Privatise The Nhs?

[despritdan]

The NHS is a fantastic concept which was a great achievement by the Labour government after the war and should never be privatised. It had a profound impact on people's lives and was the envy of the world. Back then, we had a population of around 50 million and people worked hard and paid their taxes; nobody expected to rely on benefits all their lives. The country was prosperous because of coal, steel, shipbuilding etc and the things which improved people's lives were affordable.

 

Now, nobody knows what the accurate population figure is; the official figures say 68 million but if all the illegals who've been coming here for decades were included, it must be well over 70 million. It's blindingly obvious that our bloated, unsustainable population is the main reason the NHS is struggling to cope. There are simply too many people using it. It's been a victim of its own success, becoming a magnet, along with the welfare state, for people from countries whose governments don't provide for their citizens as well as western governments do and it cannot cope with the demand. Add to that the cost of things which get covered up such as the annual cost to the NHS of first cousin marriages amongst Pakistanis, which I estimate costs around £3 billion a year, money wasted on diversity officers and the cost of giving contracts to private companies who charge extortionate amounts for goods and services and it's clear why the NHS is falling apart at the seams.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Anna B said:

Never, never privatise the NHS.

 

Privatisation puts the emphasis on profits, rather than what's in the best interests of the patients.

IMO profits for shareholders has no place in the NHS.

National insurance should have increased roughly in line with inflation since it's inception, obviously with some investment, adjustment and tweaking from government. 

 

We should look to the systems used elsewhere, particularly the Scandinavian countries, for ideas and solutions, rather than America which has one of the worst systems in the world.

 

American health care companies have already got their feet under the table over here and have donated money to Starmer,  Wes Streeting,   Labour Shadow Health secretary and Yvette cooper.

Those lads and lasses don't let the grass grow under their feet.   Now why should Labour leader and Ministers, take donations from an American health Care company ?

5 hours ago, alchresearch said:

On the other hand it might be run more efficiently if people were accountable for their spending.

 

How much money is spent prescribing paracetamol? £80 million

 

How much this did cost?

NHS workers handed teabags as ‘thank you’ treat

https://nursingnotes.co.uk/news/nhs-workers-handed-teabags-as-thank-you-treat/

 

Did anyone lose their job over this?  Or was it a case of "oh well, its only money"
 

NHS trust loses £360k after attempt to host fundraising music festival

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-trust-loss-festival-b1884818.html

IT would have to be Very very very efficient to save enough money to pay their  Chief execs and shareholders.

do you think they would have any left to invest in itself ?

 

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Organgrinder said:

American health care companies have already got their feet under the table over here and have donated money to Starmer,  Wes Streeting,   Labour Shadow Health secretary and Yvette cooper.

Those lads and lasses don't let the grass grow under their feet.   Now why should Labour leader and Ministers, take donations from an American health Care company ?

IT would have to be Very very very efficient to save enough money to pay their  Chief execs and shareholders.

do you think they would have any left to invest in itself ?

 

Exactly. Another reason why Labour voters feel so let down by Starmer and his cronies, and know him for a closet Tory. 

 

So many people in Britain have been disenfranchised by Starmer's drive to expel the Labour left. If people want centre politics, let them vote Lib Dem.

A lot of us want and need a party that fights for the ordinary man in the street, not just the shareholders. ...For the many, not the few.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Anna B

[El Cid]

4 hours ago, despritdan said:

It's blindingly obvious that our bloated, unsustainable population is the main reason the NHS is struggling to cope. There are simply too many people using it. It's been a victim of its own success, becoming a magnet, along with the welfare state, for people from countries whose governments don't provide for their citizens as well as western governments do and it cannot cope with the demand.

I am sure that you are not suggesting that all the 600,000 that came here last year are ill and coming to use the NHS.

At least not as ill as our own overweight type two diabetes prone population?

[cuttsie]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Exactly. Another reason why Labour voters feel so let down by Starmer and his cronies, and know him for a closet Tory. 

 

So many people in Britain have been disenfranchised by Starmer's drive to expel the Labour left. If people want centre politics, let them vote Lib Dem.

A lot of us want and need a party that fights for the ordinary man in the street, not just the shareholders. ...For the many, not the few.

Spot on

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Exactly. Another reason why Labour voters feel so let down by Starmer and his cronies, and know him for a closet Tory. 

So let down that they are ahead in the polls.

I did think this thread was about the NHS, not to have a ill informed dig at Starmer.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

I am sure that you are not suggesting that all the 600,000 that came here last year are ill and coming to use the NHS.

At least not as ill as our own overweight type two diabetes prone population?

It's not about how many came in a particular year,  it's the fact that the population steadily grows and has increased by 7 million since the year 2000.
the NHS did cope until 2010 but since then has had to live alongside the austerity program and the results are now plain to see..

If we are going to have ever increasing population then we obviously need ever increasing doctors, nurses, beds , surgeries,  schools, and houses  etc and the very opposite happens.

I agree wholeheartedly with despritdan,  in that this is a very big factor in the performance of the NHS .

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, El Cid said:

So let down that they are ahead in the polls.

I did think this thread was about the NHS, not to have a ill informed dig at Starmer.

They are ahead in the polls simply because we have had for a few years, the worst and most unpopular governments this country has ever seen and the people want and need a change.

Starmer has been brought into it because he's most likely going to be the next one in charge of the NHS and he's already taking money from American Private Health companies. 

Why do you consider it an ill informed dig ?     Do you consider that either Starmer or the Labour Party itself,  should be exempted from the criticism that the Tories are currently getting.

No favourites here mate until they show that they deserve it.  We have been strung along for too long.

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Organgrinder

[El Cid]

23 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

It's not about how many came in a particular year,  it's the fact that the population steadily grows and has increased by 7 million since the year 2000.
the NHS did cope until 2010 but since then has had to live alongside the austerity program and the results are now plain to see..

If we are going to have ever increasing population then we obviously need ever increasing doctors, nurses, beds , surgeries,  schools, and houses  etc and the very opposite happens.

I agree wholeheartedly with despritdan,  in that this is a very big factor in the performance of the NHS .

 

The population is increasing and funding isn't keeping up. The Tories will say funding is increasing, which it is.

But a significant percentage of UK born elderly now have new knees, pacemakers and are generally unhealthy, but the NHS keep them going.

I am not aware of the age of the millions of immigrants, but I would guess at generally younger than 50

[Mister M]

43 minutes ago, El Cid said:

The population is increasing and funding isn't keeping up. The Tories will say funding is increasing, which it is.

But a significant percentage of UK born elderly now have new knees, pacemakers and are generally unhealthy, but the NHS keep them going.

I am not aware of the age of the millions of immigrants, but I would guess at generally younger than 50

I think that's an important point, as the population is aging, who's going to be paying for public services?

IIRC there have been a number of studies which have shown that those who migrate to our country are net contributors.