DEATH Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 How about the NHS always being there for emergencies, i.e. broken legs, car accidents, heart attacks but a limit on all other care at £100k per person's life. If you need more than £100k the only route is via a charity or sell any assets you have. At some point we are going to have to cap the spend per person as new drugs are coming out all the time, people keep living longer and longer. I don't think it is reasonable to spend unlimited amounts on a single person. If the taxpayer/charity giver wants their money to do such then they can donate it to a charity, tax free, exercising their free choice. We will end up back to the survival of the fittest/most adaptive at some stage anyway after this sojourn, dog eat dog etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJAR Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 It's not that the NHS is a failure, it's that the effective part-privitisation by conservolabour in the last 20 years has filled the NHS with all the wosrt parts of corporatism. spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBingo Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 There were no facts in the that post, only opinions. Wrong opinions. Do you read the Guardian by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrink Proof Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 It's not that the NHS is a failure, it's that the effective part-privitisation by conservolabour in the last 20 years has filled the NHS with all the worst parts of corporatism whilst simultaneously retaining the worst parts of private sector culture too. More accurate still, IMHO. And given the above, it's a credit to front-line NHS staff that they're still able to do anything at all for their patients. (DOI - Recovering NHS worker who has survived (just) 30+ years of incompetent politicians' dogma-driven "reforms".) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headmelter Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.com/2012/02/nhs-privatisation-compilation-of.html Just a thought why there may be reasons for privatisation.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Do you read the Guardian by any chance? Do only Guaridanistas have opinions on opinions? Thought not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erat_forte Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Most people are capable of making an informed choice about food.. although the existence of mass obesity calls this into question. Still, you have to generally assume that people are responsible for their actions. However, the amount of information required to make an informed choice about medical treatment is much higher, and it is not always obvious that the right choice has been made. This makes an effective healthcare market an extremely hard thing to arrive at. As an example, homeopathy still exists in the market despite being repeatedly shown to be completely ineffective. A bit like a TV still selling that only showed static.. Obviously I expect that a dogmatic free-marketeer will refuse to understand the concept of a market not working. Quite, people are not capable of feeding themselves adequately. GO to the supermarket and with people loading their trolleys up with pre-packaged food made mostly of refined wheat flour, refined sugar, and refined vegetable oils. Anti-nutritious Poison basically. Just like Homeopathy in the health market, this stuff should not exist in the food market. But the private companies advertise this stuff heavily because the profit margins on it are far higher than on fresh organic fruit and vegetables, pastured meat and wild fish. However, I don't see the National Food Service doing any better either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Quite, people are not capable of feeding themselves adequately. GO to the supermarket and with people loading their trolleys up with pre-packaged food made mostly of refined wheat flour, refined sugar, and refined vegetable oils. Anti-nutritious Poison basically. Just like Homeopathy in the health market, this stuff should not exist in the food market. But the private companies advertise this stuff heavily because the profit margins on it are far higher than on fresh organic fruit and vegetables, pastured meat and wild fish. However, I don't see the National Food Service doing any better either. Must resist temptation to go off and find research on wartime-rationing diets compared to modern diets.. (I don't think a National Food Service is a good idea on general freedom grounds, but I have a feeling it could be justified on health grounds..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) And this is why Britain is doomed. No-one wants to fix the problems even when they're clearly explained. Which problems are these then? The ones Alan Milburn and Tony Blair told you about which you lapped up?! The NHS isn't perfect (what is?) but this rabid argument for privatisation is based on zero objectivity and flawed. Edited February 20, 2012 by PopGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashedOutAndBurned Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) The NHS is a fairly unusual healthcare system even among state-funded healthcare systems. France spends even more on healthcare but you do get more of a first-rate service with far better outcomes. But anyone arguing for a US-style system is a loon. That's just a way for corporations to fleece people while leaving millions without care. A perfectly normal American child WITH access to good healthcare will often get dragged to umpteen 'specialists' for the tiniest little 'potential problems' just to make big money. Also, people are wise to privatisations now. Buses and trains too expensive to use. Gas and electricity companies fleecing you. Water companies that just crank up bills rather than fix massive leaks to make easy money. Even quite liberal/conservative people admit that natural monopolies and fundamental infrastructure were better