Discussion:
NHS so well regarded ; take note Tory MPs
Add Reply
Mark, Devon
2017-07-14 06:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey

Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.

No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to the British public.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-07-14 07:17:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to the British public.
It is widely regarded or so we are told. We are also told that it is the envy of the world despite the fact that there is nowhere that it has been copied.

God only knows why it should be widely regarded since it is riddled with scandals and instances of incompetence.

I wonder why those who can afford to tend to look for alternative provision?

Why is there a private sector in this filed if it is so good?
Mark, Devon
2017-07-14 07:21:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to the British public.
It is widely regarded or so we are told. We are also told that it is the envy of the world despite the fact that there is nowhere that it has been copied.
God only knows why it should be widely regarded since it is riddled with scandals and instances of incompetence.
I wonder why those who can afford to tend to look for alternative provision?
Why is there a private sector in this filed if it is so good?
It is stunning value for money.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-07-14 08:05:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to the British public.
It is widely regarded or so we are told. We are also told that it is the envy of the world despite the fact that there is nowhere that it has been copied.
God only knows why it should be widely regarded since it is riddled with scandals and instances of incompetence.
I wonder why those who can afford to tend to look for alternative provision?
Why is there a private sector in this filed if it is so good?
It is stunning value for money.
Only to those who never pay any!

To the rest it is an millstone round their necks increasing in mass all of the time.
Phi
2017-07-14 09:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every
aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to
the British public.
It is widely regarded or so we are told. We are also told that it is
the envy of the world despite the fact that there is nowhere that it
has been copied.
God only knows why it should be widely regarded since it is riddled
with scandals and instances of incompetence.
I wonder why those who can afford to tend to look for alternative provision?
Why is there a private sector in this filed if it is so good?
It is stunning value for money.
Only to those who never pay any!
To the rest it is an millstone round their necks increasing in mass all of the time.
The trouble is that the NHS is doing things it was not intended to do and
for many aliens who have not contributed.
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-07-14 12:58:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Phi
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every
aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to
the British public.
It is widely regarded or so we are told. We are also told that it is
the envy of the world despite the fact that there is nowhere that it
has been copied.
God only knows why it should be widely regarded since it is riddled
with scandals and instances of incompetence.
I wonder why those who can afford to tend to look for alternative provision?
Why is there a private sector in this filed if it is so good?
It is stunning value for money.
Only to those who never pay any!
To the rest it is an millstone round their necks increasing in mass all of the time.
The trouble is that the NHS is doing things it was not intended to do and
for many aliens who have not contributed.
It was widely believed at it's inception that the NHS would be of economic benefit to the country in that disease would be drastically reduced or eliminated altogether with obvious benefits in terms of days lost through sickness and consequent improvements in productivity. We all now know what happened to that aspiration!

It was never intended that the NHS should become a bottomless pit into which politicians shovelled and were expected to shovel money.

The attractiveness of public healthcare was and is that it removed anxiety that one should become afflicted and require treatment that they could not afford.

It's certainly done that and to that extent it has been a success.

However, however the scope of treatments offered has widened far beyond that.

What is needed is a complete rethink on how the service should be funded with a view towards transferring the financial burden or rather the funding of anyy treatment more towards the patient and away from the taxpayer as happens in other countries.
abelard
2017-07-14 13:14:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What is needed is a complete rethink on how the service should be funded with a view towards transferring the financial burden or rather the funding of anyy treatment more towards the patient and away from the taxpayer as happens in other countries.
that will never happen as long as fascist 'new' labour can hope to
milk it by virtue of public ignorance
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-07-14 15:31:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What is needed is a complete rethink on how the service should be funded with a view towards transferring the financial burden or rather the funding of anyy treatment more towards the patient and away from the taxpayer as happens in other countries.
that will never happen as long as fascist 'new' labour can hope to
milk it by virtue of public ignorance
It will never happen so long as politicians and the media continue to promote the NHS as some kind of religion. How many other organisations could have so much bad publicity yet still retain its credibility?
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-07-14 17:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What is needed is a complete rethink on how the service should be funded with a view towards transferring the financial burden or rather the funding of anyy treatment more towards the patient and away from the taxpayer as happens in other countries.
that will never happen as long as fascist 'new' labour can hope to
milk it by virtue of public ignorance
It will never happen so long as politicians and the media continue to promote the NHS as some kind of religion. How many other organisations could have so much bad publicity yet still retain its credibility?
Just as an addenda:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253

Head line:

"NHS ranked 'number one' health system"

Yet a damning qualification towards the end of the article:

"Kate Andrews, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said the NHS was "far from being the envy of the world" [and no where copied of course]

"The UK has one of the highest rates of avoidable deaths in western Europe, and tens of thousands of lives could be saved each year if NHS patients with serious conditions such as cancer were treated by social health insurance systems in neighbouring countries, such as Belgium and Germany.

"It is not just low-income earners who receive poor care, the NHS's provision of care is equally poor for everybody, irrespective of income."

[my insertion]


More on this story


NHS 'rationing leaves patients in pain'
5 July 2017

Long waits for surgery 'have tripled in four years'
2 June 2017


NHS operations: Waiting times to rise in 'trade-off', boss says
31 March 2017

You take my point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_National_Health_Service_(England)
James Hammerton
2017-07-16 23:59:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What is needed is a complete rethink on how the service should be funded with a view towards transferring the financial burden or rather the funding of anyy treatment more towards the patient and away from the taxpayer as happens in other countries.
that will never happen as long as fascist 'new' labour can hope to
milk it by virtue of public ignorance
It will never happen so long as politicians and the media continue to promote the NHS as some kind of religion. How many other organisations could have so much bad publicity yet still retain its credibility?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253
"NHS ranked 'number one' health system"
"Kate Andrews, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said the NHS was "far from being the envy of the world" [and no where copied of course]
"The UK has one of the highest rates of avoidable deaths in western Europe, and tens of thousands of lives could be saved each year if NHS patients with serious conditions such as cancer were treated by social health insurance systems in neighbouring countries, such as Belgium and Germany.
"It is not just low-income earners who receive poor care, the NHS's provision of care is equally poor for everybody, irrespective of income."
[my insertion]
More on this story
NHS 'rationing leaves patients in pain'
5 July 2017
Long waits for surgery 'have tripled in four years'
2 June 2017
NHS operations: Waiting times to rise in 'trade-off', boss says
31 March 2017
You take my point?
A lot of people would dismiss all of these as symptoms of the lack of
funding for the NHS since Labour lost power (i.e. the impact of
coalition and then Tory policies), they might (correctly) cite the fact
that funding has dropped as a %age of GDP since then and if pressed on
the fact the the spending has outpaced the official measures of
inflation since 2010 (and thus has grown in real terms, at least as
officially defined) they might correctly point out that the rate of
growth in NHS spending was far higher under the last Labour government
(over 4% per annum IIRC) than it has been since then (around 1% per annum).

The problem is any shortcomings of the NHS can always be blamed on lack
of funding or, failing that, any other aspects of NHS policies the
government of the day has been pursuing, thus framing the problem in
terms of how well the government of the day is funding/running the NHS
rather than looking at the fundamental question of whether healhcare can
be sustainably and effectively funded and run so directly by the
government of the day in the first place...
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_National_Health_Service_(England)
Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
m***@btopenworld.com
2017-07-17 20:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
You take my point?
A lot of people would dismiss all of these as symptoms of the lack of
funding for the NHS since Labour lost power (i.e. the impact of
coalition and then Tory policies), they might (correctly) cite the fact
that funding has dropped as a %age of GDP since then and if pressed on
the fact the the spending has outpaced the official measures of
inflation since 2010 (and thus has grown in real terms, at least as
officially defined) they might correctly point out that the rate of
growth in NHS spending was far higher under the last Labour government
(over 4% per annum IIRC) than it has been since then (around 1% per annum).
You are right. They are wrong.

I refer to the bar chart here:

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget

However, raw numbers don't tell the whole story.

I go back to it's inception in 1948.

There ere great expectations of it including:

(a) The idea that costs would fall as prompt and efficient treatment reduced or even eradicated.

(b)That the anxiety perceived to be experienced by poor people and even those of modest means that one day they may be struck down by disease and not be in a position to 'buy the cure'

(c) That treatment should always be free at the point of delivery.

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 1948.

Infectious diseases like Polio, smallpox, diphtheria, TB, pneumonia etc. etc. have been largely eliminate at a cost of pennies thanks to modern antibiotics and immunisation techniques these were the killers of that day.

No so for the non pathogenic diseases such as cancer and heart diseases and the industrial diseases such as silicosis, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis. In 1948 patients whose life expectancy was about 67 years died of these whilst under palliative care. They still do. But these days palliative care aimed more towards sustaining and enhancing life is expensive. To be cynical if I may, it's an expensive way to die. A sufferer from Alzheimer's disease can be under constant residential care for 20 years. That's not the only down side of aging. an artificial hip can cost upwards of £10000 per limb and hopefully will only need to be changed once within a lifetime. Then there are transplants, hearts lungs, lungs, kidneys, corneas and God only knows what else.

It all adds up to a very expensive service indeed.

Something else has happened since 1948.

People have become wealthier. When I were a lad back in the 40's nobody in our street had a car, now everybody has one, TV sets were not yet available. Nobody went on foreign holidays. Bridlington, Scarborough or Blackpool was a far as you got if at all. Linoleum and 'clippie rugs' were the norm rather than fitted carpets or polished boarded floors and so on. No multi hundred pund Christmas' or multi thousand pound weddings.

There's plenty of money for the NHS. It's just a question of funding.

These sort of problems have hit these problems before. At the inception the service covered everything. Spectacles, dentistry, false teeth even wigs! In 1951 he country was suffering a financial crisis ( doesn't a labour government always have one?) and charges for these ancillary services as well as prescriptions were introduced. Aneurin Bevan the then MoH resigned in protest. Other than that, the sky did not fall in and these days we accept such charges as the norm.

IMV this is the only way forward for the NHS before it either collapses or breaks our backs. To begin with if any individual needs a treatment that is beyond his/her pocket then of course they have be helped. That goes without saying and is not the issue here.

There are a number of approaches to these problems. For instance, why does the NHS cover accidental injuries of any nature. An accident is a direct result of risk. Risk has been accommodated by insurance for 250 years or more. Why can't those who take the risks pay a few pounds insurance premium? My son a Swiss resident clumsily fell on and escalator sustaining quite a severe injury to his knee. I don't know what the cost was but what I do know is that the first £200 cost was his, and the rest was covered by insurance compulsorily arranged and paid for by his employer as a condition of employment.

When someone is suffers illness or mishap on the streets why should the taxpayer pick up his transport bill to hospital. If he couldn't carry such risk himself he could surely afford a few quid insurance to cover it.

We could go the whole hog and cap the amount the individual is liable to pay the NHS to (FSoA) £1000/year or maybe £120 in any one month. Again if anyone feels he can't afford the risk he can afford a modest insurance premium.

There are a great number of possibilities as to how the cost of the service, partially at least can be redirected to the user.

Why can't a patient pay a consultation fee to his GP? If he did, he would be unlikely to choose one who showed little interest or empathy with him. If he were given a voucher to pay or partially pay for his treatment he would be unlikely to go to a hospital or consultant with a bad reputation.
There is a number of bonuses too.

When you pay from your own pocket, you tend to take more notice of what you pay for.
abelard
2017-07-14 11:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 00:21:59 -0700 (PDT), "Mark, Devon"
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to the British public.
It is widely regarded or so we are told. We are also told that it is the envy of the world despite the fact that there is nowhere that it has been copied.
God only knows why it should be widely regarded since it is riddled with scandals and instances of incompetence.
I wonder why those who can afford to tend to look for alternative provision?
Why is there a private sector in this filed if it is so good?
It is stunning value for money.
so is dog food...so cut your food bills....
JNugent
2017-07-14 12:53:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to the British public.
It is widely regarded or so we are told. We are also told that it is the envy of the world despite the fact that there is nowhere that it has been copied.
God only knows why it should be widely regarded since it is riddled with scandals and instances of incompetence.
I wonder why those who can afford to tend to look for alternative provision?
Why is there a private sector in this filed if it is so good?
It is stunning value for money.
Especially if you are not a taxpayer, or a foreigner.
JNugent
2017-07-14 12:52:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every aspect of the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to the British public.
It is just as well that none have been made, then.
BurfordTJustice
2017-07-14 13:24:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
yet when heads of state need care they travel to
America instead of the UK.

When the NHS wants to kill your child the parents want to take
them to America so they have a chance to live.
Post by Mark, Devon
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Every Tory MP had better do his/her best to fully protect every aspect of
the NHS, if s/he wishes to stay in parliament.
No moves towards privatisation of the NHS will ever be acceptable to the British public.
Loading...