Save the Economy? SCRAP the NHS!

Castleman

dervish wrote: »

In fact we should be incentivising certain groups of people to leave and make for sapce for the decent majority.

Goodbye then Dervish. Where are you going to? - seeing as it is very obvious you are NOT in the decent majority.

Let's hope wherever you're going, they are more welcoming than you are yourself!








Don't forget to send us a postcard.

lostinrates

misskool wrote: »

America is exceptionally good is because they have lots of money for it. The rich can afford to pay for the best ergo, they get the best research money can buy for what they suffer from.

This I agree with. But research done for the rich benefits treatment for the same diseases in the less rich: eventually.
The diseases of the rich; eg, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, bowel cancer, etc have more money thrown at them than the real causes of death in the world (malaria, dengue fever, TB).
Again, no dispute from me. But I think one could draw the same comparison in any sector and any product type at all. Health is more emotive, because its almost as fundamental as money;)

The danger I find when people go private is to demand a diagnosis even though the doctors can't find one. Although, with the NHS, there is a lot of missed diagnosis because the doctors are so busy. I would like the NHS to be able to employ more front line staff capable of screening people so the best doctors can spend the maximum amount of time doing what they do best, take a best educated guess at what's wrong with the patient based on symptoms.

I don't know about the thing with privatr health finding illness (I've raised before the ncient Chinese sytem where the doctor ws on a retiner, but his wages were lost if his employers became ill after following his advice). What I noticed about the private healthcare I have had, s that its more ''holistic'': they want every thing to work at its optimum. I'm confident this wadn't for their financial beenfit: their fulltime employer was my benefactor..so no gain to them whatsoever.

98sidney

It will be easy to get the NHS Back on its feet and that is to take it right back for what it was started for, to help people who couldnt afford care to get well again, and no more. also how the wards were run back then should be used again, and bring back the EN thats why we are short of nurses, because they scrapped them..
If you look what is available on the NHS you can see why we lose money, since when is having breast implants a necessary part of treatment that can be paid for by the NHS..

misskool

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't know about the thing with privatr health finding illness (I've raised before the ncient Chinese sytem where the doctor ws on a retiner, but his wages were lost if his employers became ill after following his advice). What I noticed about the private healthcare I have had, s that its more ''holistic'': they want every thing to work at its optimum. I'm confident this wadn't for their financial beenfit: their fulltime employer was my benefactor..so no gain to them whatsoever.

I'm not against private health care (in fact, in my birth country, I've never used the state system) but I do think that you get the "holistic" approach because your practitioners have time to listen to you and have time to think and money to treat you in ways which may not be commonly approved. Private health care is great for those who don't like the one size fits all system.

At the end of the day, it's all about the money. You pays for it, you get it your way.

vivatifosi

misskool wrote: »

The danger I find when people go private is to demand a diagnosis even though the doctors can't find one. Although, with the NHS, there is a lot of missed diagnosis because the doctors are so busy. I would like the NHS to be able to employ more front line staff capable of screening people so the best doctors can spend the maximum amount of time doing what they do best, take a best educated guess at what's wrong with the patient based on symptoms.

I paid for a private diagnosis from the US even though I was being treated in the UK under the NHS. My problem was that the UK's testing methods were not as thorough as the US's. All the NHS could tell me was that if I was still alive in 15 years then I probably didn't have cancer. I paid for the latest genetic testing from the US and got a firm diagnosis. I found out about the diagnosis from a US based cancer support group. The NHS was a bit reticent at first, as they weren't aware of the test, but thankfully one of the docs knew the people in America behind the test which paved the way for me to pay for it.

Personally I feel this is one area where the NHS should be a bit more flexible, they should allow people who want to use their savings to buy the latest non-NICE drugs (providing they have been clinically approved in other countries such as EU states/US) while being treated on the NHS. Similarly they should allow access to non-NHS testing providing it is from a recognised and peer reviewed source.

Having said that, I do appreciate that some patients may see the private sector as an opportunity to answer the unanswerable in terms of diagnosis, or cure the incurable.

misskool

vivatifosi wrote: »

I paid for a private diagnosis from the US even though I was being treated in the UK under the NHS. My problem was that the UK's testing methods were not as thorough as the US's. All the NHS could tell me was that if I was still alive in 15 years then I probably didn't have cancer. I paid for the latest genetic testing from the US and got a firm diagnosis. I found out about the diagnosis from a US based cancer support group. The NHS was a bit reticent at first, as they weren't aware of the test, but thankfully one of the docs knew the people in America behind the test which paved the way for me to pay for it.

Personally I feel this is one area where the NHS should be a bit more flexible, they should allow people who want to use their savings to buy the latest non-NICE drugs (providing they have been clinically approved in other countries such as EU states/US) while being treated on the NHS. Similarly they should allow access to non-NHS testing providing it is from a recognised and peer reviewed source.

Having said that, I do appreciate that some patients may see the private sector as an opportunity to answer the unanswerable in terms of diagnosis, or cure the incurable.

Absolutely! The NHS could have a part pay scheme and reduce the full burden on drugs they need to pay for, especially if already approved in other EU countries. If people have the means to pay for what they want, then they should.

The testing I'm a bit reticent about as genetic testing (much as it's heralded as the next coming by so many) needs to be interpreted correctly and in context. Test specialists have to look for many things and many diseases have environmental and genetic factors involved. I'm not belittling how you managed to get your test and your diagnosis (in fact, I applaud you for learning about it!) but getting tested on self diagnosis would slow down the NHS instead of helping it as they would still have to certify and validate the tests done in an outside lab.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I paid for a private diagnosis from the US even though I was being treated in the UK under the NHS. My problem was that the UK's testing methods were not as thorough as the US's. All the NHS could tell me was that if I was still alive in 15 years then I probably didn't have cancer. I paid for the latest genetic testing from the US and got a firm diagnosis. I found out about the diagnosis from a US based cancer support group. The NHS was a bit reticent at first, as they weren't aware of the test, but thankfully one of the docs knew the people in America behind the test which paved the way for me to pay for it.

Personally I feel this is one area where the NHS should be a bit more flexible, they should allow people who want to use their savings to buy the latest non-NICE drugs (providing they have been clinically approved in other countries such as EU states/US) while being treated on the NHS. Similarly they should allow access to non-NHS testing providing it is from a recognised and peer reviewed source.

Having said that, I do appreciate that some patients may see the private sector as an opportunity to answer the unanswerable in terms of diagnosis, or cure the incurable.

:T:T:T:T:T
Everything she said

lostinrates

misskool wrote: »

I'm not against private health care (in fact, in my birth country, I've never used the state system) but I do think that you get the "holistic" approach because your practitioners have time to listen to you and have time to think and money to treat you in ways which may not be commonly approved. Private health care is great for those who don't like the one size fits all system.

At the end of the day, it's all about the money. You pays for it, you get it your way.

I agree absolutely: and perhaps this is wher I am slightly more sympathetic to those calling for a curb on NHS. The NHS can be justified as beenficial becuse it keeps us, or endeavours to keep us, fit and able to work (and pay taxes etc). The sort of private health I think you and I are talking about normally (out of reach to middle earners, and even most of the lower end high earners) has a differnt purpose: and thats to make us not just well enough to cope/work etc but to be really fully well in all respects. I don't think any NHS could compete with that, not in the foreseeable future.

PasturesNew

mewbie wrote: »

We all put a bit in

Too many people putting a bit in is costing a fortune ... whether that's on clap tablets or births.

dervish

dervish wrote: »

I think most people would prefer a rebate on their taxes and then be able to choose whether to pay for health cover or not.

I also know that most people in this country would agree that we need a major road building program - either more motorways or widening of existing ones.

No-one is interested in buses etc we need to be able to use cars and roads.

When people say we cant use cars as the roads are too crowded then I say - look we as a country are OVERCROWDED !!!!! In fact we should be incentivising certain groups of people to leave and make for sapce for the decent majority.

Just to clarify - it is he workshy and the lazy, the underclasses and treh 'chav scum' (?) that should be kicked out.