That's a much better model - and we have something similar here. It's lower cost and takes the pressure off A&E making sure they have the capacity to deal with genuine emergencies.
We also have the option of seeing a nurse instead of a doctor at our surgery, I don't know if that's the same all over. A third option is that you can ask to talk to a doctor on the phone, they will then ring you back on the same day.
I ask again, which country's system offers similar levels of health care for less money? No one has ever answered because the nhs is the most efficient method.
And as I have already said - I would prefer a better standard rather than simply the cheapest.
We also have the option of seeing a nurse instead of a doctor at our surgery, I don't know if that's the same all over. A third option is that you can ask to talk to a doctor on the phone, they will then ring you back on the same day.
We have that option at our surgery too. Usually two nurse prescribers and the duty doctor. Minor Injuries Unit at the Community Hospitals or the GP Walk-In Centres options as well (which also cover out of hours). One or the other of those latter options will be a 20 minute or so drive depending on where in the county you live.
Did I say there was a country with a better system that cost less?
You could treble the funding of the NHS overnight, and you would barely notice the difference. Labour more than doubled it - with a measurable improvement of 6%.
The fatal flaw is in the structure. There is no motive to improve. Nothing changes for employees whether they do a good or a bad job. There is an ingrained mentality that you will never change without wiping the slate clean and starting again.
Take the outpatient clinics in our local hospital. Amongst the forest of peeling, scrappy, bits of printed A4 stuck on the wall haphazardly with sellotape is a white board, with large letters saying "This clinic is running ****** minutes late". The reception staff waltz over and write in "15" before the thing even STARTS. it then increases by 10 minute increments as the morning wears on. Consultants swan in about 15-20 mins after the thing is supposed to start, taking a cup of coffee into their consulting room as they go.
I have seen this more times than I care to remember. It sums up the whole decrepit organisation. Clinics run late as a matter of course. Nobody questions it, and why on earth should they? Makes no difference to them whatsoever.
This is not my experience of working in the NHS. I find myself and the majority of my colleagues work extremely hard and go above and beyond our contracted hours and job specification to ensure the patients needs are met.
We are encouraged to question the status quo and constantly look to improve the service we provide. It makes a difference to me an many of my colleagues.
And as I have already said - I would prefer a better standard rather than simply the cheapest.
But I do accept its horses for courses.
The point is efficiency. You can spend more or less, but efficiency is what's important if you don't want to waste money.
If you want a better service, it will cost more, but changing to insurance or a private profit led organisation will just add inefficiencies not better quality.
Very true. I've just experienced this graphically in our local decaying monstrosity of a hospital.
An elderly friend had spent a week in there - and was being discharged in a worse state than when he arrived. When I collected him, he'd been left alone with the screens around his bed trying, unsuccessfully, to dress himself. I had to help him. As he hobbled out of the ward (in socks - feet too swollen to get his shoes on) the nurses were all gathered around their station laughing and joking. "Goodbye then" he said as we passed. Not one solitary head turned. It was if he wasn't there.
The NHS is a scandal.
Not my experience at all. When I last worked on an hospital ward 10 years we didn't have time to 'laugh & joke' around the nurses station. For my colleagues who still work there it's just the same.
I now work in district nursing and we work just as hard to ensure patients needs are met.
I find your assumptions about all NHS workers based upon your limited observations offensive, very offensive.
The point is efficiency. You can spend more or less, but efficiency is what's important if you don't want to waste money.
I would agre to a certain extent, but as we saw when the NHS had significant increases in funding under the last administartion productivity fell so effectively efficiency fell.
If you want a better service, it will cost more, but changing to insurance or a private profit led organisation will just add inefficiencies not better quality.
well that is your view - a view not shared in the rest of Europe I might add.
The problem that most people have regarding private health care, is the issue of not being treated if a person doesn't have the money or it's not covered and etc. This can mean a person's life or death, and hospital would be able to turn away people dying in a private system. However in the NHS, everyone will receive treatment regardless.
Yes, the onus is on those advocating 'selling' off the NHS as to how that would benefit public health.
There are two areas that could immediately be improved. Firstly, the coordination between the hospitals and social care especially for elderly patients. There is a lot of criticism of bureaucracy in the NHS but admin is needed to coordinate these relationships.
Secondly, there is health promotion which seems to have been neglected completely in the conversations here. Health promotion can be coordinated by HP agencies and inform the work of GP surgeries particularly in relation to fitness programmes, mental health awareness, lifestyle improvements. That will reduce the burden on the health services in the longer term. It might also be an idea to give a bit of money to sports development agencies like Sport England to get more people into a sporting lifestyle building on the London 2012 successes.
Also it's rather dangerous to be thinking about health care in us and them terms when infectious diseases spread they are not often respecters of class and position or whether you have paid your insurance contributions or not.
I agree we need admin, but I think the problems are the layers of management. A hospital is like a campus of departments, groups, boards, commissioning this and that, all with their own budgets, funding and monies coming in from various places and for whatever reason. The huge budgets would put most businesses into jepody and bankruptcy. This where I would scrutinise.
I agree with prevention and health promotion, but it needs to be uniform practice and taken away from postcode lotteries. An agency solely to adminster exercise and eating regimes, with access to local swimming pools and council health centres would be a start and could be a compulsory part of a GP prescription.
Again Councils haven't helped the burden of social care with selling off to nursing home magnates. One good thing though is Salford have recently approved a new Co-operative of Workers (Non Profit), solely to manage care in the community. What a wonderful thought that this could happen everywhere.
I ask again, which country's system offers similar levels of health care for less money? No one has ever answered because the nhs is the most efficient method.
I live 25 miles away from my A&E. However we have a small emergency clinic in my town where you can drop in for minor injuries or health concerns out of hours. It is manned by qualified nurses who can call in or get advise from a Doctor if they need to. It works beautifully I understand. I've never had to use it but it's certainly a comfort knowing it's there and that I wouldn't have to make a 50 mile round trip and maybe feel like a nuisance because my problem is not 'serious' enough.
This is the way to go, some hospitals closed their drop-in centres, only to burden the A&E. I am about to enroll with a health centre that offers this, does instill optimism.
The problem that most people have regarding private health care, is the issue of not being treated if a person doesn't have the money or it's not covered and etc. This can mean a person's life or death, and hospital would be able to turn away people dying in a private system. However in the NHS, everyone will receive treatment regardless.
Then you make it illegal, with penalties of prison sentences and being struck off, to refuse to treat someone for financial reasons. I wouldn't agree with a private system, but it's pretty easy to build safeguards like that into it.
The problem that most people have regarding private health care, is the issue of not being treated if a person doesn't have the money or it's not covered and etc. This can mean a person's life or death, and hospital would be able to turn away people dying in a private system. However in the NHS, everyone will receive treatment regardless.[/QUOTE]
The NHS isn't a bottomless pit of money. There are still budgets to keep so not everyone gets treatment they need.
I actually read several articles on the NHS all saying pretty much the same thing. I linked that one because I thought it was the best layout.
Well I have yet to see any desire in any other Country in Europe (or even the US) for the introduction of an NHS style health service - in fact apart from Cuba I dont think there is another country in the world that has followed the NHS centralised model. Also this is the only survey that I have seen that claims that the NHS is the best in the world - all the others beg to differ.
This is my point, people who use the NHS must pay more, and not the government
The government spends £100Bn on the NHS. Almost 20% of our budget.
Nothing else can be cut any more really, you can't cut the state pension, the defence, education...
They should cut what they spend on the NHS, and make the people who use it contribute more
That argument has always struck me as flawed. If they didn't spend that 20% on healthcare what would they spend it on. Surely the health of our nation is one of the most important things. Actually please tell me where the 20% would go, and please don't suggest we would have significantly lower taxes an NI because you know that isn't likely to happen.
Then you make it illegal, with penalties of prison sentences and being struck off, to refuse to treat someone for financial reasons. I wouldn't agree with a private system, but it's pretty easy to build safeguards like that into it.
So what exactly happens, once someone is treated after the fact, and in fact can't pay the bill? Does the bill get written off?
The NHS isn't a bottomless pit of money. There are still budgets to keep so not everyone gets treatment they need.
They may not get the treatment they need straightaway but they will be on a waiting list, and will get treated at some point. However with private, you get no treatment at all without the money to pay for it. For example, if someone requires a complicated surgery, in the NHS you don't need to pay for it, as it's all funded. However in private, you'd be given a bill, and if you can't afford it, well tough you can't get the surgery. Well you have insurance right, but some insurance only cover certain procedures or only cover part of the cost, no money no surgery. It's worse if people need a prolonged treatment plan, again private insurance may only cover part of the treatment or it has a limited "pot" fund, which can run out and you can't continue with the treatments.
People don't need the extra worry of private health care, what they want is, if they are terminally ill, is to be able to spend or extend the time left with family and friends. I can only see a private system taking away such opportunities, the time and life is too precious to exclude people based on money.
Well I have yet to see any desire in any other Country in Europe (or even the US) for the introduction of an NHS style health service - in fact apart from Cuba I dont think there is another country in the world that has followed the NHS centralised model. Also this is the only survey that I have seen that claims that the NHS is the best in the world - all the others beg to differ.
I also noted those that did best in this survey had greater funding and much less political interference than the UK.
Regardless of your views of the NHS it does not receive the same level of funding as other European countries.
As the survey states other countries do have our system of healthcare. However, it points out an NHS system does better in countries with smaller populations such as Iceland for example
Well I have yet to see any desire in any other Country in Europe (or even the US) for the introduction of an NHS style health service - in fact apart from Cuba I dont think there is another country in the world that has followed the NHS centralised model. Also this is the only survey that I have seen that claims that the NHS is the best in the world - all the others beg to differ.
Now I'm not saying that our health service can't be improved, but we should be wary of imitating other countries that have obviously flawed systems and probably cost a great deal more.
Yes, its a great idea etc, but it is FAR too expensive especially with people living older.
I think National insurance should be less. And those who need treatment should pay for it out of their pockets. However, there should also be free treatment to those unemployed or no savings.
I estimate the government would save at least £40bn a year.
Can I just ask how much a month you would be prepared to pay for the obligatory health insurance a month...£80, £100, £120 per capita ?
So what exactly happens, once someone is treated after the fact, and in fact can't pay the bill? Does the bill get written off?
They would be free to pursue it through the courts. I suspect in a lot of cases most of it would get written off though, yes. As I said, I wouldn't be in favour of such a system anyway.
If we have to change the NHS then I would be in favour of something like the German system, as long as it could be guaranteed to be free at the point of use for everyone. I might also be maybe convinced to include the idea of fining people for missing appointments.
Comments
We also have the option of seeing a nurse instead of a doctor at our surgery, I don't know if that's the same all over. A third option is that you can ask to talk to a doctor on the phone, they will then ring you back on the same day.
And as I have already said - I would prefer a better standard rather than simply the cheapest.
But I do accept its horses for courses.
This is not my experience of working in the NHS. I find myself and the majority of my colleagues work extremely hard and go above and beyond our contracted hours and job specification to ensure the patients needs are met.
We are encouraged to question the status quo and constantly look to improve the service we provide. It makes a difference to me an many of my colleagues.
Our motive to improve are the people we care for!
The point is efficiency. You can spend more or less, but efficiency is what's important if you don't want to waste money.
If you want a better service, it will cost more, but changing to insurance or a private profit led organisation will just add inefficiencies not better quality.
Not my experience at all. When I last worked on an hospital ward 10 years we didn't have time to 'laugh & joke' around the nurses station. For my colleagues who still work there it's just the same.
I now work in district nursing and we work just as hard to ensure patients needs are met.
I find your assumptions about all NHS workers based upon your limited observations offensive, very offensive.
I would agre to a certain extent, but as we saw when the NHS had significant increases in funding under the last administartion productivity fell so effectively efficiency fell.
well that is your view - a view not shared in the rest of Europe I might add.
I agree we need admin, but I think the problems are the layers of management. A hospital is like a campus of departments, groups, boards, commissioning this and that, all with their own budgets, funding and monies coming in from various places and for whatever reason. The huge budgets would put most businesses into jepody and bankruptcy. This where I would scrutinise.
I agree with prevention and health promotion, but it needs to be uniform practice and taken away from postcode lotteries. An agency solely to adminster exercise and eating regimes, with access to local swimming pools and council health centres would be a start and could be a compulsory part of a GP prescription.
Again Councils haven't helped the burden of social care with selling off to nursing home magnates. One good thing though is Salford have recently approved a new Co-operative of Workers (Non Profit), solely to manage care in the community. What a wonderful thought that this could happen everywhere.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health
Time we stopped envying other countries for their health care provision, particularly America.
This is the way to go, some hospitals closed their drop-in centres, only to burden the A&E. I am about to enroll with a health centre that offers this, does instill optimism.
Then you make it illegal, with penalties of prison sentences and being struck off, to refuse to treat someone for financial reasons. I wouldn't agree with a private system, but it's pretty easy to build safeguards like that into it.
I wouldn't believe everything you read in the Guardian.. ;-)
No, but at least your one of the few on the right who are honest about it so respect for that.
I actually read several articles on the NHS all saying pretty much the same thing. I linked that one because I thought it was the best layout.
Well I have yet to see any desire in any other Country in Europe (or even the US) for the introduction of an NHS style health service - in fact apart from Cuba I dont think there is another country in the world that has followed the NHS centralised model. Also this is the only survey that I have seen that claims that the NHS is the best in the world - all the others beg to differ.
But perhaps everyone else is wrong.....
another survey
Lets put the NHS on Ebay with free delivery.
That argument has always struck me as flawed. If they didn't spend that 20% on healthcare what would they spend it on. Surely the health of our nation is one of the most important things. Actually please tell me where the 20% would go, and please don't suggest we would have significantly lower taxes an NI because you know that isn't likely to happen.
So what exactly happens, once someone is treated after the fact, and in fact can't pay the bill? Does the bill get written off?
They may not get the treatment they need straightaway but they will be on a waiting list, and will get treated at some point. However with private, you get no treatment at all without the money to pay for it. For example, if someone requires a complicated surgery, in the NHS you don't need to pay for it, as it's all funded. However in private, you'd be given a bill, and if you can't afford it, well tough you can't get the surgery. Well you have insurance right, but some insurance only cover certain procedures or only cover part of the cost, no money no surgery. It's worse if people need a prolonged treatment plan, again private insurance may only cover part of the treatment or it has a limited "pot" fund, which can run out and you can't continue with the treatments.
People don't need the extra worry of private health care, what they want is, if they are terminally ill, is to be able to spend or extend the time left with family and friends. I can only see a private system taking away such opportunities, the time and life is too precious to exclude people based on money.
I also noted those that did best in this survey had greater funding and much less political interference than the UK.
Regardless of your views of the NHS it does not receive the same level of funding as other European countries.
As the survey states other countries do have our system of healthcare. However, it points out an NHS system does better in countries with smaller populations such as Iceland for example
Check out the replies to this article
http://www.expatica.com/nl/healthcare/healthcare/Healthcare-in-the-Netherlands_100057.html
Now I'm not saying that our health service can't be improved, but we should be wary of imitating other countries that have obviously flawed systems and probably cost a great deal more.
Can I just ask how much a month you would be prepared to pay for the obligatory health insurance a month...£80, £100, £120 per capita ?
They would be free to pursue it through the courts. I suspect in a lot of cases most of it would get written off though, yes. As I said, I wouldn't be in favour of such a system anyway.
If we have to change the NHS then I would be in favour of something like the German system, as long as it could be guaranteed to be free at the point of use for everyone. I might also be maybe convinced to include the idea of fining people for missing appointments.