How to solve the NHS funding crisis

Cakeguts

antrobus wrote: »

It seemed OK to me last week.



The 'recruitment crisis', such as it is, has more to do with pay levels and workload.



NI contributions have very little to do with NHS funding, the bulk of which comes from 'general taxation'

Creating a "separate fund for healthcare" doesn't increase the amount of money available. And the driver isn't increasing standards, it's an ageing population.



I would suggest that something like 99.9% of the UK adult population already accept that healthcare costs money. What is it exactly you think that the NHS can't afford?

Young binge drinkers.

antrobus

Cakeguts wrote: »

Young binge drinkers.

What about "young binge drinkers"?

Are there more of them than old binge drinkers? Do they impose a significant cost on the NHS?

Give everybody at least some clue.:)

antrobus

tberry6686 wrote: »

Personally I would not want to pay any more in tax and I don't know anyone who would. Easy way to raise extra money to pour down the NHS bottomless pit is to cut back on other areas of the nanny state.

Which "other areas of the nanny state" do you have in mind?

Cakeguts

antrobus wrote: »

What about "young binge drinkers"?

Are there more of them than old binge drinkers? Do they impose a significant cost on the NHS?

Give everybody at least some clue.:)

I meant the ones that go out and binge drink in the evenings and then get delivered to A&E departments by ambulance with injuries caused from being drunk. I remember sitting in an A&E with a friend and watching the ambulances arrive and drop young drunk people off on regular basis. They should all have been charged for the ambulances and any treatment because it they hadn't been drunk they wouldn't have needed to have been there.

martinbuckley

It may be time to start thinking the previously unthinkable and using the NHS money to fund treatment for life threatening and debilitating illnesses and conditions. Things like IVF, cosmetic surgery (unless debilitating) and sex changes should be paid for by those who want the treatment. Similarly those who turn up at A&E drunk should be billed for their treatment, and sporting injuries paid for by the insurance of the sports club.

antrobus

Cakeguts wrote: »

I meant the ones that go out and binge drink in the evenings and then get delivered to A&E departments by ambulance with injuries caused from being drunk. I remember sitting in an A&E with a friend and watching the ambulances arrive and drop young drunk people off on regular basis. They should all have been charged for the ambulances and any treatment because it they hadn't been drunk they wouldn't have needed to have been there.

But why only "young binge drinkers"? Do the older ones get a pass? Are there more of them know than there used to be? What kind of money are we talking about?

antrobus

martinbuckley wrote: »

It may be time to start thinking the previously unthinkable and using the NHS money to fund treatment for life threatening and debilitating illnesses and conditions. Things like IVF, cosmetic surgery (unless debilitating) and sex changes should be paid for by those who want the treatment.

NHS funding of IVF is subject to conditions and limited to three cycles. Cosmetic surgery is not routinely provided on the NHS. The NHS does offer treatment for gender dysphoria. According to the Daily Star, the NHS spends £9m on 'sex swap ops', and since they claim the figure comes from NHS Digital, they might even be right.

£9m is SFA in terms of the NHS budget.:)

martinbuckley wrote: »

...Similarly those who turn up at A&E drunk should be billed for their treatment, and sporting injuries paid for by the insurance of the sports club.

Would these charges solve the 'NHS' funding crisis?

I tend to think that a big chunk of NHS spending goes on OAPs who get the flu, fall over and break something, etc and so forth. Unless someone is seriously proposing ordering up some Zyklon B, I don't think there is a lot that can be done about it.

What kind of society do people want to live in?

dotchas

Andy_L wrote: »

Degree courses take three or four years, full time or up to six years part time. There are also postgraduate programmes usually taking up to two years.

https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/allied-health-professionals/roles-allied-health-professions/diagnostic-radiographer/entry-requirements-and-training-diagnostic

A brief look at the search results and the vast majority are 3 years

Its a 4 year Honours Degree in Scotland, where I am.

kabayiri

martinbuckley wrote: »

It may be time to start thinking the previously unthinkable and using the NHS money to fund treatment for life threatening and debilitating illnesses and conditions. Things like IVF, cosmetic surgery (unless debilitating) and sex changes should be paid for by those who want the treatment. Similarly those who turn up at A&E drunk should be billed for their treatment, and sporting injuries paid for by the insurance of the sports club.

I agree with this, but it might require a "Private Members" bill

(Straight from puns R us).

kabayiri

antrobus wrote: »

...
I tend to think that a big chunk of NHS spending goes on OAPs who get the flu, fall over and break something, etc and so forth. Unless someone is seriously proposing ordering up some Zyklon B, I don't think there is a lot that can be done about it.

What kind of society do people want to live in?

Actually, there is a meditech company in the USA that was looking for funding to develop a high tech exo skeleton.

I don't think it was aimed at older people, but I see no reason why it can't be.

Are we ambitious enough when it comes to preventative medicine?