NHS in a capitalist economy...

zagubov

BobQ wrote: »

Charges for missed appointments - repeated offenders maybe but I do not think it is fair that someone who misses one appointment because the have a transport problem, their employer refuses them time off at the last minute, people who are unwell on the day etc should be treated like this. This is just penalising the poor.
I'd make the employer pay all the increased NI in such cases.
Higher NI? How far do you take this? Higher NI for people who drive fast cars? How about a temporary rise in NI for the pregnant and their partner? Or those who engage in dangerous sports? Or choose to work in hazardous industries like construction?

i seem to recall that every 20th fisherman drowns - a staggering death rate if true, but nonetheless a vital job and no I don't believe that people in risky jobs should pay higher NI. To some extent the public really don't understand risk.

"So Mr Smith, we should be able to fit you in for the shoulder operation in a few months, but of course we can do it earlier if you were to let us have one of your kidneys....."
I was thinking about posthumous transplants. From living donors, blood transfusionswould be plenty.

Be careful what you wish for.

It'd be worth comparing NHS systems across the home nations to see what works and what doesn't. Yes I know that sounds like more buireaucracy but it'd still be worth it. Much of the private sector involvement's advantages are wishful thinking and propaganda.

antrobus

grizzly1911 wrote: »

They didn't expect care to be limitless but I accept they could not foresee the way health care has expanded and improved the chances of many over the years.

At the time, there was actually an expectation that the cost of the NHS would fall over time, because the NHS would ensure a heathier population, and a heathier population wouldn't get ill so often. Such an expectation demonstrated a complete failure to appreciate the realities of health economics of course, but it had a certain logic.

TruckerT

antrobus wrote: »

the NHS was established on three core principles; it was to be universal, free at the point of delivery, and based on clinical need, not ability to pay. It was not established on the basis that it would "provide care irrespective of cost". Aneurin Bevan wasn't that stupid

If capitalism can't provide enough economic wealth to fund the NHS then you're stuffed.

antrobus wrote: »

At the time, there was actually an expectation that the cost of the NHS would fall over time, because the NHS would ensure a heathier population, and a heathier population wouldn't get ill so often. Such an expectation demonstrated a complete failure to appreciate the realities of health economics of course, but it had a certain logic.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why 'health' should have its own set of economic ideas.

Bevan's ideas were Socialist, and the NHS was probably Socialism's crowning glory.

TruckerT

ILW

TruckerT wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why 'health' should have its own set of economic ideas.

Bevan's ideas were Socialist, and the NHS was probably Socialism's crowning glory.

TruckerT

Economics is required to pay for it.

BobQ

globalds wrote: »

It has become apparent that car parking contracts are decidedly in favour of the private companies that run them ...I don't see any reason why a profitable sideline would be repeatedly farmed out in a way that does not maximise profit.
I don't know how you struggled to see it was the example ?
I am aware how it works and that it is not a particularly complex arrangement..a question was raised regarding waste ..I explained that not making the most of the resources you have is a waste ..simple enough ?

Well this does make it more clear and saves me guessing what you meant.

I agree that in principle it is a waste not to make the most of the resources available but there is not total freedom in these situations. Firstly, any contracting to a third party has to have a benefit for the contractor. Why else would they take it on?

Second, I agree that a hospital should consider making a profit from running services in house but this requires them to assume the risks of getting it wrong and hospital administrators are not experts in running car parks.

Third, most public authorities are under immense pressure from Government to outsource their services and hospitals are no different. The likes of SERCO, Virgin Care, Steria, G4 know this and exploit it.

I have to say if this is the only area of waste you can list in the NHS then they are not as wasteful as you imply

TruckerT

ILW wrote: »

Economics is required to pay for it.

There is a choice of economic systems - which would you recommend?

TruckerT

Thrugelmir

TruckerT wrote: »

There is a choice of economic systems - which would you recommend?

Pay cuts for all public sector workers. In terms of their overall packages. Less generous sick pay provision for a start. No automatic grading scale pay rises every year. Cut night time shift allowances.

TruckerT

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Pay cuts for all public sector workers. In terms of their overall packages. Less generous sick pay provision for a start. No automatic grading scale pay rises every year. Cut night time shift allowances.

That's not an economic system - it's a punishment!

TruckerT

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

There is a choice of economic systems - which would you recommend?

TruckerT

The capitalism one. The available evidence seems to suggest that its the best at producing piles of money. So if you're worried about how to pay for something, that's probably the only option.:)

TruckerT

antrobus wrote: »

The capitalism one. The available evidence seems to suggest that its the best at producing piles of money. So if you're worried about how to pay for something, that's probably the only option.:)

Yes, but the piles of money don't generally provide health care for all.

TruckerT