off in state hands, Edited February 20, 2012 by CrashedOutAndBurned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The NHS is going to cost MORE and MORE as the population AGES. It's not a flaw with the NHS, it's basic economics. People need more spent on their healthcare as they get old. Eventually there will be so many old people that more than 20% of the working-age population will work in healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The NHS is going to cost MORE and MORE as the population AGES. It's not a flaw with the NHS, it's basic economics. People need more spent on their healthcare as they get old. Eventually there will be so many old people that more than 20% of the working-age population will work in healthcare. Interestingly, it's also why we need things like voluntary euthanasia, and a major national discussion on who we treat for what illnesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I want a house! Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The NHS is a failure. - It does not make efficient, or even slightly efficient, use of the resources thrown at it. - It's not been copied as it is crap. Some other Countries may have a similar scheme, but none has anything as inefficient and monolithic as the NHS. - It consistently provides healthcare results lower than that of other European Nations. - It is ruled by massive vested interests (Trade Union's of the Doctors and Nurses for a start). - It has a management system from Hell. It's crap. Scrap it, copy the French, or German, or Australian, or Irish, or any other bloody system. The NHS is causing unnecessary suffering and premature death for thousands of people each year - It's time for reform, we can't continue to chuck money at it in the hope it will improve, history tells us it will not. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Interestingly, it's also why we need things like voluntary euthanasia, and a major national discussion on who we treat for what illnesses. Godwins law in 3,2...1.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleverBear Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Am I the only one who doesnt care about this nhs bill. I have no idea whats in it. I suspect 99% of people are the same as me and have no idea. Yet most of them seem willing to form opinions on it despite having no knowledge about it. I dont have an opinion because I dont know anything about it. Those people who heckled lansley on the news were funny. Just completely rude and disgusting people. I dont care about tory or labour...in fact I am probably left wing...but the only political view I have is that people who dont have a clue about things dont insist on shoving their rubbish down my throat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Am I the only one who doesnt care about this nhs bill. I have no idea whats in it. I suspect 99% of people are the same as me and have no idea. Yet most of them seem willing to form opinions on it despite having no knowledge about it. I dont have an opinion because I dont know anything about it. Those people who heckled lansley on the news were funny. Just completely rude and disgusting people. I dont care about tory or labour...in fact I am probably left wing...but the only political view I have is that people who dont have a clue about things dont insist on shoving their rubbish down my throat. Ignorance used to be something to be ashamed of.....read up on it, this stuff is important. I have read it and it will pretty much destroy one of the best things we have in this country - crony capitalism at its worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The NHS is going to cost MORE and MORE as the population AGES. It's not a flaw with the NHS, it's basic economics. People need more spent on their healthcare as they get old. Eventually there will be so many old people that more than 20% of the working-age population will work in healthcare. but I read that we will all die of diabetes/cancer/goatpox/obesity/rubber band syndrome before we reach 50!? Your point is valid of course, and paints a scary realistic picture. It is/will be a temporary one though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdman Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 What kind of free market works in healthcare? The private insurance market most definitely doesn't. As healthcare inflation takes root, insurers increase complexity, co-payments and exclusions. Their corporate goal becomes to identify the healthiest people alive and offer them the most expensive insurance they can. That is not what we want from a healthcare market. The scam has got so monstrous in the USA that Obamacare now mandates healthy people must purchase insurance. It is a straightforward milking of the citizen by corporation and Government - absolutely no free market benefits whatsoever. The Singapore model mentioned earlier sounds intriguing. About the NHS, politicians have been decrying its inefficiency for many decades, even as it is objectively one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the World. The coalition ruse over productivity is that latest example of this. The drop in productivity had to happen because queues were so long and wards were so full. That drop in productivity came with an improvement in quality, which is what everyone was crying out for in 1997. Given we are one of the few systems that is free at the point of access (including it seems to most foreigners), and we all no from our economics that lowering price reduces demand, I think the NHS does remarkably well. Those who want a free market in healthcare can go private if they wish. They could reflect that at least their subsidy to the NHS is less than the US taxpayer subsidy to Medicare/ Medicaid, even though the NHS treats a vastly higher percentage of the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 How about the NHS always being there for emergencies, i.e. broken legs, car accidents, heart attacks but a limit on all other care at £100k per person's life. If you need more than £100k the only route is via a charity or sell any assets you have. Certainly there is a debate that all parties refuse to have regarding what the limit of the NHS is, and how much responsibility for health should lie with the individual, but I think a straight-forward financial limit is not necessarily the best or only option. Personally, having heard some of the horror stories my wife comes back with, some patients need to be told to eff-off and die. Disruptive, refusing treatment, and doing nothing to alter their lifestyles that have got them into such a mess in the first place. That aside, the Cuban model has always struck me as a good one, with much more integration of the various services. This is quite a good appraisal: www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk I particularly like Managerial system without professional managers - All sites we visited were managed and led by professional practitioners (doctors and nurses). This was true of the Ministry of Health officials as well as the Ministers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 That aside, the Cuban model has always struck me as a good one, with much more integration of the various services. It is not. From WHO Data: Country: Cuba Expenditure as a % of GDP 11.8% Life expectancy M/F : 76/80 Probability of dying under 5 per 1000 birth : 6 Country: UK Expenditure: 9.3% (and with an open border....) Life expectancy: 78/82 Probability of dying under 5 per 1000 : 5 Country: Singapore: Expenditure: 3.9% Life expectancy: 79/84 Probability of dying under 5 per 1000 : 3 Country: South Korea 6.5% 77/83 Probability of dying under 5 per 1000 : 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) The Singapore model mentioned earlier sounds intriguing. About the NHS, politicians have been decrying its inefficiency for many decades, even as it is objectively one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the World. The coalition ruse over productivity is that latest example of this. The drop in productivity had to happen because queues were so long and wards were so full. That drop in productivity came with an improvement in quality, which is what everyone was crying out for in 1997. Given we are one of the few systems that is free at the point of access (including it seems to most foreigners), and we all no from our economics that lowering price reduces demand, I think the NHS does remarkably well. Those who want a free market in healthcare can go private if they wish. They could reflect that at least their subsidy to the NHS is less than the US taxpayer subsidy to Medicare/ Medicaid, even though the NHS treats a vastly higher percentage of the population. One of the strength of Singapore/HK healthcare is that the GP is totally privately run and one GP can be seen for about 1 - 2 hour wages ( SGD20 ). The least cost effective part of the NHS system is the GP, which are expensive and non customer orientated. If one suffers from expensive illness, NHS would be a far better place to be (as this part of the care in Singapore is not cheap, and are often funded through selling of one's asset. There is a compulsory MediSave saving plan deducted from pay). By being pragmatic against these outline cases, Singapore manage to keep the cost under control. The moral ethnics of this is obviously differ from person to person. Essentially, Singapore ration at a realistic level about how much you can expect other to pay for your healthcare. And of course, Singapore doesn't operate an open border.. Edited February 20, 2012 by easy2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Am I the only one who doesnt care about this nhs bill. I have no idea whats in it. I suspect 99% of people are the same as me and have no idea. Yet most of them seem willing to form opinions on it despite having no knowledge about it. I dont have an opinion because I dont know anything about it. Those people who heckled lansley on the news were funny. Just completely rude and disgusting people. I dont care about tory or labour...in fact I am probably left wing...but the only political view I have is that people who dont have a clue about things dont insist on shoving their rubbish down my throat. I agree that most people have little idea of what the changes are or will mean......they are fearful of change, fear of the unknown. I suspect that we will never be told the whole story only bits and pieces bit like Chinese whispers....it is something that will evolve, a gradual process so as not to shock the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 What kind of free market works in healthcare? Uh, a free market? No restriction on the supply of doctors, no restriction on the supply of drugs or other treatments, no restriction on who can buy drugs. That kind of free market. Healthcare is one of the most heavily regulated and centrally controlled 'markets' on the planet and people complain that it's a disaster. Well, duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Uh, a free market? No restriction on the supply of doctors, no restriction on the supply of drugs or other treatments, no restriction on who can buy drugs. That kind of free market. Healthcare is one of the most heavily regulated and centrally controlled 'markets' on the planet and people complain that it's a disaster. Well, duh. Do you actually think healthcare outcomes would be better if I could set myself up as a doctor and prescribe my own home made potions without any regulation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Do you actually think healthcare outcomes would be better if I could set myself up as a doctor and prescribe my own home made potions without any regulation? as long as you couldnt hide behind state mandated law or socialised liability then id have a hard time seeing how things could be worse, but if you could socialise losses and privatise profits then id have a hard time seeing how things could be better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.