Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No system is perfect, but political inertia is killing your NHS. Many of your doctors, nurses, and research people are first rate. So?
Over the next five years, even within the current NHS:
First, I would set independent from government influence medical equipment and supplies purchasing under a commission that is comprised of personnel chosen by medical staff. The commission would accountable to the medical infrastructure rather than the political structure.
Second, medical staffing should be done by each medical unit accountable to committee governance in each county, not by some government office in London.
Third, medical education needs to change to that of the USA, Canada, and Mexico. Three/four years of university, then three/four years of medical school, then specialty training. As of now British educated doctors can not work in North America. (Republic of Ireland doctors do specialty training in North America)-- medical educational systems are not equal, take that seriously.
Fifth, have your population reduce smoking cigarettes, health savings are incredible across all economic/social groups. Raise taxes on a pack of cigarettes to make it cost 50 pounds a pack-- seriously, take those extra taxes and give that to the NHS.
Five, as a people be aggressive in solving your daily health problems yourselves; save the medical access for those who need it.
The NHS is a failing system, just replace it with a better system that works for your taxpayers. Government control of means of production and of control and costs of labor of any industry does not work. And stop whining about it and get it fixed, before it fails.
( sigh ) It has nothing to do with government control, the reason the NHS is in trouble, is because the UK NHS is providing free health care for the citizens of Poland, Romania, Somalia, Pakistan, India etc etc etc. Most large hospitals in the major cities have to employ 30 language interpreters, as 80% of the patients dont speak english.
It's not only the UK system that is struggling, Sweden, Italy, Denmark, Turkey etc have all seen huge spikes in health care spending.
So what's the common factor? Is it government control of means of production. Or could it be that the countires health care systems have been overwhelmed with immigrants who pay nothing into the system, but get everything out of it.... could be.
Similar to the USA where illegals get free medical treatment but here, tax paying citizens have to pay through the nose for health insurance, then pay to see a doctor, then pay for hospital, and pay and pay and pay.
If the NHS could devise some system of charging money to people who haven't lived in the UK long enough to have contributed, maybe that would help?
EDIT: But that's the problem, isn't it? Same as here, those people don't have enough money to pay so that's why they get it for free in the first place. That's why they came here. Back to square one.
( sigh ) It has nothing to do with government control, the reason the NHS is in trouble, is because the UK NHS is providing free health care for the citizens of Poland, Romania, Somalia, Pakistan, India etc etc etc. Most large hospitals in the major cities have to employ 30 language interpreters, as 80% of the patients dont speak english.
[/url]
Ha! Right there with you, the USA is a country of immigrants. It's what we do! . We have interpreters for almost every language that we encounter. Go to a huge immigrant city like New York or Los Angeles and you'll hear thirty languages spoken in the hospital a normal day. The costs and availability of treatment is determined by how well the medical infrastructure handles the daily difficulties.
Ha! Right there with you, the USA is a country of immigrants. It's what we do! . We have interpreters for almost every language that we encounter. Go to a huge immigrant city like New York or Los Angeles and you'll hear thirty languages spoken in the hospital a normal day. The costs and availability of treatment is determined by how well the medical infrastructure handles the daily difficulties.
But in the US, the quality of healthcare is largely determined by ability to pay. Everyone knows that. The large multitude of private insurance companies determine the amount to charge. The UK has the NHS which, before the large influx of immigrants, was doing fine, from what I've always heard. Isn't it supported by working people and VAT?
Here the healthcare is paid for directly by the employers and their employees, which is an unfair system. Have a great job? You have good health insurance. Ordinary or poor job? Bad health insurance. No job? No health insurance. This is exactly what should NOT happen in the UK. The illegals do suck some of the money out of our healthcare system but in the UK, their system is set up for people who paid into it all their lives. With large masses of new immigrants who never paid into the system and yet demand health care, it just doesn't work.
(No, I don't know the answer except to halt or limit immigration to the UK.)
The problem with the NHS is, people do not realize how cheap it is. If the Uk spent as much on healthcare as France or Germany, you'd need to up the budget by money equal to three-quarters of your military budget.
For some reason, people in the UK have grown accustomed to the notion that they can have a first-world health service without paying what it costs. And now that attitude has started to creak at the seams. Politicians from either side don't want to bring up how cheap the NHS is, because it would reveal how poor the state of the UK economy is.
UK healthcare costs is 3400 $ per person. Germany is 4500 $, France 4100 $, the US 8500 $. Multiply the difference up by the number of citizens, and you'll start to realize how cheap the NHS is. Nations which spend less are with a couple of exception nations like Greece, Spain, Italy, Mexico and Eastern Europe.
Also, on the immigration issue, if the UK doesn't want to pay for the healthcare of the foreign-born residents, the UK should probably expect to start picking up the tab for its own expatriates. Which would not be what you'd call a good deal. There are more immigrants than expatriates, but a far greater share of the immigrants are healthy working-age people, while UK emigrants are often retired people. Who have about 4x the healthcare costs of young people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danbo1957
I am an American doctor.
The NHS will fail for the same reason that the Soviet Union failed. Good.
It amazes me that the US does not seem to include any health care economics in its medical education. Combined with an inability to grasp evidence-based learning it is probably why the system is such a shamble over there.
(Image by Yueasan, based on OECD data)
There are three countries that rely on for-profit insurance, the US, Switzerland and the Netherlands. (And if you do it by % of GDP Norway drops out of the top) Note that the US public expenditures outstrip most first world nations that cover 100 % of their population?
This is entirely what Health Care Economics predict.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19498
Here's a possible solution as suggested by Ex - Health Minister Dr Dan Poulter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
A "health and care tax - perhaps introduced through raising national insurance" would provide a guaranteed income stream and "allow a legitimate debate about what is an appropriate level of taxation required to ensure a sustainable funding settlement".
A 1p in the pound hike in both employee and employer National Insurance contributions was used by Labour in its 2002 budget to pay for a £40bn rise in NHS spending over five years.
We need to pay more. Simple as that. Increase NI. We need more focus on the things that matter and less on all the superficial and unnecessary stuff we waste money on these days.
Fifth, have your population reduce smoking cigarettes, health savings are incredible across all economic/social groups. Raise taxes on a pack of cigarettes to make it cost 50 pounds a pack-- seriously, take those extra taxes and give that to the NHS.
It's amazing how some can so casually advocate theft via taxation, for a legal activity -more lefty crap.
A "health and care tax - perhaps introduced through raising national insurance" would provide a guaranteed income stream and "allow a legitimate debate about what is an appropriate level of taxation required to ensure a sustainable funding settlement".
A 1p in the pound hike in both employee and employer National Insurance contributions was used by Labour in its 2002 budget to pay for a £40bn rise in NHS spending over five years.
New tax needed to fund NHS and care, says ex-minister - BBC News
Maybe this. No one wants to pay more tax, that's for certain. But if it could be temporary, until they got caught up, it might be the answer. Whatever happens, don't adopt a system similar to what we have in the US. This is literally murder over here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Or could it be that the countires health care systems have been overwhelmed with immigrants who pay nothing into the system, but get everything out of it.... could be.
. We have interpreters for almost every language that we encounter. Go to a huge immigrant city like New York or Los Angeles and you'll hear thirty languages spoken in the hospital a normal day. The costs and availability of treatment is determined by how well the medical infrastructure handles the daily difficulties.
