per se. The cost is still tied to the individual, and whether it's paid down at 5GBP a week out of benefits, or eventually bankrupts them with associated inconvenience, it is treated like a personal debt, rather than, as currently, like a free service.
How could one of the biggest demands on public spending ever be anything other than a political matter?
stevejh
I specifically didn't have the option of a major overhaul, as like I said in the OP it's had several overhauls, it's had money thrown at it, and it still seems to be a bottomless pit. You could rebrand it, change the name of it or change the structure, but ultimately what I mean by NHS is the idea of government owned hospitals treating everyone free at the point of delivery, regardless of ability and willingness to pay, or to insure oneself.
Use Psychology said:
your life was saved by the doctors and nurses that treated you, not the NHS.
You knew what I ment though.Who pays the wages, who pays for all the intensive care equipment I needed, who runs and maintains all the buildings I was in.
When talking about great cars, do you only ever thank the guy who built the thing, or do you in general say the car maker.
The problems I see as a regular user are mainly due to the inability to make decisions quickly and the complete lack of understanding of medical needs by the suits who have power.
New buildings with fundmental design flaws and poor construction standards are a joke. It's not just PFI either but the design and consultation process in which staff and patient needs are ignored in spite of being presented clearly.
The system needs to be overhauled but there is so much dead wood to cut out it's hard to see it ever happening. Privatisation could see the end of a lot of the more costly services (like keeping me alive) being provided without limit.
New buildings with fundmental design flaws and poor construction standards are a joke. It's not just PFI either but the design and consultation process in which staff and patient needs are ignored in spite of being presented clearly.
The system needs to be overhauled but there is so much dead wood to cut out it's hard to see it ever happening. Privatisation could see the end of a lot of the more costly services (like keeping me alive) being provided without limit.
Use Psychology said:
your life was saved by the doctors and nurses that treated you, not the NHS.
What an odd thing to say.I was very impressed last time I went. Partner fractured her ankle went in at 7pm out by 12:30am with an xray, cast, box of needles and an appointment next wednesday at 9.20am.
grumbledoak said:
I think both America and France can claim a better health service, one very capitalist and one very socialist respectively.
WHO figures disagree with you there WRT to America.France is indeed 1st for quality of care and 4th for spending per capita.
UK is 18th in terms of quality and 26th in terms of spending.
America, who pay the most per capita in the world, are languishing down in 37th(!) place. Costa Rica, Columbia, Chile and Cyprus amongst other beat the US.
Now, these figures are from 2000 so I admit they're a bit old, but its still incredibly interesting and puts the "gold standard" of American healthcare that many perceive to be the case into sharp focus.
FWIW I voted keep it. It's not perfect, but I'd not want rid of it. Given that the standard of care avaialable to all under the current system is pretty good overall anyway, I think there is an argument for optional supplemental insurance which could be taken from your gross which would give you a faster/better standard of care, whilst taking some of the pressure off the "basic" service.
Edited by Marf on Saturday 7th April 10:52
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff