Is the NHS useless?

[unbeliever]

Actual spending per capita is in both links.

Here is the summary:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-9542833.html

 

And the full study if you fancy a bedtime read....:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

 

I'm not sure about this.

It's a lobbying document designed to persuade the US to change its healthcare system.

I was hoping it was an academic study.

 

They don't mention mental health once.

 

---------- Post added 30-10-2015 at 17:07 ----------

 

Ah right.

 

So you ARE an expert. A few bits of reading, and you're better qualified than the people who actually make these decisions after years of studying and specialisation. I thought so.

 

Do these people actually get to be seen by a specialist? We can't get to see one. Is that a cosmetic surgery specialist, or do they actually get to see a psychiatrist?

 

Ipse dixit eh? No discussion. Just assume that the people in charge now are right.

Do you extend this to anybody else? Should only professional politicians be allowed to vote in elections?

Edited October 30, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

So there is to be no discussion or political debate, or oversight of the operation of the NHS?

I think we're now at 8%, having been at about 5% in 1998. I can't remember a time when the NHS wasn't supposedly in a state of financial crisis.

How much do they need.

 

And what's with all this % of GDP anyway.

I don't understand why that matters. Would we get better healthcare if we spent £100 billion on the NHS, and had a GDP of £1000 billion than with £100 billion and a GDP of £2000 billion? If so, please explain why.

 

% of GDP is a way of measuring the level of spend so it can be compared to other countries.

 

For example German, Netherlands, Belgium spend about 2-3% more of their GDP on healthcare but have roughly similar life expectancy.

 

If we were to spend 2-3% more it is likely that we would not significantly increase life expectancy. That 2-3% would be £30-£50bn extra annual spend for us. We don't need to spend that extra money because the NHS, despite its obvious flaws, is already exceptional value for money.

[El Cid]

I'm not rich, but I earn enough that I'm paying significantly more total tax than the national average. We're making our contribution and we've always been content to do it.

 

Just think about how a working poor person feels, its not just you, although I get a free NHS card because I get tax credits.

I was surprised when they sent me a new one, apparently they are renewed every 7 months.

I will have to pay all prescription charges if my tax credits stop.

[Orzel]

The ones most likely to make frivolous appointments are the ones who at the moment are exempt from prescription charges and so would presumably also be exempt from appointment charges.

People who work full time don't waste time going to A&E or their Drs regularly, they're too busy earning a living and living a life.

 

Already covered that one:

free only with medical exemption and relating to nature of said exemption

No benefit, tax credit, pensioner etc exemption - you pay unless you came with your specific condition and it needs review. Sort of like asthma mentioned before. And it is absolutely true that working people don't go to doctors. They don't get as much prescriptions as benefit claimants.

Medically exempt have a lot of prescriptions, but they have some sort of condition that gives them exemption.Condition other then 'work shy'.

 

% of GDP, per capita spending, however you count it its money thrown at bureaucrats.

 

NHS does well in statistics because it is meant to, that is exactly how it works.

Just read personal horror stories of people who had condition that varied from average.

[unbeliever]

% of GDP is a way of measuring the level of spend so it can be compared to other countries.

 

For example German, Netherlands, Belgium spend about 2-3% more of their GDP on healthcare but have roughly similar life expectancy.

 

If we were to spend 2-3% more it is likely that we would not significantly increase life expectancy. That 2-3% would be £30-£50bn extra annual spend for us. We don't need to spend that extra money because the NHS, despite its obvious flaws, is already exceptional value for money.

 

I still don't see how spending as a percentage of GDP is meaningful.

Spending per capita is what counts. There's no reason you can't compare that from one country to another.

 

Life expectancy is one metric. But if we get there by providing woefully inadequate treatment for anything not life-threatening, that's no good.

You'll have people suffering needlessly for decades with conditions which are not fatal and think you're doing a good job.

 

---------- Post added 30-10-2015 at 18:40 ----------

 

Already covered that one:

 

No benefit, tax credit, pensioner etc exemption - you pay unless you came with your specific condition and it needs review. Sort of like asthma mentioned before. And it is absolutely true that working people don't go to doctors. They don't get as much prescriptions as benefit claimants.

Medically exempt have a lot of prescriptions, but they have some sort of condition that gives them exemption.Condition other then 'work shy'.

 

% of GDP, per capita spending, however you count it its money thrown at bureaucrats.

 

NHS does well in statistics because it is meant to, that is exactly how it works.

Just read personal horror stories of people who had condition that varied from average.

 

Hear hear.

[alternageek]

How much do you imagine it would cost you to get medical cover for these things in the US? Probably a lot more than it's costing here.

 

it just cost me $125 out of pocket, for a drs appt (and I only spoke to a nurse practitioner) and then almost $80 for 30 tablets.... ill need to get a Rx for one of my three inhalers, and its going to cost over $200 for it, as theres no generic version on the market..

 

I miss the NHS already.

[Orzel]

Life expectancy is one metric. But if we get there by providing woefully inadequate treatment for anything not life-threatening, that's no good.

You'll have people suffering needlessly for decades with conditions which are not fatal and think you're doing a good job.

 

Hip replacement only for over 50? year old is a nice example.

I have an acquaintance who waited 2 years in constant pain.

Out of work, as one can imagine. 2 years of constant pain partially immobilized. Because some bureaucrat calculated that it is too soon and put it in guidelines.

 

The hassle and effort, painkillers, lost taxes, time of doctors trying to push it through before magical birthday, time of someone holding firmly in his bureaucratic position and all associated costs were probably way more then said hip replacement would have cost. But we would need 5 more clerks in NHS to know. Throw some more money at them.

[I1L2T3]

I still don't see how spending as a percentage of GDP is meaningful.

Spending per capita is what counts. There's no reason you can't compare that from one country to another.

 

Life expectancy is one metric. But if we get there by providing woefully inadequate treatment for anything not life-threatening, that's no good.

You'll have people suffering needlessly for decades with conditions which are not fatal and think you're doing a good job.

 

 

Life expectancy is an important metric.

 

Others are too, like levels of participation in the workforce. The UK actually has fairly high levels of economically active people, especially so among older workers. A good indicator of the general health of the population.

 

We do have some alarming trends though. Obesity and diabetes on the rise for example.

 

As for per capita spend on healthcare ours is quite low. About 2/3 of what Germany and France spend and about 1/3 of what the USA spends.

 

I understand your argument is about your own circumstances and I would be frustrated too. From time to time I do partially cover some of my own health costs as well for things I know will be difficult to access on the NHS, just using my GP to get the referrals I need. I totally get where you are coming from.

 

That said, to talk down the entire NHS based on your experiences flies in the face of all the evidence.

 

It may come as a shock for some people but where spend per capita (or GDP or whatever) is higher it does not prevent medical negligence and malpractice. Countries where spend is high have significant problems just like we do.

[Mr Gobby]

When my wife had cancer the treatment she recieved was outstanding and they are still in regular contact with her .Knock the NHS all you want ,we would be in a hole with out it.

[petemcewan]

Which part of the the healthcare scenario do you feel your lacking?

 

Your family members have been assessed,advised they have issues and prescribed the correct medication all totally free.(well paid for by contributions of everyone). You don't say whether your family members are contributing,as you seem to feel that your payment should enable you to receive NHS treatment.

 

I don't recall ever being told medicines were free.

 

Regarding the mental issues YOU chose to try and circumvent the current situation by buying your preferred option. I think next time you access the NHS for the same issue you should be refused treatment, if you can afford £400 once you can pay your way in the future. If you'd waited you would have received the counselling free of charge.

Will the psychiatrist give you a prescription for pills that you will get free?

 

Other people are paying massive taxes for the NHS and have no family members so the money they pay is propping up the multiple users from other families.

The NHS isn't perfect but neither is society.

 

What a wonderful caring and understanding person you are !