Discussion
Kristian Niemietz of the IEA wrote a report containing the following paragraph
Is suggesting that the NHS may not be perfect in every respect really insulting the NHS staff? Does the same apply to any other health system? Should the NHS really be regarded as an end in itself?
More details (paywalled)https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-our-nhs-
Report said:
What is safe to say is that there is no rational basis for the adulation the NHS is currently receiving, and no reason to be 'grateful' for the fact that we have it. It should go without saying that if the UK did not have the NHS, it would not have no healthcare system. Maybe it would have a public health insurance system similar to the Taiwanese or the Australian one, or maybe it would have a social health insurance system similar to the Swiss or German one. There is no guarantee that this would have served the UK better during the pandemic, but there is certainly no reason to believe that it would have done any worse. There is nothing special about the NHS, neither during this pandemic, nor at any other time.
This has caused complete outrage from Angela Rayner. She has demanded Matt Hancock (who had nothing to do with it) should disown it and return a donation he received from someone who also donates to the IEA, and even that he should apologise to NHS workers for the report, which doesn't criticise NHS workers at all. She also says the job of the Health secretary is to protect and defend the NHS.Is suggesting that the NHS may not be perfect in every respect really insulting the NHS staff? Does the same apply to any other health system? Should the NHS really be regarded as an end in itself?
More details (paywalled)https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-our-nhs-
Dr Jekyll said:
Kristian Niemietz of the IEA wrote a report containing the following paragraph
Is suggesting that the NHS may not be perfect in every respect really insulting the NHS staff? Does the same apply to any other health system? Should the NHS really be regarded as an end in itself?
More details (paywalled)https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-our-nhs-
Angela Rayner is thicker than custard. Best to ignore her.Report said:
What is safe to say is that there is no rational basis for the adulation the NHS is currently receiving, and no reason to be 'grateful' for the fact that we have it. It should go without saying that if the UK did not have the NHS, it would not have no healthcare system. Maybe it would have a public health insurance system similar to the Taiwanese or the Australian one, or maybe it would have a social health insurance system similar to the Swiss or German one. There is no guarantee that this would have served the UK better during the pandemic, but there is certainly no reason to believe that it would have done any worse. There is nothing special about the NHS, neither during this pandemic, nor at any other time.
This has caused complete outrage from Angela Rayner. She has demanded Matt Hancock (who had nothing to do with it) should disown it and return a donation he received from someone who also donates to the IEA, and even that he should apologise to NHS workers for the report, which doesn't criticise NHS workers at all. She also says the job of the Health secretary is to protect and defend the NHS.Is suggesting that the NHS may not be perfect in every respect really insulting the NHS staff? Does the same apply to any other health system? Should the NHS really be regarded as an end in itself?
More details (paywalled)https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-problem-with-our-nhs-
At risk of repeating myself, the NHS has become a new religion. Much as those who criticised the Church were hounded as heretics, those who dare to criticise the NHS are portrayed in the same way.
Meanwhile, politicians fall over each other to chuck more money at the NHS, although it's never enough. And this government seeks to "protect the NHS" even though citizens are suffering as the NHS becomes the National Covid Service. Any attempt to even discuss reform is met with hysterical resistance - remember Labour supporters chanting "not for sale" in the last election campaign?
The NHS resembles a corrupt but all-powerful Church, backed by politicians who have no vision or courage. I can't see that it'll ever change. People like Crayons Rayner are a big part of the reason for this.
Meanwhile, politicians fall over each other to chuck more money at the NHS, although it's never enough. And this government seeks to "protect the NHS" even though citizens are suffering as the NHS becomes the National Covid Service. Any attempt to even discuss reform is met with hysterical resistance - remember Labour supporters chanting "not for sale" in the last election campaign?
The NHS resembles a corrupt but all-powerful Church, backed by politicians who have no vision or courage. I can't see that it'll ever change. People like Crayons Rayner are a big part of the reason for this.
The NHS is great everyone of us has benefited from its existence. This doesn't mean its perfect or beyond criticism. I actually think its time had passed, health awareness is way greater than it was in the post war period, access to Drs and support is there. It could and should be in someway directly funded by individuals so it stops being an ever larger hole we pour money into.
Also while its great we still lost iver 100k people, is this all governments fault all the NHS all people breaking rules or a combination of them in which case to some extent the NHS should be reformed.
Ultimately if 160bn is not enough money then no amount ever will be using current provisioning method. So perhaps its time for big change.
Also while its great we still lost iver 100k people, is this all governments fault all the NHS all people breaking rules or a combination of them in which case to some extent the NHS should be reformed.
Ultimately if 160bn is not enough money then no amount ever will be using current provisioning method. So perhaps its time for big change.
Troubleatmill said:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1513773698636350
The lady - love her or loath her talks sense.
She does.The lady - love her or loath her talks sense.
Having had the NHS fail three of my close family members in the last 12 months as well as a former colleague I'd say the NHS as a whole has responded very poorly to the pandemic and is not fit for purpose it wasnt fit for purpose prior to this pandemic so nothing has changed but perhaps shown the shortcomings more clearly
If nothing else we should have a review after things have settled but as said I don't expect there will be any political appetite for it
Its very easy to blame the people for breaking the rules but it just doesn't hold up as places like Florida where there have been few restrictions still has a lower death rate than we do.
If nothing else we should have a review after things have settled but as said I don't expect there will be any political appetite for it
Its very easy to blame the people for breaking the rules but it just doesn't hold up as places like Florida where there have been few restrictions still has a lower death rate than we do.
In my opinion there are certain things that should be sacrosanct and 'free' for all in society.
That includes education and healthcare.
I know none of that is free, technically, but you know you have access without having to sign up to some contractual agreement and monthly payment with a 'service provider'. If you want to take these things a step further you can choose to pay for private options instead.
What is questionable is how the NHS is operated and regulated, what quality of service it offers and what services it should or shouldn't offer.
I'm really glad the NHS is there but it shouldn't be treated as something beyond criticism.
That includes education and healthcare.
I know none of that is free, technically, but you know you have access without having to sign up to some contractual agreement and monthly payment with a 'service provider'. If you want to take these things a step further you can choose to pay for private options instead.
What is questionable is how the NHS is operated and regulated, what quality of service it offers and what services it should or shouldn't offer.
I'm really glad the NHS is there but it shouldn't be treated as something beyond criticism.
La Liga said:
I think there’s a rational basis for being grateful for the people working directly with the pandemic, and that we can be proud of a health care system that treats people equally, not according to their financial means.
Other than the US, can you name a developed country that doesn't have such a system?Dr Jekyll said:
La Liga said:
I think there’s a rational basis for being grateful for the people working directly with the pandemic, and that we can be proud of a health care system that treats people equally, not according to their financial means.
Other than the US, can you name a developed country that doesn't have such a system?Gecko1978 said:
The NHS is great everyone of us has benefited from its existence. This doesn't mean its perfect or beyond criticism. I actually think its time had passed, health awareness is way greater than it was in the post war period, access to Drs and support is there. It could and should be in someway directly funded by individuals so it stops being an ever larger hole we pour money into.
Also while its great we still lost iver 100k people, is this all governments fault all the NHS all people breaking rules or a combination of them in which case to some extent the NHS should be reformed.
Ultimately if 160bn is not enough money then no amount ever will be using current provisioning method. So perhaps its time for big change.
What's the benefit of making people fund their care individually? It might put off a few malingerers from going to the docs for suprious reasons, but it could also put legit people off going, resulting in their illness taking longer to treat. E.g. cancer is a lot more treatable when caught early. The longer people are ill for, the longer they are out of work costing money in sick pay but not producing any value.Also while its great we still lost iver 100k people, is this all governments fault all the NHS all people breaking rules or a combination of them in which case to some extent the NHS should be reformed.
Ultimately if 160bn is not enough money then no amount ever will be using current provisioning method. So perhaps its time for big change.
And our healthcare spending might sound a lot, but it's a lot less than for example France, Japan, Canada, Sweden or Austria spend per capita. Around a third less than the median across the EU.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
Edited by budgie smuggler on Wednesday 10th February 11:48
The NHS is an outdated shambles not fit for purpose.
I have the highest respect for the healthcare workers; be they surgeons, doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners, cooks or any of the valuable members of staff. It's the system and the way it's managed that's shambolic. We're just chucking good money after bad.
I have the highest respect for the healthcare workers; be they surgeons, doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners, cooks or any of the valuable members of staff. It's the system and the way it's managed that's shambolic. We're just chucking good money after bad.
budgie smuggler said:
And 160bn might sound a lot, but it's a lot less than for example France, Japan, Canada, Sweden or Austria spend per capita. Around a third less than the average across the EU.
Its not about how much you spend but whether you get good value for the money you spend, most of those countries listed have better healthcare than we do, perhaps we should spend more but only if it has a demonstrable impact Brave Fart said:
At risk of repeating myself, the NHS has become a new religion. Much as those who criticised the Church were hounded as heretics, those who dare to criticise the NHS are portrayed in the same way.
Meanwhile, politicians fall over each other to chuck more money at the NHS, although it's never enough. And this government seeks to "protect the NHS" even though citizens are suffering as the NHS becomes the National Covid Service. Any attempt to even discuss reform is met with hysterical resistance - remember Labour supporters chanting "not for sale" in the last election campaign?
The NHS resembles a corrupt but all-powerful Church, backed by politicians who have no vision or courage. I can't see that it'll ever change. People like Crayons Rayner are a big part of the reason for this.
The problem with the NHS is political interference. A lot of the waste that's put at its door is enforced by governments. If you look at recent times, we were beset by ideological reforms (of which there have been far too many imposed by health secretaries wanting to create a CV when pushing for leader. Cameron/Hunt’s 2012 idiocy has resulted in more expense, restricted service and overwhelming bureaucracy. Meanwhile, politicians fall over each other to chuck more money at the NHS, although it's never enough. And this government seeks to "protect the NHS" even though citizens are suffering as the NHS becomes the National Covid Service. Any attempt to even discuss reform is met with hysterical resistance - remember Labour supporters chanting "not for sale" in the last election campaign?
The NHS resembles a corrupt but all-powerful Church, backed by politicians who have no vision or courage. I can't see that it'll ever change. People like Crayons Rayner are a big part of the reason for this.
The NHS is criticised for too much money splashed out on office staff, which I would agree with, but most is because of political ‘reform’. I can’t see any justification for those who suggest that it needs reform as that’s its major problem – too many reforms. There’s another on the way, although its purpose seems laudable as it is trying to repair the damage done by Cameron/Hunt.
Most MPs from other countries seem to be able to resist the urge to fiddle, but since it has become a binary problem, as can be seen in the quoted post, our mob seem obliged to make their name by further dividing the country. Government (Cameron/Hunt) imposed restrictions have cause problems with sharing of resources across adjacent health providers. Yet, of course, we still get the old ‘reform is what is needed’ as if it was the fault, or the remedy was in the hands of, the NHS.
liner33 said:
Its not about how much you spend but whether you get good value for the money you spend, most of those countries listed have better healthcare than we do, perhaps we should spend more but only if it has a demonstrable impact
Define better health care. We have better life expectancy than Germany yet they spend 50% more pp.
Austria have similar life expectancy yet spend 30% more pp.
France have a life expectancy 1 year over ours, yet spend 20% more pp.
IMO the NHS is excellent for critical care, where I've had problems is with day to day stuff that f
ks up your life but is not bad enough to prevent you working. And the IT is properly crap. Why can I not log in somewhere and see all my appointments, test results and so on in one central location?Edited by budgie smuggler on Wednesday 10th February 12:45
Too expensive, too full of non productive staff, and much too interested in protecting itself at the cost of both its staff and its users.
It fks whistle blowers, it's currently fking most of its patients, and it's been busy fking private healthcare while it had the ability to so so under cover of needing to borrow extra capacity.
But even necessary change can't happen when the slightest criticism sets off the screeching mob.
It f
ks whistle blowers, it's currently fking most of its patients, and it's been busy fking private healthcare while it had the ability to so so under cover of needing to borrow extra capacity. But even necessary change can't happen when the slightest criticism sets off the screeching mob.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff