Can the UK afford the NHS (in its current form)?

kabayiri

enjoyyourshoes wrote: »

...
All our Politicians are not brave enough to slay the sacred cow.

Health in it's widest context needs a cross party consensus which involves a plan spanning decades.

It's not just the NHS. It's our future approach to the lifestyle items which damage our health.

One of these discussions must involve sugar; processed food; and diabetes.

I listened to a fascinating radio show recently. There is a lot of medical tech innovation going on stateside. But the early adopters may be Asia and Africa. The companies innovating see things like the NHS and the big American medical insurance companies as being inhibitors to change.

oldandhappy

Having spent most of my life in the UK and used the expertise of the NHS on many occasions I know how good the health service can be the local hospital with there dedication without doubt saved my life but as soon as you see cut backs happening because of hospitals in severe debt how can it be the excellent health care service it is capable of being...Costs should not come into it in my view...Money is there it just needs to be dedicated to the priorities of life. Very important to all don't you think.
By knowledge is limited to where I live now in France but my doctor insists I see him at least every 6 months whether ill or not...the system is geared up for prevention and any need for treatment is done so speedy it is still amazing me. The only downfall I have noted is too many prescriptions are written...must have a huge drugs bill here which is not ideal in my view.

NHS needs loads of money with constant new advances in techno alone and if that dream could be fulfilled the service would be 2nd to none.

zagubov

kabayiri wrote: »

I wouldn't have gone so far.

I think PFI has use in certain circumstances, but good implementation is absolutely key. It's easy to give the procurement role to people who are inexperienced or up against time pressures.

Perhaps for political reasons, there was too much of a rush into some of these contracts.

In HE PFI has been lets just say distinctly underwhelming.:(
The academisation of schools is another example of ideological asset-stripping. If the private sector can help deliver public services, let them do so with complete transparency and keep the providers under the microscope.

zagubov

BobQ wrote: »

Well quite a number have been public sector funded in the US.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1008268?viewType=Print&

Quite. A famous example was the antifungal nystatin which was developed with funds from the NY State Health Dept, hence the name.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

In HE PFI has been lets just say distinctly underwhelming.:(
The academisation of schools is another example of ideological asset-stripping. If the private sector can help deliver public services, let them do so with complete transparency and keep the providers under the microscope.

perhaps we could start with the public sector providing compete transparency just to show how it should be done

mid staffs?
hillsborough?
rotherham?
nick?
etc
etc

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

Well quite a number have been public sector funded in the US.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1008268?viewType=Print&

159 medical products in 40 years. It's not exactly up there with Glaxo and Pfizer.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

159 medical products in 40 years. It's not exactly up there with Glaxo and Pfizer.

True but that is just in the US and the point is made that those which have been more useful/impactful (to use a bizarre Americanism) are a higher proportion than the norm.

I am not arguing that it is "up there" just that not all drugs come from the private sector.

Generali

TBH BobQ, my feeling is that the Government's best role is funding basic research, the sort of stuff that private companies find hard to fund but that lead indirectly to treatments and diagnostic aids.

Each group should concentrate on what they're best at

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

TBH BobQ, my feeling is that the Government's best role is funding basic research, the sort of stuff that private companies find hard to fund but that lead indirectly to treatments and diagnostic aids.

Each group should concentrate on what they're best at

I think that there's a lot of scope for funding this sort of research through universities. Not necessarily basic though.. biotech is often based near universities for that reason, similarly genetics.

mwpt

oldandhappy wrote: »

Money is there it just needs to be dedicated to the priorities of life. Very important to all don't you think.

I see this statement pop up a lot whenever people are talking about increasing spending to their chosen sector. The money clearly isn't there since the government currently borrows more than our economy provides or indeed grows each year.