The NHS; Good or Bad?
Discussion
With the curent war of words going on between the US and UK over the pro's and con's of a national health service, I thought I'd see where PH stands on this.
So, what do you guys think? Is it Good or Bad for a country? Do you think the US has a point, or do you agree with our minsters' complete and utter support for it?
Discuss
So, what do you guys think? Is it Good or Bad for a country? Do you think the US has a point, or do you agree with our minsters' complete and utter support for it?
Discuss
It's really not that simple. For the money spent annually, the NHS should be close to faultless, with all hospitals gleaming clean and state of the art and armies of well-motivated medical staff, but Labour spends billions of pounds per year on employing absurd numbers of its client voters (it hopes, although even they may abandon it now) as administrators and further vast amounts on external management consultants to discuss with the administrators how to manage.
When it works, the NHS is wondrous. When it doesn't, it is awful. I saw both sides last year with my parents-in-law. My 83 year old father in law had a minor heart attack and turned out to have angina. Harefields performed a triple bypass and had him back on his feet and back home in three days. A year later, he is still "fighting fit" in his own description. Harefields looks run down from outside, but is clean within and the medical staff are superb. A few months earlier, my mother-in-law finally admitted to being in agony and needing a hip replacement. Getting an appointment on the NHS with a specialist was taking far too long and the waiting time for an operation was even longer (with the constant risk of cancellation), so I paid for the hip to be replaced privately and it was dealt with in a matter of days.
I think we need a hybrid system with health insurance to deal with non-serious the relatively predictable conditions. We all need the NHS for life-threatening emergencies and serious illness. Those who cannot afford health insurance cannot be left without quality treatment and that is where we differ form the US.
We also need to cut the spending on unnecessary non-medical jobs in the NHS. When I was visiting my father-in-law at Harefield, I looked at the jobs board in the canteen. There were very few medical jobs on there. Most were for administrators and the salaries were very healthy, with large numbers being in the £30k+ range.
When it works, the NHS is wondrous. When it doesn't, it is awful. I saw both sides last year with my parents-in-law. My 83 year old father in law had a minor heart attack and turned out to have angina. Harefields performed a triple bypass and had him back on his feet and back home in three days. A year later, he is still "fighting fit" in his own description. Harefields looks run down from outside, but is clean within and the medical staff are superb. A few months earlier, my mother-in-law finally admitted to being in agony and needing a hip replacement. Getting an appointment on the NHS with a specialist was taking far too long and the waiting time for an operation was even longer (with the constant risk of cancellation), so I paid for the hip to be replaced privately and it was dealt with in a matter of days.
I think we need a hybrid system with health insurance to deal with non-serious the relatively predictable conditions. We all need the NHS for life-threatening emergencies and serious illness. Those who cannot afford health insurance cannot be left without quality treatment and that is where we differ form the US.
We also need to cut the spending on unnecessary non-medical jobs in the NHS. When I was visiting my father-in-law at Harefield, I looked at the jobs board in the canteen. There were very few medical jobs on there. Most were for administrators and the salaries were very healthy, with large numbers being in the £30k+ range.
I think that the idea of an NHS is brilliant.
What has let us down is the way our Governments have run it! The US are looking at our NHS to see how viable the idea is....but that's the worst thing they could do, because our NHS has been so badly managed that it would not offer a true reflection of the potential benefits of an national health service.
What has let us down is the way our Governments have run it! The US are looking at our NHS to see how viable the idea is....but that's the worst thing they could do, because our NHS has been so badly managed that it would not offer a true reflection of the potential benefits of an national health service.
Asterix said:
For non life threatening illnesses - terrible - some of my grandmother's ailments prove this
For stuff that will kill you - ER and other treatments - excellent - as proved by my Mum's cancer that was caught very early and treated quickly and did the trick.
I can't agree anymore - Have something that isn't life threatening then it's a nightmare.For stuff that will kill you - ER and other treatments - excellent - as proved by my Mum's cancer that was caught very early and treated quickly and did the trick.
Snapped my leg in half - Had 3 ops (with consultant surgeon) excellent aftercare & physio everything was done incredibly quickly with no messing around.
On anything minor but still needs treatments its cancelled appointment after canceled appointment.
I could count the list of f
k ups the NHS has done for us, thats why I now go private, I dont care about paying for it, I will never ever let anyone of my family members go to an NHS hospital ever again.
Mates grandad diagnosed with cancer 5 days before he died, he had been back and forth to the hospital for a few years, so much so they were even telling the doctors its cancer
My Grandad goes in 2 years ago
Now have a misconduct case against the hospital on many levels, and for not spotting the asbestosis of the lungs, and asbestos cancer....
I could go on and on, but in my eyes the NHS is fking st, and private is the way forward, where the hospitals are clean, the staff are well trained and know what they are doing
k ups the NHS has done for us, thats why I now go private, I dont care about paying for it, I will never ever let anyone of my family members go to an NHS hospital ever again.- Old man goes in for delicate operation, they fk it up.
- Old man goes in for another delicate operation, they fk it up, cut through some nerves that shouldnt of been cut through
- Old man is stuck on oral morph, tramadol, and 2 forms on oxy contin, which when mixed can apparently be fatal in some cases
- Old man is left in pain for 2 years where you cant touch his chest
- Old man still in Oxy contin which btw is synthetic heroin, and gets stuck on them
- Old man now has no feeling in certain places, the problem that he went in to get fixed is still there, but has gotten worse because of it.
Mates grandad diagnosed with cancer 5 days before he died, he had been back and forth to the hospital for a few years, so much so they were even telling the doctors its cancer
My Grandad goes in 2 years ago
- First find nothing wrong with him
- 2 years later, after being told there is nothing wrong with him, goes back in feeling quite, ill, again told nothing wrong with him
- Goes home, is home a day before being violently sick outside, and rushed into hospital
- 6 weeks in hospital, in this time he looses more weight due to cold food, and food he cant eat because his stomach hurts, yet they make him eat.
- Contracts two bugs whilst in there making him really ill
- Finally gets diagnosed with cancer after 5th week
- Gets released, feeling alot better, is prescribed something
- Said drug lands him back in hospital
- Dead 5 days late
Now have a misconduct case against the hospital on many levels, and for not spotting the asbestosis of the lungs, and asbestos cancer....
I could go on and on, but in my eyes the NHS is f
king st, and private is the way forward, where the hospitals are clean, the staff are well trained and know what they are doingWhy are the Americans concentrating on the UK's NHS? Surely there are better examples of well run national medical systems in other European countries - or would they find that to galling to stomach?
If I was Obama, I wouldn't be drawing attention to the UK, but rather looking at countries like Germany or France.
If I was Obama, I wouldn't be drawing attention to the UK, but rather looking at countries like Germany or France.
It seems that plenty of people in the UK have objections to not the principle of the NHS but their standard of work, or they confuse the two matters. I think the standard is independent to the principle of a public health system. No doubt the standard could be improved while maintaining public health service.
From what I was reading yesterday a lot of the US objection is to US Government meddling in their health decisions. Their Hawking argument from the other thread sounds like a bit of 'straw man' to me.
From what I was reading yesterday a lot of the US objection is to US Government meddling in their health decisions. Their Hawking argument from the other thread sounds like a bit of 'straw man' to me.
Eric Mc said:
Why are the Americans concentrating on the UK's NHS? Surely there are better examples of well run national medical systems in other European countries - or would they find that to galling to stomach?
If I was Obama, I wouldn't be drawing attention to the UK, but rather looking at countries like Germany or France.
God knows, they arent even doing a very good job of it:-If I was Obama, I wouldn't be drawing attention to the UK, but rather looking at countries like Germany or France.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/hawking_br...
reg article said:
In perhaps the most amusing effort to discredit US President Barack Obama's plan for nationalized health care - if not the most ridiculous - US financial newspaper Investor's Business Daily has said that if Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead.
"The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary," read a recent editorial from the paper. "The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script...
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
As for the NHS, I'd rather have it than not."The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary," read a recent editorial from the paper. "The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script...
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
Edited by Marf on Friday 14th August 13:53
zac510 said:
It seems that plenty of people in the UK have objections to not the principle of the NHS but their standard of work, or they confuse the two matters. I think the standard is independent to the principle of a public health system. No doubt the standard could be improved while maintaining public health service.
From what I was reading yesterday a lot of the US objection is to US Government meddling in their health decisions. Their Hawking argument from the other thread sounds like a bit of 'straw man' to me.
Nail on head From what I was reading yesterday a lot of the US objection is to US Government meddling in their health decisions. Their Hawking argument from the other thread sounds like a bit of 'straw man' to me.
in which case you are Ok to go to an NHS hospital since the consensus is they are great for A&E
For the people that work in it they are constantly frustrated by 'red tape'. I don't want to name hospitals but the few I know of are a farce!
The NHS is underfunded and the government are completely+1 out of touch with what actually goes on in hospitals.
The NHS is underfunded and the government are completely+1 out of touch with what actually goes on in hospitals.
Edited by Dr Imran T on Friday 14th August 13:47
The trouble with the NHS is that vast amounts of money are poured in and the service is still poor.
The government's national cancer plan, backed by a massive injection of cash for cancer services in England, has failed to boost survival rates substantially, a major study shows today.
The findings will dismay government ministers, who have secured a tripling of spending on cancer over the last decade with the ambition of bringing the UK from among the worst countries up to the standard of the best in Europe. But the authoritative study, from a team led by Professor Michel Coleman at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, shows that survival rates have barely shifted since the cancer plan was launched in 2000.
"We are at best keeping track with improvements elsewhere rather than closing the gap," says an editorial in the journal which publishes today's study, Lancet Oncology. It adds that the government's aim of matching the survival rates of the best performing countries in Europe by 2010 is looking optimistic.
The study also shows that regional divides linger on, with people in some areas of England likely to survive longer than in others.
Cutting deaths and improving the length of time people survive with cancer, while ending health inequalities, is one of the major health goals of the present government, triggered by an outcry over data which showed Britain lagging at the bottom of the European league.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/20/canc...
But if anyone suggests there might be a better way for the UK population to get healthcare everyone is up in arms.
The government's national cancer plan, backed by a massive injection of cash for cancer services in England, has failed to boost survival rates substantially, a major study shows today.
The findings will dismay government ministers, who have secured a tripling of spending on cancer over the last decade with the ambition of bringing the UK from among the worst countries up to the standard of the best in Europe. But the authoritative study, from a team led by Professor Michel Coleman at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, shows that survival rates have barely shifted since the cancer plan was launched in 2000.
"We are at best keeping track with improvements elsewhere rather than closing the gap," says an editorial in the journal which publishes today's study, Lancet Oncology. It adds that the government's aim of matching the survival rates of the best performing countries in Europe by 2010 is looking optimistic.
The study also shows that regional divides linger on, with people in some areas of England likely to survive longer than in others.
Cutting deaths and improving the length of time people survive with cancer, while ending health inequalities, is one of the major health goals of the present government, triggered by an outcry over data which showed Britain lagging at the bottom of the European league.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/mar/20/canc...
But if anyone suggests there might be a better way for the UK population to get healthcare everyone is up in arms.
pits said:
I could count the list of fk ups the NHS has done for us, thats why I now go private, I dont care about paying for it, I will never ever let anyone of my family members go to an NHS hospital ever again.
Don't you think errors happen in the private sector? Don't the same consultants work for both?k ups the NHS has done for us, thats why I now go private, I dont care about paying for it, I will never ever let anyone of my family members go to an NHS hospital ever again.- Old man goes in for delicate operation, they fk it up.
- Old man goes in for another delicate operation, they fk it up, cut through some nerves that shouldnt of been cut through
- Old man is stuck on oral morph, tramadol, and 2 forms on oxy contin, which when mixed can apparently be fatal in some cases
- Old man is left in pain for 2 years where you cant touch his chest
- Old man still in Oxy contin which btw is synthetic heroin, and gets stuck on them
- Old man now has no feeling in certain places, the problem that he went in to get fixed is still there, but has gotten worse because of it.
Dr Imran T said:
For the people that work in it they are constantly frustrated by 'red tape'. I don't want to name hospitals but the few I know of are a farce!
The NHS is underfunded and the government are completely+1 out of touch with what actually goes on in hospitals.
I don;t think it's underfunded,there appear to be too many chiefs.....The NHS is underfunded and the government are completely+1 out of touch with what actually goes on in hospitals.
Edited by Dr Imran T on Friday 14th August 13:47
Whilst ours is far from ideal I have yet to see a decent arguement against a nationalised health system in principal. Especially when 50% of Americans that file for bankrupcy do so due to medical expenses.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the health care system in thes States is run like a business front to back. They actually have a mark-up on medications that can run into the thousands of dollars. It's very common for states residents to cross the border to Mexico where the medications are more fairly priced.
In the USA health is a privilage. Ironically it's only residents who have a right to it are those it holds in Guantanamo bay. In Europe it is widely considered your right as a citizen to have access to medical care.
Make of that what you will but quite frankly the Republican spin in the states is morally abhorrent and is based on very little factual information.
Edited for clarity.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the health care system in thes States is run like a business front to back. They actually have a mark-up on medications that can run into the thousands of dollars. It's very common for states residents to cross the border to Mexico where the medications are more fairly priced.
In the USA health is a privilage. Ironically it's only residents who have a right to it are those it holds in Guantanamo bay. In Europe it is widely considered your right as a citizen to have access to medical care.
Make of that what you will but quite frankly the Republican spin in the states is morally abhorrent and is based on very little factual information.
Edited for clarity.
Edited by G_T on Friday 14th August 13:52
Our NHS has the same problems as any government service - paying up front through the tax system destroys the point-of-sale 'customer' interaction. They are left desperately trying to provide 'value' within a system that treats money as free.
The US should look at France's health care system, IMO.
The US should look at France's health care system, IMO.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff