Is the NHS useless?

[sgtkate]

Whilst I think that your links make a valuable contribution. I have already pointed out that they're from a US lobbying group dedicated to creating an NHS like system in the US. It's not an impartial academic analysis.

 

They are from the commonwealth fund. Seems unlikely to be a US lobbying group... Let me look into that.

 

Nope, take it back you are right they are. However the figures they pull are still genuine so ignore their interpretation and look at pure number and make you own conclusions.

Edited November 1, 2015 by sgtkate

[Bob Arctor]

One session per week would probably be enough. We're paying more than enough in to cover it.

The NHS budget has risen in real terms every year since 2008. So I can't see how supposed "austerity" is to blame.

 

Austerity isn't entirely to blame; services for people with a PD diagnosis were woeful until about 2008 when they started to improve (due to the Dept of Health making it a priority), but they would have improved a lot more had the money been there and it wasn't. Offering good services to that group of people has to be in addition to what mental health services were already doing and that requires expansion, and I can tell you that regardless of what the govt tells you, mental health services have contracted since austerity, ask anyone who was using or working in them before 2010.

[unbeliever]

They are from the commonwealth fund. Seems unlikely to be a US lobbying group... Let me look into that.

 

Nope, take it back you are right they are. However the figures they pull are still genuine so ignore their interpretation and look at pure number and make you own conclusions.

 

I appreciate the concession. Shows me that I'm dealing with somebody who allows facts to overrule ideas when they disagree.

Their motto is "Affordable, quality health care. For everyone.".

That's the motto of a lobbying group, not a bunch of academics interested only in facts.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 09:13 ----------

 

Austerity isn't entirely to blame; services for people with a PD diagnosis were woeful until about 2008 when they started to improve (due to the Dept of Health making it a priority), but they would have improved a lot more had the money been there and it wasn't. Offering good services to that group of people has to be in addition to what mental health services were already doing and that requires expansion, and I can tell you that regardless of what the govt tells you, mental health services have contracted since austerity, ask anyone who was using or working in them before 2010.

 

How is it that no matter how much extra money the NHS gets each year, they manage to be in financial crisis anyway and making cuts?

[sgtkate]

Their motto is "Affordable, quality health care. For everyone.".

That's the motto of a lobbying group, not a bunch of academics interested only in facts.

 

Maybe, and their motto is something I support and they find the NHS is the best health care system in the world based on that motto. We should be pretty pleased of that or do you not agree with their ideals? What would your motto be? "Unaffordable, crap, health care only for those who can afford insurance"

[unbeliever]

Maybe, and their motto is something I support and they find the NHS is the best health care system in the world based on that motto. We should be pretty pleased of that or do you not agree with their ideals? What would your motto be? "Unaffordable, crap, health care only for those who can afford insurance"

 

I agree with their goals. Or at least I did until our NHS let me down so badly. Ask me again in a year.

My point is just that they're not impartial. Which you've already graciously conceded.

[Bob Arctor]

I appreciate the concession. Shows me that I'm dealing with somebody who allows facts to overrule ideas when they disagree.

Their motto is "Affordable, quality health care. For everyone.".

That's the motto of a lobbying group, not a bunch of academics interested only in facts.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 09:13 ----------

 

 

How is it that no matter how much extra money the NHS gets each year, they manage to be in financial crisis anyway and making cuts?

 

Because as a population we keep demanding more from them. This is not a dig, but that includes you. 10 years ago your relative wouldn't have even been offered a mental health service or psychotherapy on the NHS. PD isn't an illness and therefore there are still people who believe it should be out of scope for the NHS. We can't keep getting more for the same price.

[Ms Macbeth]

Whilst the NHS should be the provider of most services, in some instances the voluntary sector may be an alternative. I doubt the NHS alone could have developed the services available to people with heart problems, that's why we (our family) support the British Heart Foundation, whose R&D has meant great strides in causes and treatment, and saved many lives.

 

If I needed help with mental health issues, I'd also look at the services offered by Mind, who are a specialist charity: http://www.sheffieldmind.co.uk. Just an option.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Ms Macbeth

[unbeliever]

I'm considering a model where all the healthcare provision is in the private sector. All doctors, nurses, therapists etc are either self employed or employed by a private sector organisation.

Everybody working full time at a good rate buys health insurance. Said insurance is taxed and the taxes used to fund a state scheme to cover the poor.

This introduces competition for value and quality between healthcare providers, as a replacement for targets. I'm generally of the view that competition is better at driving up standards than top-down targets which tend to create perverse incentives.

[Ms Macbeth]

I'm considering a model where all the healthcare provision is in the private sector. All doctors, nurses, therapists etc are either self employed or employed by a private sector organisation.

Everybody working full time as a good rate buys health insurance. Said insurance is taxed and the taxes used to fund a state scheme to cover the poor.

This introduces competition for value and quality between healthcare providers, as a replacement for targets. I'm generally of the view that competition is better at driving up standards than top-down targets which tend to create perverse incentives.

 

One of the option offered by Mind is for people who have 'Personal budgets' to buy in their services. I don't know exactly how those budgets work, but it suggests there is a marketplace. Maybe, if you haven't already done so, you could investigate how to get financial support for your relative that would allow them to access these services.

 

The link is in my previous post.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Ms Macbeth

[Bob Arctor]

One of the option offered by Mind is for people who have 'Personal budgets' to buy in their services. I don't know exactly how those budgets work, but it suggests there is a marketplace. Maybe, if you haven't already done so, you could investigate how to get financial support for your relative that would allow them to access these services.

 

The link is in my previous post.

 

No use I'm afraid, these are funded by Social Care to meet daily living needs resulting from a mental health condition, you can't use them to pay for therapy. Plus they've been cut right back. Personal Health Budgets may be an option although they are in their infancy and the CCG haven't really got their head around them yet.

 

---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 09:48 ----------

 

I'm considering a model where all the healthcare provision is in the private sector. All doctors, nurses, therapists etc are either self employed or employed by a private sector organisation.

Everybody working full time at a good rate buys health insurance. Said insurance is taxed and the taxes used to fund a state scheme to cover the poor.

This introduces competition for value and quality between healthcare providers, as a replacement for targets. I'm generally of the view that competition is better at driving up standards than top-down targets which tend to create perverse incentives.

 

But everyone has lots of experience of really poor service from successful private business, who continue to trade and turn a profit despite being crap. The courier market is crowded and yet Yodel still exist. Look at what VW did with diesel and then apply that ethos to healthcare. Hmmm.