State of the National Health


Recommended Posts

I'm not going to go into specifics, but the national health system in the UK is poor. I would love to hear some opinions and discussion on it.

America's health system's great, it may all be what we could consider private but it does work. Same in Japan.

I had a thought that the UK could do with the privatisation of the entire health system. The obvious issue is that a lot of people would object to it due to some not being able to afford it. That's when I came up with the idea of some kind of government subsidy for health insurance for people who genuinely cannot afford it. This would hopefully in the long run cut government spending (cut taxes maybe)... or at least free up funding for other things.

What do you think? Am I missing something here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to go into specifics, but the national health system in the UK is poor.  I would love to hear some opinions and discussion on it.

America's health system's great, it may all be what we could consider private but it does work.  Same in Japan. 

I had a thought that the UK could do with the privatisation of the entire health system.  The obvious issue is that a lot of people would object to it due to some not being able to afford it.  That's when I came up with the idea of some kind of government subsidy for health insurance for people who genuinely cannot afford it.  This would hopefully in the long run cut government spending (cut taxes maybe)... or at least free up funding for other things.

What do you think?  Am I missing something here?

586501607[/snapback]

Wait for Britain to collapse then we can start from the ground up, its going that way with Labour in power. They're only answer is to add more management layers and buy stupid ?70,000 decorative rocks for hospitals. Perhaps they should cut the red tape and give some kudos to those who work day and night saving lives for once. :whistle::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for Britain to collapse then we can start from the ground up, its going that way with Labour in power. They're only answer is to add more management layers and buy stupid ?70,000 decorative rocks for hospitals. Perhaps they should cut the red tape and give some kudos to those who work day and night saving lives for once. :whistle::

586501636[/snapback]

I agree. As soon as the tories sort themselves out with a new leader (NOT Kenneth Clarke, he's just too old) I hope they'll be on on track for winning the next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been underfunded for along time, were just seeing the effects of what the torries did.

What I would like is an insurnace scheme were the you pay in once a month and when have an accident (hopefuly not). You pay for it then your insurnance pays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree, you can't say it's not getting better.

Really, all they need is to stop spending money on rocks.

Germany's healthcare system is exellent, well, what i've experienced of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to go into specifics, but the national health system in the UK is poor.? I would love to hear some opinions and discussion on it.

America's health system's great, it may all be what we could consider private but it does work.? Same in Japan.

Actually the US' system is one of the worse sytems of health care in the world in regards to coverage. At any one time up to 85 million people have little or no health care at all and it is getting worse. Even for those who do are afraid to make a claim since the insurance company will jack up their premium or outright cancel it. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the USA is from medical bills. In other words they have the best health care money can buy, it is too bad hardly anyone can afford it.

I had a thought that the UK could do with the privatisation of the entire health system.? The obvious issue is that a lot of people would object to it due to some not being able to afford it.? That's when I came up with the idea of some kind of government subsidy for health insurance for people who genuinely cannot afford it.? This would hopefully in the long run cut government spending (cut taxes maybe)... or at least free up funding for other things.

You don't realize how good something is until it is gone. A two tiered system is even worse.

What do you think?? Am I missing something here?

586501607[/snapback]

Yes, you are missing something here. Your best bet is to adopt a system like up here in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't complain, it's saved my mum's life on numerous occasions. It's not done me any harm either.

586503845[/snapback]

It's been alright for me too. It still isn't doing as well as it could be though, especially with the threat of MRSA, long waiting lists, and lack of beds!

Its been underfunded for along time, were just seeing the effects of what the torries did.

What I would like is an insurnace scheme were the you pay in once a month and when have an accident (hopefuly not). You pay for it then your insurnance pays out.

586503850[/snapback]

I am only comparing the system to Americas and Japans. It's totally funded by the patients right? (Or rather the patients insurance.) It seems to work well, why can't we just do the same thing but with a little twist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are missing something heh. I agree that the NHS here has been underfunded by the tories in the past but it also doesnt spend it's money well at all in todays world, but I know that systems like those used in the US have a lot of problems too. I spend quite a while in the US and knew of people that were sick and just wouldn't go to get checked up because they couldn't afford it or people that did and had to drop out of college to be able to cover the costs. It is a good system but only if you have enough money and I don't think money should determine if you get healthcare or not.

Also, we do have a private system in the UK which my mum used once and found it really good. I don't think either systems are fool proof and have their different problems and I also agree that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they couldn't afford it or people that did and had to drop out of college to be able to cover the costs. It is a good system but only if you have enough money and I don't think money should determine if you get healthcare or not.

586503863[/snapback]

Hence the suggestion of a subsidy from the government for people who could not afford insurance. If hospitals started to be run like businesses, it would add the factor of competition between hospitals. Each and every hospital would strive for the best ratings and the best care. The more popular a hospital becomes... the more funding they have and the more they can improve the service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothers me is I pay a fortune in national health contributions every year, which fund the NHS, for my family, when my fiance needed an operation on her knee she had to wait 2 years nearly.

If I had the choice of my national insurance contributions going to fund a bupa account then her knee would be sorted in a month or so.

The National Health Service is supposed to be for the people in this nation not a World wide health service for any Tom, Dick or Harry to waltz in and demand operations. What makes it worse is that the NHS are paying for patients we have to be flown and operated on in Europe and even India now, what a joke that is.

NHS has to be scrapped immediately. It should become an insurance deal rather than and open shop for people to help themselves.

We make it insurance based then people would be more careful, people would have to pay for filling up A&E every night to deal with split lips, busted eye sockets, busted noses, stab wounds, as they can't control their drinking habits. People who cause such harm on others that need to attend A&E would then have to pay the cost.

NHS is just another Socialist cash cow, full of less beds and more managers, hospitals these days have more managment staff than beds.

NHS has to be scrapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the suggestion of a subsidy from the government for people who could not afford insurance.  If hospitals started to be run like businesses, it would add the factor of competition between hospitals.  Each and every hospital would strive for the best ratings and the best care.  The more popular a hospital becomes... the more funding they have and the more they can improve the service.

586503874[/snapback]

Yea, I agree that does sound like a good idea in theory. I'd like to hear someone who knows their stuff air their opinions on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree, you can't say it's not getting better.

Really, all they need is to stop spending money on rocks.

Germany's healthcare system is exellent, well, what i've experienced of it.

586503851[/snapback]

I agree with that, my Uncle is in the army over there and their health system is fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are missing something heh. I agree that the NHS here has been underfunded by the tories in the past but it also doesnt spend it's money well at all in todays world

586503863[/snapback]

In fact it underspent it's whole budget but that was due to restrictions on spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.  As soon as the tories sort themselves out with a new leader (NOT Kenneth Clarke, he's just too old) I hope they'll be on on track for winning the next election.

586503843[/snapback]

Cameron or Davies is who I'm hoping for. We need someone young, but also someone who isnt afraid to say whats on the masses minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the USA 6.63 children in every 1000 die and they rank as number 36 on the scale of infant mortality all around the world. In the UK 5.52 children in every 1000 die and the UK is ranked 26 on the scale of infant mortality all around the world. Informed medical opinion in the USA and the UK places the blame for those high figures directly on failures in both countries medical systems either from a patient care point of view or beurocratic failure in each countries medical system. From a infant point of view the USA's medical system is inferior to the UK's medical system, so I take it that you Axel are prepared to explain to each family why their child had to die - because you want that same USA system when that system is actually inferior to the one we already have.

If you want to improve the National Health system in the UK then get rid of all those paper shufflers that the last Conservative government installed and replace them with proper and verifyable cleaning services and give the doctors and nurses we charge with carrying out the service the proper support they need. If you actually knew anything about medical care and health systems then you wouldn't have said something silly like "America's health system's great, it may all be what we could consider private but it does work" and instead you would have said why don't we look at what countries like Singapore do and why is it that they have such low mortality rates and why aren't we doing the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to improve the National Health system in the UK then get rid of all those paper shufflers that the last Conservative government installed 

586503960[/snapback]

Conservatives did not install them it is the loony red socialist government we have now that installed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean - but you do realise we have private stuff everywhere in the UK?

If people want to have private healthcare, and wait much less time, they can choose to. Obviously relatively few do...

I think, while the NHS may not be "perfect" having both systems in operation concurrently is not a bad idea. People who can't/don't want to pay to have private healthcare have no need to. On the other hand, people who are willing to pay to receive their treatment can take advantage of a much quicker service.

Your idea about the Government subsidising people who cannot afford private care.... That sounds extremely similar to what we have now. Private care would basically become an "NHS" for people who couldn't afford to pay (which would be a great deal of people) and the Goverment is still going to end up spending masses on paying for people's healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean - but you do realise we have private stuff everywhere in the UK?

If people want to have private healthcare, and wait much less time, they can choose to.? Obviously relatively few do...

I think, while the NHS may not be "perfect" having both systems in operation concurrently is not a bad idea.? People who can't/don't want to pay to have private healthcare have no need to.? On the other hand, people who are willing to pay to receive their treatment can take advantage of a much quicker service.

Your idea about the Government subsidising people who cannot afford private care.... That sounds extremely similar to what we have now.? Private care would basically become an "NHS" for people who couldn't afford to pay (which would be a great deal of people) and the Goverment is still going to end up spending masses on paying for people's healthcare.

586504035[/snapback]

The main problem with a two tiered system is that those on the second tier get the least quality service, read the poor, while the rich get all of the best. Health care is not a commodity. There is a good reason why universal health care came into existence. The American system is a worse mess than anything you can imagine. As I had said, you should adopt a system like we have up here in Canada.

If anything the private sector has proven that it can't manage health care because it is more concern with the health of one's wallet than in one's health. When you enter a hospital in the USA the first question they ask you is, "Do you have any insurance", not "Are you ok?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with a two tiered system is that those on the second tier get the least quality service, read the poor, while the rich get all of the best. Health care is not a commodity. There is a good reason why universal health care came into existence. The American system is a worse mess than anything you can imagine. As I had said, you should adopt a system like we have up here in Canada.

If anything the private sector has proven that it can't manage health care because it is more concern with the health of one's wallet than in one's health. When you enter a hospital in the USA the first question they ask you is, "Do you have any insurance", not "Are you ok?"

586504537[/snapback]

I don't believe that there is supposed to be a great deal of difference in the "quality" of treatement that you receive.. the main thing is that you just don't have to wait a ridiculous length of time.

Even if aspects of that were true; if "rich" people can afford to pay for "better" health care, why shouldn't they? Likewise should people you brand as "poor" criticise a system that grants them free healthcare? No doubt the NHS needs further work -- but I think both systems coexist to suit a great many people.

Also, this is the second time you've said be like Canada... exactly what is the system in Canada then... heh? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that there is supposed to be a great deal of difference in the "quality" of treatement that you receive.. the main thing is that you just don't have to wait a ridiculous length of time.

Of course these is not suppose to be a difference, but in the real world there is one.

Even if aspects of that were true; if "rich" people can afford to pay for "better" health care, why shouldn't they?

Proper health care is a human right according the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Likewise should people you brand as "poor" criticise a system that grants them free healthcare?? No doubt the NHS needs further work -- but I think both systems coexist to suit a great many people.

In Canada our health care isn't free. It is mostly paid for through sales taxes and the like. There is just no direct out of pocket expense. Our system isn't bankrpting us either.

Also, this is the second time you've said be like Canada... exactly what is the system in Canada then... heh?:))

586504635[/snapback]

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/

The last part about the so-called "brain drain" at the end has greatly reverse in recent years and is in fact working the other way now. Also, wait times vary greatly depending on where you live as well.

Also, in regards to perscriptions. If you're a senior you get 66.6% off of your medications and if you're like me, on a disability pension (Thalideomide), you get full coverage and no co-payment. Social services also covers 80% of dental and eye glasses now.

Its not a perfect system, but it does work well enough.:))

Edited by Foub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course these is not suppose to be a difference, but in the real world there is one.

Proper health care is a human right according the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

586505574[/snapback]

You seem to be implying that the services provided by the NHS are somehow substandard and improper? This is extremely far from the case.. so I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Since your system is supported by taxes and the like, it's probably just (if you say it's better - though I see no way to compare the two :)) a more developed version of our NHS, but with some kind of intermediate insurance type company seperating the government's money and the people..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be implying that the services provided by the NHS are somehow substandard and improper?  This is extremely far from the case.. so I don't see what this has to do with anything.

I'm not the one complaining about them. :) Any system is better than what is going on in the USA. Its a nightmare down there. They are speading more and more on health care and they are getting less and less coverage because the private sector is charging more and more for their services. Some cases they charge 10 times what a service actually costs. There is even a case where they charged $1000 for a toothbrush.

http://www.latimes.com/business/yourmoney/...ack=1&cset=true

Since your system is supported by taxes and the like, it's probably just (if you say it's better - though I see no way to compare the two :)) a more developed version of our NHS, but with some kind of intermediate insurance type company seperating the government's money and the people..?

586505680[/snapback]

The government IS the insurer here. Doctors work for themselves and just bill MSI (Medical Services Insurance) like they would an insurance company.

During a recent G8 conferance there was talk of using our system as a model in the member nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.