A somewhat misleading headline from the, Telegraph...
Scaremongering? Don't know what its like in Zummerset but where I am, you have more chance of landing 6 numbers on the Saturday night lotto than getting an appointment to see your GP.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the present model is sustainable - it needs to be financed better. The reality is that we have,in spite of all the denigration,the most efficient health care system in the world. Health care has to be financed one way or the other - the alternative is to leave people without affordable health care - as in the USA for example. The NHS is the cheapest way of doing this. The big problem with the NHS is that it does not permit large insurance companies and other health care organisations to make large profits which pisses off the supporters of the Conservative party They want a large slice of it - for years as an overseas resident with private health insurance I lived with the threat of a major illness.If you think that private health insurance will cover you read the small print - limit of 12 months treatment for any illness,no cover if I had a motorcycle,skiing or parachuting accident etc. I have just completed 20 radiotherapy treatments at the Western General hospital in Edinburgh - state of the art equipment, highly professional but informal staff,excellent facility. I am grateful for what we have and like most Scots will defend the NHS to the death. The English seem to be having big problems that we do not have here but they are fixable.
The NHS is the cheapest way of doing this.
Nice one NAB (below) I have at least one suggestion that goes towards fixing some of it. Start charging a refunadable deposit for all appointments with GPs, dentists, consultants etc; forfeit if you fail to attend; and, start charging people who attend A&E with non-A&E ailments.
Sorry to hear you've been unwell, glad to hear you're getting treatment.
However - chucking brickbats about Tory links to insurance companies is a slogan not a solution. UK Government spending is currently of the order of £720Bn or so, or which around £140Bn is spent on the NHS (plus £31Bn on "social care"), according to the Grauniad, albeit with 2013 budget figures.
Budget 2013: the government's spending and income visualised | News | The Guardian
There's nearly £100Bn on education and well over £200Bn on welfare, which includes pensions, another demand-led expense. That's a total of about £450Bn (63% of all spending) on those three departments. All parties are guaranteeing to ring-fence at least two of those.
The "income" from tax etc is £612Bn. That's a gap between spend and income of over £100Bn - the deficit - which incurs an interest payment of £51Bn pa to service.
Now - what is incontrovertible is that people are living longer and that there are more people in the country both as a consequence of this and of immigration. That means the demand on the NHS is going to inexorably rise.
The ageing element of that population is also going to require proportionately more health services, not least because the expectation is that people can be cured or "fixed". Trouble is that some of those treatments are ever more expensive, which adds yet more cost. Whether they should be as expensive is a legitimate subject for debate - we've all had the conversation with the chemist that goes you could have these for X, but as it's on scrip, you'll have to pay Y. Blame "Big Pharma" if you're that way inclined, but don't then complain when they stop investing in new drugs if their shareholder returns are reduced. Then you've got dementia, where otherwise healthy folk need near constant care.
All of the above points to a significant increase in health care cost (and knock-on in pensions etc). It's inexorable. However, we already spend much more (>10%) than we bring in taxes etc. So where is that money coming from?
"Soak the rich" is the usual cry, but "the rich" are mobile (as evidenced by the French influx to the UK atm). "Soak the evil US corporations" is the next one, but they too are mobile and if they relocate, they take their jobs and the associated income tax with them. "Alright cut everything else then", is the last resort. Unfortunately "everything else" that is not ring-fenced is pretty much bottomed out in any case - DfID budget of £11Bn would stave off issues for a year or so - which means you've got two options.
1. Find alternative sources of funding
2. Limit treatment
Both the above could take numerous forms - don't have to be insurance -based, could actually penalise the likes of those who call ambulances for a bad headache. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the debate is had and had properly. The current level of debate could be encapsulated as :
None of which are helpful or will fix the problem.
However - chucking brickbats about Tory links to insurance companies is a slogan not a solution. UK Government spending is currently of the order of £720Bn or so, or which around £140Bn is spent on the NHS (plus £31Bn on "social care"), according to the Grauniad, albeit with 2013 budget figures.
Budget 2013: the government's spending and income visualised | News | The Guardian
There's nearly £100Bn on education and well over £200Bn on welfare, which includes pensions, another demand-led expense. That's a total of about £450Bn (63% of all spending) on those three departments. All parties are guaranteeing to ring-fence at least two of those.
The "income" from tax etc is £612Bn. That's a gap between spend and income of over £100Bn - the deficit - which incurs an interest payment of £51Bn pa to service.
Now - what is incontrovertible is that people are living longer and that there are more people in the country both as a consequence of this and of immigration. That means the demand on the NHS is going to inexorably rise.
The ageing element of that population is also going to require proportionately more health services, not least because the expectation is that people can be cured or "fixed". Trouble is that some of those treatments are ever more expensive, which adds yet more cost. Whether they should be as expensive is a legitimate subject for debate - we've all had the conversation with the chemist that goes you could have these for X, but as it's on scrip, you'll have to pay Y. Blame "Big Pharma" if you're that way inclined, but don't then complain when they stop investing in new drugs if their shareholder returns are reduced. Then you've got dementia, where otherwise healthy folk need near constant care.
All of the above points to a significant increase in health care cost (and knock-on in pensions etc). It's inexorable. However, we already spend much more (>10%) than we bring in taxes etc. So where is that money coming from?
"Soak the rich" is the usual cry, but "the rich" are mobile (as evidenced by the French influx to the UK atm). "Soak the evil US corporations" is the next one, but they too are mobile and if they relocate, they take their jobs and the associated income tax with them. "Alright cut everything else then", is the last resort. Unfortunately "everything else" that is not ring-fenced is pretty much bottomed out in any case - DfID budget of £11Bn would stave off issues for a year or so - which means you've got two options.
1. Find alternative sources of funding
2. Limit treatment
Both the above could take numerous forms - don't have to be insurance -based, could actually penalise the likes of those who call ambulances for a bad headache. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the debate is had and had properly. The current level of debate could be encapsulated as :
- "Evil Tory cuts"
- "Tax and spend labour"
- "It could all be fixed if they just brought back Matrons".
None of which are helpful or will fix the problem.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 6th Jan 2015 at 11:55.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland Pulfrew The NHS is the cheapest in the developed world - recently an American institute declared it the most efficient. The USA for example spends more than 2 1/2 times per head the amount the UK spends for worse outcomes - higher infant mortality,higher child mortality,higher maternal mortality ,lower lifespan. This from a so- called efficient private health care system. Have a look at WHO figures - the NHS may not be the best in Europe but it is the least expensive. There really is no alternative to an NHS - good health care for all rather than the best for the wealthy few. If it requires an increase in tax to fund it that is what should be done
If it requires an increase in tax to fund it that is what should be done
The NHS in its current form is simply unaffordable and all those politicians who keeping vying with each other to guarantee ring-fenced budgets and ever increasing expenditure are part of the problem. As I said the British public have to be weaned off the belief that the NHS is there to provide everything, free of charge. It cannot go on.
And now back to military equipment sales.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ronald Pulfrew - our overstaffed and inefficient NHS costs us less per head than any other health care provider in Europe or the USA - how can they afford it and the UK cannot?Health care is not cheap but is essential after all it is taxpayers who avail themselves of the service they pay for - it is only 'free' at the point of delivery. Of course waste and bad practice should be eliminated but do not throw the baby out with the bath water. If we get rid of the NHS taxpayers will be paying considerably more than they do now so I am a little puzzled at that philosophy. Margaret Thatcher privatised the railways and that was a huge success was it not? Highest rail fares in Europe even with subsidies much higher than when they were nationalised.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nor do I believe that an organisation that employs 1 in 60 of the entire (yes entire, not just working age) population of the country is affordable, efficient or sustainable
I'd rather cut back on Defense or overseas aid than cut staffing in the NHS. The amount the MOD wastes every day is obscene.
Vendee/bcg
Well you too are part of the problem then. If 1:60 seems reasonable you are living in cloud cuckoo land. It is not affordable and it is unsustainable. I am afraid the "free at point of use" thing is part of the problem; give people something for free and it will get abused. Its a simple fact of life. The NHS gets abused because it is "free" (£120 billion free mind) we have to change the way it operates as the current model is broken - and throwing more money at it is not the solution!
As to MoD waste, care to substantiate that?
Well you too are part of the problem then. If 1:60 seems reasonable you are living in cloud cuckoo land. It is not affordable and it is unsustainable. I am afraid the "free at point of use" thing is part of the problem; give people something for free and it will get abused. Its a simple fact of life. The NHS gets abused because it is "free" (£120 billion free mind) we have to change the way it operates as the current model is broken - and throwing more money at it is not the solution!
As to MoD waste, care to substantiate that?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you too are part of the problem then
As to MoD waste, care to substantiate that?
I can offer a way to cut tens of billions of pounds off the cost of the NHS. Interested?
Simple, get people to take responsibility for their own health. Educate and persuade them to eat healthily, and exercise moderately, and the benefits will be enormous. Obesity is a relatively modern phenomena, caused largely by a high sugar diet, and costs the NHS, and country generally, billions every year. Type 2 diabetes is diet induced, and there is even one train of thought gaining ground that says that Alzheimers is type 3 diabetes, and therefore can also be greatly reduced/eliminated by a proper diet.
Imagine the cost savings to the country if the population is fitter and healthier, reducing drastically costs associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes and alzheimers as just a couple of examples.
In my local area every school day at lunchtime you can watch the supermarkets filling up with kids buying sugary crap for their lunch. What hope have they in later life with that start and mindset on nutrition? A friend of mines daughter in law was drinking two large bottles of coke a day. Not surprisingly she was overweight with poor health and is a revolving door patient at her local GP and A&E. She alone must cost the NHS thousands of pounds every year.
I saw a frightening statistic recently on the number of households that only have a microwave in them as a method of cooking food - indicative that fast/junk food is pretty much all that is eaten.
Spending taxpayers money to preserve the health of a society whose citizens do their part in contributing to maintaining their own health is one thing, spending money to deal with health issues which are largely self inflicted (knowingly or unknowingly) by citizens who abdicate responsibility for their health to the state is a different issue - and quite frankly is madness!
The general state of health of the nation is declining rapidly, not through disease, but through lifestyle choices, and it is costing the country billions of pounds of taxpayers money. Just one illustration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-30712231
Medication and surgery is not the answer for this particular problem. Remember:
PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!!!
Simple, get people to take responsibility for their own health. Educate and persuade them to eat healthily, and exercise moderately, and the benefits will be enormous. Obesity is a relatively modern phenomena, caused largely by a high sugar diet, and costs the NHS, and country generally, billions every year. Type 2 diabetes is diet induced, and there is even one train of thought gaining ground that says that Alzheimers is type 3 diabetes, and therefore can also be greatly reduced/eliminated by a proper diet.
Imagine the cost savings to the country if the population is fitter and healthier, reducing drastically costs associated with obesity, type 2 diabetes and alzheimers as just a couple of examples.
In my local area every school day at lunchtime you can watch the supermarkets filling up with kids buying sugary crap for their lunch. What hope have they in later life with that start and mindset on nutrition? A friend of mines daughter in law was drinking two large bottles of coke a day. Not surprisingly she was overweight with poor health and is a revolving door patient at her local GP and A&E. She alone must cost the NHS thousands of pounds every year.
I saw a frightening statistic recently on the number of households that only have a microwave in them as a method of cooking food - indicative that fast/junk food is pretty much all that is eaten.
Spending taxpayers money to preserve the health of a society whose citizens do their part in contributing to maintaining their own health is one thing, spending money to deal with health issues which are largely self inflicted (knowingly or unknowingly) by citizens who abdicate responsibility for their health to the state is a different issue - and quite frankly is madness!
The general state of health of the nation is declining rapidly, not through disease, but through lifestyle choices, and it is costing the country billions of pounds of taxpayers money. Just one illustration:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-30712231
Medication and surgery is not the answer for this particular problem. Remember:
PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!!!
Last edited by Biggus; 8th Jan 2015 at 08:30.
Generally agree with you, Biggus, but as somebody who has a history of Type 2 diabetes in the family and while moderately overweight has seen his medication increase to keep his own Type 2 under control, I do not agree that it is entirely diet-induced. Not always.
Persuade the food producers to stop loading everything with sugar would also be a good idea, but I'll try to stay off that particular soap box.
Persuade the food producers to stop loading everything with sugar would also be a good idea, but I'll try to stay off that particular soap box.
