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

zagubov

I think the OP was wondering how we could afford it despite its cheapness, given that we've no respect for our elderly, can barely house our population due to runaway inflation that we're always denying exists, we're always at war, and selling off our national assets to all and sundry, so they can downsize our wealth production and transfer the rest of it abroad.

antrobus

jack_pott wrote: »

As a percentage of GDP, Britain's total healthcare spend (public and private) is less than the world average, less than the EU average, and less than most first world countries (bar the basket cases like Spain, Greece, Iceland & Ireland). Not much evidence there that we can't afford healthcare....

The problems faced by the UK are the same problems faced by every other developed country. In fact, in terms of potential growth in future spending, we are better off than most, because one of the advantages of having a more centralised health system is that you have a greater ability to control this sort of thing.

The USA has a bigger problem. In 2007 the US Congressional Budget Office published projections of federal spending on health care over a 75-year period to 2083. They were based on "current law" (so pre-Obamacare) and had healthcare spending rising from 15.5% of GDP in 2007, to 33 % in 2035, and 99% by 2082. Of course the CBO recognised that it wasn't possible for the entire US economy to comprise of nothing but healthcare, and so assumed that someone would do something well before then and that total spending would not reach more than 50% of GDP.

Generali

jack_pott wrote: »

As a percentage of GDP, Britain's total healthcare spend (public and private) is less than the world average, less than the EU average, and less than most first world countries (bar the basket cases like Spain, Greece, Iceland & Ireland). Not much evidence there that we can't afford healthcare.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS/countries/1W-EU-GB-XC?display=graph

What if the average country has basket case economics when it comes to an aging population?

Australia has gone about half way to paying for her old-people to be but AFAIAA no other OECD country has come remotely close to addressing its problems to be.

IMHO the average 'rich' country is going to progressively default on its old people.

[Deleted User]

Generali wrote: »

What if the average country has basket case economics when it comes to an aging population?

The average country is richer than just about anytime in history, so the issue has nothing to do with a lack of money, and everything to do with how we prioritise the way we spend the money we have. The reason that care for the elderly is underfunded is because society has decided that it would rather spend its money on consumer goods.

zagubov

jack_pott wrote: »

The average country is richer than just about anytime in history, so the issue has nothing to do with a lack of money, and everything to do with how we prioritise the way we spend the money we have. The reason that care for the elderly is underfunded is because society has decided that it would rather spend its money on consumer goods.

A chap wrote a letter in one of the newspapers ages ago making the tongue-in-cheek point that most executive and management jobs are pointless and unproductive.

The answer would be to allow all pen-pushers to keep their job titles and salaries and perks but instead of loafing around in offices, do socially useful work like working in care homes or visiting homes to look after the elderly, or caring for the disabled.

We'd all be as well off but a vast amount of needs would be met that currently aren't, and we'd all be doing genuinely important work instead of pretending our work's vital when it's not.

Pennywise

antrobus wrote: »

Or to put it another way the "US model of private /corporate insurance" is simply a mechanism for extracting large amounts of money from the public and stuffing it into the pockets of doctors.

Sounds just like the NHS then!

kabayiri

For the NHS to survive I think you have to predict the rising cost areas and then come up with plans to compensate.

The obvious is longevity. Keeping old people out of hospital is a key to supporting their health and the costs.

I find it amazing that we know more about the health of our cars than we do our bodies.

On-board monitoring chips of elderly people? Or is it too Orwellian?

Graham_Devon

I think it can continue, but it needs changes.

We need to wake up and realise we can't fund prescriptions forever for someone just because they are over 65 or on benefits. There should be some form of payment from everyone for drugs.

This would not oly stop wastage (a huge cost), but also stop some huge amounts of patient footfall, waste of administration on the NHS side and waste of appointments (for instance, someone booking a GP appointment to get free hayfever tablets which you can buy for £1.50 pretty much everywhere).

When it comes to those with chronic illness, DLA, etc etc, pay £10 a month for the NHS pass, it's not likely to break anyone, but it is likely to make people think "do I really need it". (I know, some will tell me people could die, but I don't believe it. Based on the grocery basket of many of these consumers they could easily find £10 a month).

Let's put it this way - if you removed politics from the NHS, it would be sorted out within a decade. As it is, it's used as voting fodder, so will never be able to function as it should.

vivatifosi

I would look at the Australian model... My Aussie family speak very highly of it and I agree with the co payment element. Also we should look to see what the likes of France Germany and the Scandinavians are up to.

I don't think we should wholesale copy any of them. Rather we should acknowledge that there are things they do better and see how those elements can be picked up here.

The new plans to make greater use of pharmacists, plus also nurse practitioners seeing patients with minor injuries rather than a full a and e service also seem a good idea.

GwylimT

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think it can continue, but it needs changes.

We need to wake up and realise we can't fund prescriptions forever for someone just because they are over 65 or on benefits. There should be some form of payment from everyone for drugs.

This would not oly stop wastage (a huge cost), but also stop some huge amounts of patient footfall, waste of administration on the NHS side and waste of appointments (for instance, someone booking a GP appointment to get free hayfever tablets which you can buy for £1.50 pretty much everywhere).

When it comes to those with chronic illness, DLA, etc etc, pay £10 a month for the NHS pass, it's not likely to break anyone, but it is likely to make people think "do I really need it". (I know, some will tell me people could die, but I don't believe it. Based on the grocery basket of many of these consumers they could easily find £10 a month).

Let's put it this way - if you removed politics from the NHS, it would be sorted out within a decade. As it is, it's used as voting fodder, so will never be able to function as it should.

I wish I could buy my prescription only hayfever tablets for £1.50.

We already pay £800 a month for medical treatment the NHS doesn't fund, to then have to pay twice to use the NHS would be very frustrating. So for us £10 would be a huge difference, especially when we pay national insurance to use the NHS.