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

Mistermeaner

antrobus wrote: »

Why do you want to increase the cost of health care?



Then you would be wrong. The US was spending about 50% more before Obama.

Is the government spend not netted back by payment at point of use?

GwylimT

Mistermeaner wrote: »

You mean people pay the real cost of their care?

BTW I think the federal spend stats (or antrobuses) are skewed by Obama care which I would not advocate

The cost to the usa government has decreased under Obama care. $40 for a paracetemol certainly isn't the real cost of care. In the states hospitals make huge profits.

Tromking

Mistermeaner wrote: »

The temp workers are probably still cheaper than perm staff once pension is factored in

Also I think we have already concluded that migrants are nett payers as they work, unlike large portions of the indigenous population.

Clapton may have point re house prices but don't think migrants negatively impact the NHS (unless you read the mail) I think migrants actually provide a lot of the labour in the NHS.

I guess it depends on what sort of NHS or indeed what country you want to live in. I want my NHS staff to be happy and engaged in the long term future of the NHS, not flitting in and out of their roles and the gaps filled with cheap foreign labour.

lisyloo

Also I think we have already concluded that migrants are nett payers as they work, unlike large portions of the indigenous population.

Which portions are you specifically referring to?
Unemployment is around 5% in this country.
In my county it's 1% - not many layabouts here.

I have been short-term unemployed myself recently (actually tehnically my notice period).
I didn't claim anything but it still took me around 2 months to get a job.
So you need to also remove anyone genuinely "between jobs" from the 5%.

Do we really have a massive problem with layabouts?
Might be daily mail material but is there much evidence of it?

Mistermeaner

Unemployment stats do not include those not claiming JSA but living off other benefits . also does not include the 'self employed' cupcake bakers / 16hr contract persons who are massively underemployed

kinger101

Over half of the population in the US have most their medical insurance paid by their employer. Can you imagine what a similar system would do to the costs of employing people in the UK, and the effect this might have on unemployment rates?

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36275608

Demand and therefore costs rising. Public purse under increasing strain.

I don't think anywhere else in the word tries to offer this service in this way.

Much like other old British social initiatives of which we are told we should be so proud it is simply not viable given our economy.

I would move to the us model of private / corporate insurance and tax bad life style heavily to subsidise

Thoughts?

No. The best bet would be to go some way along the lines of the Aussie system which strongly encourages families buying themselves health insurance via the tax system and generally relies on a system of 'copayments' where your insurance or the Government will pay some or even most of your out of pocket costs but is highly unlikely to cover your full costs.

It really is excellent even if it does mean that sometimes people have to struggle to pay for treatment that isn't truly necessary but that is a very nice to have like most physiotherapy for example. Unlike under the NHS, people don't die of cancer while on the waiting list for treatment.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/20/more-nhs-hospitals-breach-waiting-times-for-cancer-treatment

The NHS is meant to ensure that 85% of patients referred urgently by their GP for their first treatment receive it within 62 days, but they only managed to do so with 83.4% of patients last year. That included just 73.3% of those with lower gastrointestinal cancer, such as bowel cancer; 75.3% of lung cancer cases; and 78% of people with a urological cancer, which affects the bladder or kidneys.

By contrast, I was tested for cancer on 18th March 2014, diagnosed with cancer on 20th March and being operated on on 25th March 2014. The reason for the delay between diagnosis and operating? The surgeon only operated on Tuesdays.

I had to co-pay for my scans and for my anesthetist (the anesthetist would have been free if I hadn't gone private, the scans would generally cost unless I fell into certain categories of patient such as being ex-military).

Mistermeaner

Oz model sounds interesting. Whatever the alternatives I don't see how the NHS can continue as is - that's something we all broadly seem to agree on I think?

zagubov

I'd never in a million years consider the US as even having a system.

Our current system is cheap by american standards. Singapore has the 20th best outcomes but 20th lowest for costs.

It has a a free-at point-of -treatment component for life-and death issues, compulsory savings schemes to pay for all else, with an easyjet-style range of treatment plans.

Pro-rate it costs them about half what ours costs us.

As Tromking says, I'd prefer to be treated by experienced staff who're in it for the long term.

Generali

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Oz model sounds interesting. Whatever the alternatives I don't see how the NHS can continue as is - that's something we all broadly seem to agree on I think?

Yeah, we can argue the toss all night about the specifics of exactly how healthcare should be rationed but ultimately we have seen that by making healthcare 'free' you end up with a system that is pretty much guaranteed to be hugely overused.

A system where you can see a doctor for free who will give you free or good as free pills (that you may or may not need) is always going to simply end up running out of money.