|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Oct 18, 2019 18:36:32 GMT
The NHS is free at the point of access but it is also not very competitive in its standards of care.
Preventable deaths is a concept that covers any condition that resulted in death that should, with the appropriate intervention at the right time, have been able to be avoided. It is a useful marker in determining the success of a healthcare system along with life expectancy and other metrics.
The UK NHS is not even in the top 20 for this metric. It is 30th, making it one of the worst in the developed world.
Over the last 10 years, other metrics have slipped too. Infant mortality is on the rise, time for referrals to cancer specialists is at an all time high. Waits for operations are also at an all time high and A&E and ambulance performance targets are at an all time low, despite them increasing the target time for 999 responses. Mental health services have been shredded. Social care is similar
Much of the NHS is private. GP services have always been private, similar to dental services. Varying degrees of privitisation exist elsewhere. Some hospitals offering outpatient services and operations are private, NHS direct (now 111) is private. Even ambulance services employ private ambulance companies to run ambulances for them.
The NHS is very good at a lot of things but it is slipping significantly behind the rest of the developed world. I say this both as someone who is alive because of them and who works on the coal face of their operation but also as someone who recognises that the cost per person afforded to the NHS is not drastically lower than many other European countries.
I believe privatisation has had a negative effect of standards but I do not believe privatisation in and of itself is the issue here. Rather I believe that the introduction of private services whilst maintaining a free at point of access national insurance based system with an ever stretching budget is.
I believe the NHS should be funded very differently.
What do you think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 19:27:23 GMT
The NHS is free at the point of access but it is also not very competitive in its standards of care. Preventable deaths is a concept that covers any condition that resulted in death that should, with the appropriate intervention at the right time, have been able to be avoided. It is a useful marker in determining the success of a healthcare system along with life expectancy and other metrics. The UK NHS is not even in the top 20 for this metric. It is 30th, making it one of the worst in the developed world. Over the last 10 years, other metrics have slipped too. Infant mortality is on the rise, time for referrals to cancer specialists is at an all time high. Waits for operations are also at an all time high and A&E and ambulance performance targets are at an all time low, despite them increasing the target time for 999 responses. Mental health services have been shredded. Social care is similar Much of the NHS is private. GP services have always been private, similar to dental services. Varying degrees of privitisation exist elsewhere. Some hospitals offering outpatient services and operations are private, NHS direct (now 111) is private. Even ambulance services employ private ambulance companies to run ambulances for them. The NHS is very good at a lot of things but it is slipping significantly behind the rest of the developed world. I say this both as someone who is alive because of them and who works on the coal face of their operation but also as someone who recognises that the cost per person afforded to the NHS is not drastically lower than many other European countries. I believe privatisation has had a negative effect of standards but I do not believe privatisation in and of itself is the issue here. Rather I believe that the introduction of private services whilst maintaining a free at point of access national insurance based system with an ever stretching budget is. I believe the NHS should be funded very differently. What do you think? It will surprise no one, I suspect, that I believe any civilised society should make provision for the health care needs of its population. This is costly (like housing and wducation),so whatever our political beliefs affordability is a fundamental truth. But, what the Tories have always done is to run down our health services (at least since 1972.) All at the time of rising productivity and gdp. So run it down, regardless of gdp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 20:07:17 GMT
The NHS is free at the point of access but it is also not very competitive in its standards of care. Preventable deaths is a concept that covers any condition that resulted in death that should, with the appropriate intervention at the right time, have been able to be avoided. It is a useful marker in determining the success of a healthcare system along with life expectancy and other metrics. The UK NHS is not even in the top 20 for this metric. It is 30th, making it one of the worst in the developed world. Over the last 10 years, other metrics have slipped too. Infant mortality is on the rise, time for referrals to cancer specialists is at an all time high. Waits for operations are also at an all time high and A&E and ambulance performance targets are at an all time low, despite them increasing the target time for 999 responses. Mental health services have been shredded. Social care is similar Much of the NHS is private. GP services have always been private, similar to dental services. Varying degrees of privitisation exist elsewhere. Some hospitals offering outpatient services and operations are private, NHS direct (now 111) is private. Even ambulance services employ private ambulance companies to run ambulances for them. The NHS is very good at a lot of things but it is slipping significantly behind the rest of the developed world. I say this both as someone who is alive because of them and who works on the coal face of their operation but also as someone who recognises that the cost per person afforded to the NHS is not drastically lower than many other European countries. I believe privatisation has had a negative effect of standards but I do not believe privatisation in and of itself is the issue here. Rather I believe that the introduction of private services whilst maintaining a free at point of access national insurance based system with an ever stretching budget is. I believe the NHS should be funded very differently. What do you think? I have extensive experience as a user of both the NHS and the German health system. I think most on here are aware of how the NHS works, so I'll try and give some examples of how the German system works (to the best of my knowledge. The numbers may not be 100% accurate, but they give a good indication) In Germany, everyone has to have health insurance. There are two levels, the government run health insurance or private insurance. If you earn under 40,000 euros a year then you have to be in the government insurance scheme. After 40,000 you can then transfer to a private scheme, or stay with the government one if you so wish. The government one is cheaper, but you do tend to get faster and better care with the private schemes. Government Health Insurance costs are about 15% of your salary. The more you earn, the more you pay, up to a certain limit. The unemployed obviously get their's paid by the government. I'm not sure about the cost of Private Insurance but I believe it's about 50% higher. You have to additionally pay for subscriptions, with 5 euro being the base costs per item although a higher charge is levied for higher priced stuff. All health care providers are private. All hospital's, ambulances, dentist's, opticians etc etc. The government do not run any health services. The government strictly control the costs. The insurance companies just cannot charge whatever they want. Like in the UK, the government have a health budget. The government insurance company have to work within that budget meaning costs do not spiral out of control. This also means that there is a certain amount of competition between government and private schemes as if the private get too expensive, then people will stop using them and just use the government scheme. In both the NHS and the German system, the food is terrible. From my experience, UK hospitals are in better shape than German hospitals in terms of staffing, equipment and general decor of the hospitals. Both systems rely heavily on staff from abroad. I don't think I've ever spoken to a single German nurse in hospital. The doctor who performed my heart work was Russian. In Germany, hospitals are there to fix people. If you want to see a Heart specialist, or lung specialist, maybe it's easier to just say a specialist, you then visit them at their surgeries. No need to go anywhere near a hospital. Germany is an insurance based health care system, the UK isn't. Germany has a Gold Standard health care service. The UK doesn't. In Germany you know exactly what you are paying for health care as it is there on your wage slip. In the UK you have no idea how much you're paying. I am not saying anything is right or wrong, just giving my views based on my experience and what I know. When it comes to insurance based health care don't get dragged into the old argument about the US style. In the UK, maybe someone earning more than, let's say, 100k a year MUST have private insurance and not have access to the 'free' NHS? Why should millionaires get their ingrown toe nails treated for free, if you get my drift. The 'free at point of service' is a bit of a myth though. The NHS is not free.
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Oct 21, 2019 6:56:01 GMT
I remember talking to one old boy, when I lived and worked in Germany. He wasn`t at all impressed with the standard of health care, offered by his country. Three days he waited to have a bullet taken out of him at Stalingrad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 9:39:27 GMT
Front line care is still excellent in my experience but there are obviously inefficiencies and issues in various areas which inevitably point towards a degree of privatisation if the NHS cannot fix itself. Should the state fund IVF? How much is wasted on health tourism?
I can’t recall the date the NHS came into being but the comparison between then and now is astonishing. During regular hospital appointments and procedures in both Southmead and the Bristol Heart Institute it staggers me the amount of hi-tech equipment being used - large scanners must cost millions for example. Compare that to back in the day when it was just nurses with a bottle of penicillin! Those wanting a Gold Star health service completely funded by the state with an ageing population and free support to foreign nationals are just completely deluded.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadontour on Oct 27, 2019 2:56:27 GMT
NHS spending per person is about 30% less in the UK than the systems in Germany, France, Norway etc. They can afford it because tax rates are higher.
The NHS spends money bidding against private companies for NHS contracts.
Private health companies look to make as much profit as possible so a lot of NHS money goes to private company shareholders rather than care.
The Tories abolition of bursaries for nursing students has led to a severe fall in the number training.
As the saying goes 'You can't trust the Tories with the NHS'.
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Oct 27, 2019 13:08:25 GMT
Privatise the NHS and let financial natural selection do the rest. It'll cut down on those scabby poor people who can't afford health care. Bloody peasants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 13:32:35 GMT
Front line care is still excellent in my experience but there are obviously inefficiencies and issues in various areas which inevitably point towards a degree of privatisation if the NHS cannot fix itself. Should the state fund IVF? How much is wasted on health tourism? I can’t recall the date the NHS came into being but the comparison between then and now is astonishing. During regular hospital appointments and procedures in both Southmead and the Bristol Heart Institute it staggers me the amount of hi-tech equipment being used - large scanners must cost millions for example. Compare that to back in the day when it was just nurses with a bottle of penicillin! Those wanting a Gold Star health service completely funded by the state with an ageing population and free support to foreign nationals are just completely deluded. Given that this opinion appears devoid of any factual basis So, the latest figures from the World Bank, the number are for 2016. Total health spend as a % of gdp Australia 9.25 Belgium 10.04 Canada 10.53 Denmark 10.35 France 11.54 Germany 11.14 Japan 10.93 Sweden 10.95 UK 9.76 USA 17.07
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 15:52:09 GMT
Privatise the NHS and let financial natural selection do the rest. It'll cut down on those scabby poor people who can't afford health care. Bloody peasants. Everyone has health care in Germany, and it is insurance based and all private. Don't get sucked into the false narrative that insurance based systems are all like the US.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 15:58:01 GMT
Front line care is still excellent in my experience but there are obviously inefficiencies and issues in various areas which inevitably point towards a degree of privatisation if the NHS cannot fix itself. Should the state fund IVF? How much is wasted on health tourism? I can’t recall the date the NHS came into being but the comparison between then and now is astonishing. During regular hospital appointments and procedures in both Southmead and the Bristol Heart Institute it staggers me the amount of hi-tech equipment being used - large scanners must cost millions for example. Compare that to back in the day when it was just nurses with a bottle of penicillin! Those wanting a Gold Star health service completely funded by the state with an ageing population and free support to foreign nationals are just completely deluded. Given that this opinion appears devoid of any factual basis So, the latest figures from the World Bank, the number are for 2016. Total health spend as a % of gdp Australia 9.25 Belgium 10.04 Canada 10.53 Denmark 10.35 France 11.54 Germany 11.14 Japan 10.93 Sweden 10.95 UK 9.76 USA 17.07 It is your black & white world again Oldie. It is not as simple as you think is it. In Germany, all health care is insurance based, and the cost of that insurance is a percentage of your wages. Earnings are far higher in Germany than they are in the UK. I still can't believe you had 25 rip roaring years in the city yet you are still unable to grasp simple economic facts. Using GDP figures is really inaccurate isn't it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 16:23:36 GMT
Given that this opinion appears devoid of any factual basis So, the latest figures from the World Bank, the number are for 2016. Total health spend as a % of gdp Australia 9.25 Belgium 10.04 Canada 10.53 Denmark 10.35 France 11.54 Germany 11.14 Japan 10.93 Sweden 10.95 UK 9.76 USA 17.07 It is your black & white world again Oldie. It is not as simple as you think is it. In Germany, all health care is insurance based, and the cost of that insurance is a percentage of your wages. Earnings are far higher in Germany than they are in the UK. I still can't believe you had 25 rip roaring years in the city yet you are still unable to grasp simple economic facts. Using GDP figures is really inaccurate isn't it. I think Nobby, if you wish to continue to make personal jibes, (relentlessly, like some tantric chant on acid) you might not want to water through your own doorway. The world bank figures are for the total spend on health care regardless of origin and method. Take the USA, you don't think that the government there actually spends over 17% of gdp from tax revenues do you? Perhaps you do, didn't you claim recently you were looking at share valuations on a company? The mind boggles. Taking TOTAL spend as a % of gdp ignores the method of source of funding, thus removing anomalies. Leaving the political will and ideology in sharp relief
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,550
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 27, 2019 18:19:55 GMT
Another way of seeing it is per capita. United States $10,224 Switzerland $8,009 Germany $5,728 Sweden $5,511 Austria $5,440 Netherlands $5,386 Comparable Country Average $5,280 France $4,902 Canada $4,826 Belgium $4,774 Japan $4,717 Australia $4,543 United Kingdom $4,246 www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 18:20:49 GMT
NHS spending per person is about 30% less in the UK than the systems in Germany, France, Norway etc. They can afford it because tax rates are higher. The NHS spends money bidding against private companies for NHS contracts. Private health companies look to make as much profit as possible so a lot of NHS money goes to private company shareholders rather than care. The Tories abolition of bursaries for nursing students has led to a severe fall in the number training. As the saying goes 'You can't trust the Tories with the NHS'. Do you know how we compare to others in respect of state benefits? Sickness, unemployment, housing benefit etc.....
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,550
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 27, 2019 18:23:58 GMT
Given that this opinion appears devoid of any factual basis So, the latest figures from the World Bank, the number are for 2016. Total health spend as a % of gdp Australia 9.25 Belgium 10.04 Canada 10.53 Denmark 10.35 France 11.54 Germany 11.14 Japan 10.93 Sweden 10.95 UK 9.76 USA 17.07 It is your black & white world again Oldie. It is not as simple as you think is it. In Germany, all health care is insurance based, and the cost of that insurance is a percentage of your wages. Earnings are far higher in Germany than they are in the UK. I still can't believe you had 25 rip roaring years in the city yet you are still unable to grasp simple economic facts. Using GDP figures is really inaccurate isn't it. Out of interest, if it is based on wages, how do the unemployed or those too ill to work pay? I presume children are in effect, subsidised by the adults.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2019 19:08:12 GMT
It is your black & white world again Oldie. It is not as simple as you think is it. In Germany, all health care is insurance based, and the cost of that insurance is a percentage of your wages. Earnings are far higher in Germany than they are in the UK. I still can't believe you had 25 rip roaring years in the city yet you are still unable to grasp simple economic facts. Using GDP figures is really inaccurate isn't it. Out of interest, if it is based on wages, how do the unemployed or those too ill to work pay? I presume children are in effect, subsidised by the adults. Unemployed or those ill have their insurance paid by the government. Children are not subsidised as such, as my son is automatically covered via my health insurance. Nobody is missed out.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,550
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 27, 2019 23:35:34 GMT
Cheers Nobby.
A quick Google search suggests that German insurance rates are 15.5% of salary, 7.3% employers and 8.2% employees.
The average UK salary is £29,000 (😶) and there are 32m people working. In very crude terms that would generate £144bn compared to £125bn.
As I said though, a crude comparison for illustrative purposes only.
As a funding generator it may help but I would suggest that the differences are more than the headline figures.
Personally I would welcome tax clarity and swapping health funding from general taxation to NI may help, perhaps change to 20% NI and 12% income tax for other government spend.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Oct 29, 2019 8:10:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 15:17:25 GMT
Cheers Nobby. A quick Google search suggests that German insurance rates are 15.5% of salary, 7.3% employers and 8.2% employees. The average UK salary is £29,000 (😶) and there are 32m people working. In very crude terms that would generate £144bn compared to £125bn. As I said though, a crude comparison for illustrative purposes only. As a funding generator it may help but I would suggest that the differences are more than the headline figures.Personally I would welcome tax clarity and swapping health funding from general taxation to NI may help, perhaps change to 20% NI and 12% income tax for other government spend. This is what I keep saying. It is not the amount of money you plough into the NHS, but how that money is spent. To all ends and purposes it does appear as though spending on Health is pretty similar between the UK and Germany. The difference is that Germany has a Gold Standard Health Service. The UK doesn't.
|
|
stuart1974
Proper Gas
Posts: 12,550
Member is Online
|
Post by stuart1974 on Oct 29, 2019 15:31:30 GMT
Cheers Nobby. A quick Google search suggests that German insurance rates are 15.5% of salary, 7.3% employers and 8.2% employees. The average UK salary is £29,000 (😶) and there are 32m people working. In very crude terms that would generate £144bn compared to £125bn. As I said though, a crude comparison for illustrative purposes only. As a funding generator it may help but I would suggest that the differences are more than the headline figures.Personally I would welcome tax clarity and swapping health funding from general taxation to NI may help, perhaps change to 20% NI and 12% income tax for other government spend. This is what I keep saying. It is not the amount of money you plough into the NHS, but how that money is spent. To all ends and purposes it does appear as though spending on Health is pretty similar between the UK and Germany. The difference is that Germany has a Gold Standard Health Service. The UK doesn't. According to the figures I posted above, Germany spends $1,300 more per head. I agree that it is also how it is spent but by most metrics, Germany spends a decent amount more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 8:37:01 GMT
Remember those calling for drugs to be legalized? These are just two NHS reports from today. "THE number of people being taken to hospital after taking "zombie" drug Spice and other strains of cannabis has more than doubled since the start of the decade. Figures show the number of NHS admissions in the past year is up six times on the level in 2008." Hospital admissions
How about Cocaine? "MIDDLE-aged cocaine users are being rushed to hospital at a record rate. Cases involving those in their 50s and 60s hit 1,774 last year — three times the number five years ago, latest NHS figures show." Cocaine
|
|