Discussion
The NHS is one of the most efficient health services in the world.
It provides more services than it did in 1970.
It deals with more complicated health problems than in 1970.
It deals with more elderly people than it did in 1970.
The costs of equipment, drugs and staff salaries are more than in 1970.
It provides more services than it did in 1970.
It deals with more complicated health problems than in 1970.
It deals with more elderly people than it did in 1970.
The costs of equipment, drugs and staff salaries are more than in 1970.
esxste said:
The NHS is one of the most efficient health services in the world.
It provides more services than it did in 1970.
It deals with more complicated health problems than in 1970.
It deals with more elderly people than it did in 1970.
The costs of equipment, drugs and staff salaries are more than in 1970.
Don't get me wrong, I think the NHS is generally pretty good, but a 4x real terms increase is substantial in anyones language.It provides more services than it did in 1970.
It deals with more complicated health problems than in 1970.
It deals with more elderly people than it did in 1970.
The costs of equipment, drugs and staff salaries are more than in 1970.
Sheepshanks said:
Lozw86 said:
Hope I actually use / need it some day and get my money's worth
That's an odd thing to hope for. Are you also hoping your house burns down and you crash your car?My private medical and dental insurance is £2500/yr now and that's getting irritating.
One of the things with nhs cuts, is they're not cuts (as mp's constantly tell us!), more that there is no increase in funding to meet increased targets and needs. For example, when fuel went very expensive, there was no increase in funding for ambulance services to cover this cost. Likewise the expectation to have more staff and treat more patients is rarely reflected in higher spending to meet these needs.
Some situations may vary, but certainly in the nhs trust I work within, it is not so much costs as failure to increase in line with costs.
Some situations may vary, but certainly in the nhs trust I work within, it is not so much costs as failure to increase in line with costs.
V8covin said:
and it costs the UK government around £5,000 per year per person to ensure pensioners living in the EU can get medical treatment at no cost to themselves.
Doesn't sound like a very good deal to me.
Here's a thought for you: Perhaps pensioners cost the NHS more than the average person?Doesn't sound like a very good deal to me.
Anyway - why has the NHS expenditure gone up? Umm, is it because medical science and technology is MUCH more complicated and expensive in 2017 than it was in 1970?
Lozw86 said:
Hope I actually use / need it some day and get my money's worth
Bitter pill to swallow for 1 doctors appointment in the last 6 years
Anything serious and I think I'd go with BUPA anyway
Don't worry, apparently 85% of the money spent on your health by NHS takes place in the final 18 months of your life.Bitter pill to swallow for 1 doctors appointment in the last 6 years
Anything serious and I think I'd go with BUPA anyway
esxste said:
It deals with more elderly people than it did in 1970.
Exactly. Costs of looking after elderly people are going to continue to rise substantially for decades. People better get used to it.Soylent green anyone?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=soy...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff