Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I completely agree with this point. Under TB hundreds of thousands of extra public sector jobs were found/created/made up, all I guess in the name of reducing unemployment numbers. The layers and layers of management in the NHS constrain everything. The irony is that whilst management can afford to be stripped somewhat, hands on the ground with in the NHS (nurses, paramedics and the like) are under resourced. My brother has just quit his paramedic role because of the pressures he's been facing, and not being able to do his job.
He was telling me recently (he was an emergency response driver, cars) that it had become a weekly occurrence that he had to abandon his car (his tool to save lives) at the side of the road, outside the patients house (or wherever) to travel back in the Ambulance attending after him. The reason being, the ambulance which attended had one member of staff in it. Two are required, one to drive it, one to care for the patient. He'd then spend up to all day hanging around at the hospital waiting for someone to take him back to the car, or pay a taxi at his own cost. Utter madness.
Edited by Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah on Wednesday 31st May 22:20
TooMany2cvs said:
V8 Fettler said:
NHS is 'worse than healthcare in Ireland, Spain and Slovenia' in new global ranking, it says here:
I have no idea what healthcare in those countries is like. Pretty good, by the look of it. But, of course, it's much lazier to shout "Look! These are crappy countries!", right?So let's dig a bit deeper. It says the UK scores 84.6 out of 100, an improvement from 1990's 74.3. The highest score is 94.6, and the global average is 53.7. The US was at 81.3, and was in 35th position.
In their table, which is only to integers, Germany got 86, France 88. Top ten was 89.
Norway and Sweden, were in the top ten, at 90.5.
So, basically, the UK didn't do too badly if you look at absolute scores rather than rankings. After all, the only thing the UK can control is its own score...
And, if you cba to fight your way through the full report, it's at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/P...
V8 Fettler said:
TooMany2cvs said:
V8 Fettler said:
NHS is 'worse than healthcare in Ireland, Spain and Slovenia' in new global ranking, it says here:
I have no idea what healthcare in those countries is like. Pretty good, by the look of it. But, of course, it's much lazier to shout "Look! These are crappy countries!", right?So let's dig a bit deeper. It says the UK scores 84.6 out of 100, an improvement from 1990's 74.3. The highest score is 94.6, and the global average is 53.7. The US was at 81.3, and was in 35th position.
In their table, which is only to integers, Germany got 86, France 88. Top ten was 89.
Norway and Sweden, were in the top ten, at 90.5.
So, basically, the UK didn't do too badly if you look at absolute scores rather than rankings. After all, the only thing the UK can control is its own score...
And, if you cba to fight your way through the full report, it's at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/P...
And you do realise it's not a field of 40 - simply that they only printed the top 40...? The article even says, REALLY early on, that 192 countries were ranked. The average is given as 53.7, the lowest 29 - and the lowest in the table is 79...
If you want to look just at the G7...
Japan - 11th, 89
Italy - 12th, 89
France - 15th, 88
Canada - 17th, 88
Germany - 20th, 86
UK - =24th, 84.6
US - 35th, 81.3
So, yes, we're slightly behind the pack - but only by a very few points out of 100.
Or you could look at the G8, so add...
Russia - not in the top 40.
Or G20...
Australia - 6th, 90
South Korea - 23rd, 86
Saudi Arabia - 40th, 79
Argentina - not in the top 40
Brazil - not in the top 40
China - not in the top 40
India - not in the top 40
Indonesia - not in the top 40
Mexico - not in the top 40
South Africa - not in the top 40
Turkey - not in the top 40
European Union - no average given, but 23 of the 28 countries are in the top 40. UK is equal 14th of them.
So that's 8 of the 19 countries in the G20 who aren't in the top 40, and another that's in but behind us.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 1st June 08:10
V8 Fettler said:
For a G7 country with a long-established health service, 30th in a field of 40 is dismal.
Way too simplistic a view. What are the demographics of the other countries?
What is their overall system of health care? How much is reliant on public provision compared to ours?
Do the weightings of the scores suit our priorities? With scores tightly bunched would a small change in weights completely change the table?
Etc.
Taking one area of public service provision and comparing it like this is essentially cherry picking.
TooMany2cvs said:
V8 Fettler said:
TooMany2cvs said:
V8 Fettler said:
NHS is 'worse than healthcare in Ireland, Spain and Slovenia' in new global ranking, it says here:
I have no idea what healthcare in those countries is like. Pretty good, by the look of it. But, of course, it's much lazier to shout "Look! These are crappy countries!", right?So let's dig a bit deeper. It says the UK scores 84.6 out of 100, an improvement from 1990's 74.3. The highest score is 94.6, and the global average is 53.7. The US was at 81.3, and was in 35th position.
In their table, which is only to integers, Germany got 86, France 88. Top ten was 89.
Norway and Sweden, were in the top ten, at 90.5.
So, basically, the UK didn't do too badly if you look at absolute scores rather than rankings. After all, the only thing the UK can control is its own score...
And, if you cba to fight your way through the full report, it's at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/P...
And you do realise it's not a field of 40 - simply that they only printed the top 40...? The article even says, REALLY early on, that 192 countries were ranked. The average is given as 53.7, the lowest 29 - and the lowest in the table is 79...
If you want to look just at the G7...
Japan - 11th, 89
Italy - 12th, 89
France - 15th, 88
Canada - 17th, 88
Germany - 20th, 86
UK - =24th, 84.6
US - 35th, 81.3
So, yes, we're slightly behind the pack - but only by a very few points out of 100.
Or you could look at the G8, so add...
Russia - not in the top 40.
Or G20...
Australia - 6th, 90
South Korea - 23rd, 86
Saudi Arabia - 40th, 79
Argentina - not in the top 40
Brazil - not in the top 40
China - not in the top 40
India - not in the top 40
Indonesia - not in the top 40
Mexico - not in the top 40
South Africa - not in the top 40
Turkey - not in the top 40
European Union - no average given, but 23 of the 28 countries are in the top 40. UK is equal 14th of them.
So that's 8 of the 19 countries in the G20 who aren't in the top 40, and another that's in but behind us.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 1st June 08:10
Given the amount of resource that has been poured into the NHS over the decades, a top five position should be easily achievable.
Murph7355 said:
V8 Fettler said:
For a G7 country with a long-established health service, 30th in a field of 40 is dismal.
Way too simplistic a view. What are the demographics of the other countries?
What is their overall system of health care? How much is reliant on public provision compared to ours?
Do the weightings of the scores suit our priorities? With scores tightly bunched would a small change in weights completely change the table?
Etc.
Taking one area of public service provision and comparing it like this is essentially cherry picking.
Just to throw something into the ring, maybe a more fully balanced metric of "health" that considers all aspects of life would be life expectancy? Health care being part of this but not the only thing.
81-82yrs of age seems about the norm for developed countries, including the UK.
The key countries outside of that seem to mostly be either in Asia (historically healthier diets perhaps? Will be interesting to see how that changes in the next decade or two) or/and principalities/tax havens/countries with relatively low populations.
So despite only being 30th (or =24th) on the health care table the actual impact on how long you can expect to live is all but zero. Unless you move to Monaco or start eating differently
81-82yrs of age seems about the norm for developed countries, including the UK.
The key countries outside of that seem to mostly be either in Asia (historically healthier diets perhaps? Will be interesting to see how that changes in the next decade or two) or/and principalities/tax havens/countries with relatively low populations.
So despite only being 30th (or =24th) on the health care table the actual impact on how long you can expect to live is all but zero. Unless you move to Monaco or start eating differently
Murph7355 said:
V8 Fettler said:
On the basis of the report, 30th in a field of 40 is factually correct.
So what? Is that singular table the only metric against which you wish your chances in life to be measured?
V8 Fettler said:
Given the amount of resource that has been poured into the NHS over the decades, a top five position should be easily achievable.
That resource has seen an improvement from 74.3 to 84.6 between 1990 and 2015.Anyway, surely the important figure is not the position but the absolute score? We have no control over whether other countries do better or worse.
If the UK had scored 89 instead of 84.6, but come 50th instead of equal 24th, would that be better or worse?
If we scored 80, but came 10th, would that be better or worse?
TooMany2cvs said:
V8 Fettler said:
Given the amount of resource that has been poured into the NHS over the decades, a top five position should be easily achievable.
That resource has seen an improvement from 74.3 to 84.6 between 1990 and 2015.Anyway, surely the important figure is not the position but the absolute score? We have no control over whether other countries do better or worse.
If the UK had scored 89 instead of 84.6, but come 50th instead of equal 24th, would that be better or worse?
If we scored 80, but came 10th, would that be better or worse?
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
You can't see the issue with it? A set up which we have ALL funded, more than that a great institution of ours, being sold off at a discount for people to make a profit on?
You don't believe it's going to be pre-determined who it's sold to?
Do you think the NHS should research, develop and produce its own drugs? Maybe make its own tiles to go in the bathrooms, produce their own ambulances. Or may be they buy stuff in from 'privite' companies who do stuff more efficiently on a global scale and, shock horror, make a profit on it. You don't believe it's going to be pre-determined who it's sold to?
jjlynn27 said:
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
For a second I forgot where I was posting. Years of research by respected healthcare specialists vs ph-public-sector-inefficient mantra. Tough choice.
You see that row where it says efficiency?
You see that bit where it says 'overall'? Does that mean that all of the component parts are as efficient as they could be?You see that row where it says efficiency?
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 31st May 19:05
Isnt there somthing a bit more recent?
V8 Fettler said:
I would prefer top five please.
Then you can use this study from commonwealthfund.org from 2014, and suddenly everything is perfect. The complexities of comparing healthcare systems is such that to an extent all you are doing is comparing the study methodology, input vs output, weightings etc
Du1point8 said:
Just me that sees that this is built on data from 2011?
Isnt there somthing a bit more recent?
Some parts of it are from 2011, most notably the spending per capita. Some data are from 2013. For the rest you can check their website. They are a very respected private foundation in the USA researching healthcare. Isnt there somthing a bit more recent?
Time for an anecdote?
From a BBC documentary some years back...old fella collapses in pedestrian area, passerby calls 999.
Paramedic on motorbike responds within minutes, unable to get response from (breathing) casualty.
Calls for help - ambulance arrives with two staff, who assist. Casualty still not awake. Decide to take him to A & E, but ambulance lacking necessary equipment so another crew called...
Shortly after there are two ambulance, one paramedic (five trained staff) on hand to assist...casualty starts to recover, but very groggy. Assisted to ambulance, taken to hospital, time elapsed about about one hour.
Casualty is later discharged. He'd been released from prison (alcohol dependent) and had hit the bottle straight away, leading to a systemic shock and bodily shut down. Temporary symptoms.
To me that is a five star service being 'enjoyed' by a non-contributing member, but I don't know his life story. Multiply it up over a country of 65 million and the cost becomes significant. Like insurance it's something we pay hoping we'll never need it. But some of the peeps that do use it, never pay for it either. Oh well.
From a BBC documentary some years back...old fella collapses in pedestrian area, passerby calls 999.
Paramedic on motorbike responds within minutes, unable to get response from (breathing) casualty.
Calls for help - ambulance arrives with two staff, who assist. Casualty still not awake. Decide to take him to A & E, but ambulance lacking necessary equipment so another crew called...
Shortly after there are two ambulance, one paramedic (five trained staff) on hand to assist...casualty starts to recover, but very groggy. Assisted to ambulance, taken to hospital, time elapsed about about one hour.
Casualty is later discharged. He'd been released from prison (alcohol dependent) and had hit the bottle straight away, leading to a systemic shock and bodily shut down. Temporary symptoms.
To me that is a five star service being 'enjoyed' by a non-contributing member, but I don't know his life story. Multiply it up over a country of 65 million and the cost becomes significant. Like insurance it's something we pay hoping we'll never need it. But some of the peeps that do use it, never pay for it either. Oh well.
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Fermit The Krog and Sexy Sarah said:
On the contrary. Me and my closest friends are from varying back grounds, and varying opinions about much. We regularly manage to thrash things out when out, without the need for insults. HTH to use your lovely acronym.
I'm very happy for you. So do I, with my friends.You aren't one of them. You're a random bloke on the internet, who doesn't want to learn anything, just spout plain ignorant b
ks. HTH.I'm not really ignorant around the NHS, my younger brother's been a paramedic for 15 odd years, I hear much first hand.
Anyways, you're plainly not interested in debating things out, just shouting people down, so I'm out.
Just a tip, IF someone is wrong, and they've been given reasoned polite facts to counter their view point then MOST, myself included are perfectly capable of saying 'oh OK, I can see that' (for EG)
I can't imagine your alternative usually gets you anywhere!
From personal experience.
An ODA friend of mine quit on friday at £9ph to walk back in on monday as an agency ODA at £16ph as the agency fund is centralised and doesn't come out of the hospital budget,
A good friend who survived a motorcycle crash to be imbued with 132 pieces of metal in his skeleton sent for an MRI scan, alive because we blocked the door.
An art consultant paid eneough to fund 3 nurses.
An equality advisor who repeatedly insisted we should hire people with lesser qualifications/experience as they would balance the 'equality' ledger.
Root and branch it is a rotten entity, except for the ambulance service and some A&E departments.
I went private 5 years ago to ensure my children and I got decent service if we were in need of it.
stitched said:
It always amuses me when posters try and defend the NHS as efficient, it isn't.
From personal experience.
An ODA friend of mine quit on friday at £9ph to walk back in on monday as an agency ODA at £16ph as the agency fund is centralised and doesn't come out of the hospital budget,
A good friend who survived a motorcycle crash to be imbued with 132 pieces of metal in his skeleton sent for an MRI scan, alive because we blocked the door.
An art consultant paid eneough to fund 3 nurses.
An equality advisor who repeatedly insisted we should hire people with lesser qualifications/experience as they would balance the 'equality' ledger.
Root and branch it is a rotten entity, except for the ambulance service and some A&E departments.
I went private 5 years ago to ensure my children and I got decent service if we were in need of it.
Anecdotal evidence doesn't trump wider ranging stats and a relative comparison to other services. From personal experience.
An ODA friend of mine quit on friday at £9ph to walk back in on monday as an agency ODA at £16ph as the agency fund is centralised and doesn't come out of the hospital budget,
A good friend who survived a motorcycle crash to be imbued with 132 pieces of metal in his skeleton sent for an MRI scan, alive because we blocked the door.
An art consultant paid eneough to fund 3 nurses.
An equality advisor who repeatedly insisted we should hire people with lesser qualifications/experience as they would balance the 'equality' ledger.
Root and branch it is a rotten entity, except for the ambulance service and some A&E departments.
I went private 5 years ago to ensure my children and I got decent service if we were in need of it.
I agree with you that some of the items you note are borderline criminal. But that in itself does not change the wider assessment.
Until the NHS is de-politicised it is on a crash course for bankruptcy (or as close as such an organisation can get being funded as it is).
As an electorate we need to start being more sensible with it. If we do not, one day it will be capable of providing for nothing.
It's scope of services needs paring back, people need to be encouraged to use private facilities for non-critical health services and it needs taking back to what it was originally intended for. And that means a lot of people will be disappointed in what they won't now get. Tough s
t IMO. You want more, pay for it directly just as you have to in every other facet of life. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff