Save the Economy? SCRAP the NHS!

Pennywise

Just like everything else that is state controlled, there's nothing wrong "in theory" with the NHS, but the management and implementation is abysmal because it is operated "top down" by politicians and civil servants who have no experience outside the public sector "la la land" who are scared stiff of the unions who have seemingly taken over the public sector now that they've helped kill off most industries where they previously plied their trade.

We could have, and should demand, a much better service from the billions being pumped into the NHS, but that means reform, and the sheep in the public sector are too frightened to step out of line to help make the necessary changes happen as they don't want to ruin the status quo.

Anyone who has the misfortune to have to frequent GP surgeries and hospitals can't help but see the waste and mismanagement almost everywhere they look, but can't do anything about it. The workers who can see it clearly don't have any way of facilitating the changes needed.

We don't need to scrap the NHS, we need a "bottom-up" approach where the workers and patients have a greater say in how the services are provided and can help to change the system. Yes, people will say that there is already that facility through focus groups, patient liaison groups, etc., but they are nothing more than lip-service and clearly aren't functioning. We need more power to the front line workers who know what is happening, what works & what doesn't - time to put the control back into the hands of the people dealing with the patients 24/7 and not to the back office pen pushers who are cossetted in their offices with the security blanket of their graphs, spreadsheets and league tables.

bendix

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the finnish system is that the most you can pay is €600 a year, after that all of your treatment is free. so if i needed a £100k drug treatment program, it would be fine, as i would only have to pay £500, or whatever the cap was.

Ahhhhh, well, that's alright then. You'll be fine because you don't have to pay very much.

So . . ummmm .. who exactly would be paying for your treatment?

Dithering_Dad

chewmylegoff wrote: »

you didn't read my post - under the system i suggested there would be a cap on the maximum payment each year. the finnish system is that the most you can pay is €600 a year, after that all of your treatment is free. so if i needed a £100k drug treatment program, it would be fine, as i would only have to pay £500, or whatever the cap was.

You know, this is an excellent idea. I was watching the recent documentary based in a hospital where it showed all the drunks rolling about in reception, abusing the staff, throwing up everywhere and generally being a complete waste of time and resources. If we charged these people a set fee, then I'm sure a lot of them would just go home to sleep it off.

cowbutt

The US has superb healthcare, but only if you can afford it. If you can't (and very many US citizens are unable to afford adequate - or indeed any - health insurance), then it's one of the poorest healthcare systems in the world. Furthermore, it costs the US economy more per capita than a socialised system like the NHS, due to all the intervening business layers.

I think we have the best of both worlds in the UK; generally good treatment from the NHS, free at the point of delivery for those that need it, with the possibility of state-of-the-art treatment for those that can afford it. In an ideal world, everybody would get whatever treatment they need as quickly as possible, but that is an unbounded problem. The mixed system we have in the UK strikes me as the best compromise.

Jennifer_Jane

I agree with Out, Vile Jelly (great name, OVJ!). In South Africa there is superb medical treatment if you are on a private medical scheme (again, most people who are working have this, with employer and employee contributing). There is also good treatment in State hospitals which is where you would have to queue for ages and pay a little bit for drugs. You cannot use the State system if you have private insurance - as I know when a friend rushed me to hospital in the middle of the night, and I was turned away with a shot of pethidine for the pain. These places are usually clean and sufficient, but there is a big difference with them and the private hospitals (not the most being the drunken stab wounded people going into the state hospitals). And just to remember that the world's first heart transplant was done in a State hospital.

Here (and I am also on a private medical health system here, paid for by the Company), my local hospital is unhygienic, you have to wait for your consultant in a queue, you're not treated particularly like the princess I feel I should be (LOL!); treatment only lasts for a certain time, and I pay 10% for the treatment anyway.

So a greater difference in the way private treatment is handled might encourage people with sufficient money to go private and that would relieve the pressure on the NHS.

chewmylegoff

bendix wrote: »

Ahhhhh, well, that's alright then. You'll be fine because you don't have to pay very much.

So . . ummmm .. who exactly would be paying for your treatment?

tax payers (although they would bear less of a burden than under the current system).

as i said, other developed countries have a system that requires some form of direct contribution either in the form of access charges or compulsory medical insurance, but with the vast majority (i.e. 70-80%) of the burden falling on the taxpayer.

france and the scandanavian countries are proof that these systems work, and provide better healthcare overall than the NHS does, whatever theoretical objections people might raise, or babble about how 'cutting edge' the NHS is.

bendix

The taxpayer, again, huh?

OK . no problem. I'll go and get my cheque book now. How much more would you like.

I'm delighted to have the opportunity of working 5-6 months out of every twelve to ensure that I can pay for the private health issues of other people.

Where do i sign up?

chewmylegoff

bendix wrote: »

The taxpayer, again, huh?

OK . no problem. I'll go and get my cheque book now. How much more would you like.

I'm delighted to have the opportunity of working 5-6 months out of every twelve to ensure that I can pay for the private health issues of other people.

Where do i sign up?

well at the moment the tax payer pays for the lot - so at least it would be better than that. realistically no political party is ever going to risk completely dismantling the NHS.

Dithering_Dad

I'd rather pay for the NHS with my taxes than subsidize the income of the workshy, inflate the wages of MPs via their expenses, pay for foreign wars of conquest or used to underwrite the pensions and bonuses of bankers.

A society is judged on how it treats the weaker members of its society. In Nazi Germany, they just killed them off in order to save resources.

wolvoman

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i do think that the NHS should be raising more money directly from the people that use it. somewhere between 10-25% of the cost should fall on the patients in my view. most other developed countries have a set up of that sort. perhaps we could adopt something similar to the finnish system where you pay small charges for access to healthcare, but there is a cap on the maximum amount payable each year, after which all care is free. introducing charging might also stop all those morons who clog up hostipals and doctors surgeries when they get a cold.

in other news, i expect dervish is just setting up another anti-immigrant rant, and will start harping on about "NHS tourism" soon.

That would be even worse.
Can you imagine who would be exempt from these charges? The very same people who already don't contribute very much to the tax pot.


As long as their is a Labour government either in power, or with a chance of power, we will be stuck with the fact that those contributing the least will take the least services and those contributing the most will barely use the services.

Fact: Most police resources are spent on run-down and deprived areas.
Fact: Most NHS resources are spent on poor patients.
Fact: Nearly all social security payments are spent on poor people.