Why haven't other countries copied the NHS? Watch

username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 years ago
#41
(Original post by L i b)
Yep, I've had family members work in the NHS and the tales like boxes of computers stacked up in storage rooms after having been purchased in an end-of-year splurge and never opened were constant.
Whereas it's all sunshine and roses in corporate firms.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 years ago
#42
(Original post by L i b)
Yep, I've had family members work in the NHS and the tales like boxes of computers stacked up in storage rooms after having been purchased in an end-of-year splurge and never opened were constant.
These reasons are obvious.

Those in charge of finance know that unless a budget is spent, it will be reduced in the following year (this has been a perennial problem with UK public sector finances-no carry forward). Therefore the budget must be spent.

The only way to spend money quickly is on what the rest of the world would regard as capital equipment. However the NHS accounts for the whole expenditure in the year it is incurred rather than writing down a capital asset over its lifetime. That means buying capital assets works in the NHS in the way it wouldn't work in any organisation using normal accounting principles.

There is no need for any end user to have requisitioned this equipment. As installation and training costs would fall in the following year, no provision is made for these. To do so would be self-defeating because those costs will fall on next years budget and reduce it for doing whatever the hospital or department needs its budget for. The purpose of buying equipment was to protect next year's budget, not to be a drain on it.
0
reply
Trevormacdonald
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#43
Report 3 years ago
#43
(Original post by TheCitizenAct)
Why would they want to copy it when they can just turn the British NHS into the world health service? It's called health tourism. Let a small part of the world pay for it, and bleed them dry.

It's multicultural, don't you know?
Do you believe EVERYTHING the Daily Mail tells you. You really do live in your own Alice in wonderland land world, don't you. Lol. Don't worry we will all be under Shariah law soon enough then you can say "see I was right".
0
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#44
Report 3 years ago
#44
(Original post by Bornblue)
If you don't like it, don't use it but millions upon millions love the NHS and couldn't live without it.
You do realise that, presuming nulli tertius lives in the UK, he's actually paying for it with his taxes? He has every right to complain about a service that he's paying for. 'Don't like it? Don't use it' is only a proper comeback if you also concede that he has the right to stop paying for a service that's dissatisfied with -- knowing your position on healthcare, I doubt you'd concede that, so please stop repeating this nonsensical comeback.
0
reply
heimdala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 3 years ago
#45
(Original post by Bornblue)
Stop thinking of it like a business. Stop thinking about 'efficiencies', and start focusing on the wonderful service is does provide and has provided.
Not sure if serious...:curious:
2
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#46
Report 3 years ago
#46
(Original post by anitax)
How come countries like Sweden with even more tax than the UK haven't copied it though?

Which managerial issues?
When i worked for them (about 8 years ago now) it was ridiculously top heavy and bureaucratic - full of jobsworth trying to justify their paycheck and no on takes responsibility for anything.

It was the main reason I left.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#47
Report 3 years ago
#47
(Original post by Hydeman)
You do realise that, presuming nulli tertius lives in the UK, he's actually paying for it with his taxes? He has every right to complain about a service that he's paying for. 'Don't like it? Don't use it' is only a proper comeback if you also concede that he has the right to stop paying for a service that's dissatisfied with -- knowing your position on healthcare, I doubt you'd concede that, so please stop repeating this nonsensical comeback.
That logic doesn't apply too well. I don't like my taxes going to trident for example but I get shouted down and called anti-british if I say that.
I don't like my taxes going to Saudi Arabian oil or to bombing Syria...
We all pay for things we personally don't agree with.
Unlike Nulli though I don't have any influence over the armed services, he does over his healthcare.



It seems a bizarre complaint though. The NHS doesn't have magic money pots, it is only as good as the amount of money going into it.

He seems to be complaining the NHS isn't great and wants to cut funding to it - it's illogical.

It's saying 'it's bad because it's underfunded so let's fund it less'.

He of course has a right to complain, but not a right to nonsensical criticisms and not a right to accuse people of GPs being over-cautious. Over cautious beats under cautious.

Would he rather a GP waste a bit of time, or miss out on a potential sign of a serious illness?
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#48
Report 3 years ago
#48
(Original post by heimdala)
Not sure if serious...:curious:
A free-at-the-point-of-us health service which regularly is rated as one of the best in the world and allows even the poorest to be treated. How awful!!!!
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 3 years ago
#49
(Original post by Bornblue)



The NHS doesn't have magic money pots, it is only as good as the amount of money going into it.


That is the fallacy. The return on each pound spent on the NHS diminishes and in isolated cases spending more money even produces lower gross outcomes



He seems to be complaining the NHS isn't great and wants to cut funding to it - it's illogical.
Did you read my earlier post? There is no practical way of cutting funding at the present time and probably never. The realistic aim is to hold funding and increase outcomes to keep up with demand.



He of course has a right to complain, but not a right to nonsensical criticisms and not a right to accuse people of GPs being over-cautious. Over cautious beats under cautious.


Would he rather a GP waste a bit of time, or miss out on a potential sign of a serious illness?
The GP doesn't waste a bit of time in the sense that he would otherwise be reading Golf World. He spends his time not treating those that need his care in favour of treating those who don't.

This isn't my view. This is the view of the royal colleges that £2:3 Bn a year is wasted in the NHS by doctors even without any form of demand management.

http://www.aomrc.org.uk/doc_download...ing-value.html
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#50
Report 3 years ago
#50
(Original post by nulli tertius)
That is the fallacy. The return on each pound spent on the NHS diminishes and in isolated cases spending more money even produces lower gross outcomes





Did you read my earlier post? There is no practical way of cutting funding at the present time and probably never. The realistic aim is to hold funding and increases outcomes to keep up with demand.





The GP doesn't waste bit of time in the sense that he would otherwise be reading Golf World. He spends his time not treating those that need his care in favour of treating those who don't.

This isn't my view. This is the view of the royal colleges that £2:3 Bn a year is wasted in the NHS by doctors even without any form of demand management.

http://www.aomrc.org.uk/doc_download...ing-value.html
It's not a business and shouldn't be treated as such. Of course there will be waste, but you are acting like private systems are perfect and there is no problem at all.

There would be something wrong if it was making a profit. I want every penny of tax payer money going into the system providing more money for patients, treatments and training.

Why should funding ever be cut? Why not more and more money into the system so it carries on becoming better and better. There should never be a stage where the service is just 'good enough' - it should always be improving and always be getting increased funding.

A GP has a duty to treat anyone who comes before him. It's not for you to say who does and doesn't need treatment. Again i'd rather wasted than cut corners. I'd rather GPs are over, not under cautious. I'd rather risk wasting time than missing potential signs.

The NHS isn't a business. Don't compare it to one.
0
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#51
Report 3 years ago
#51
(Original post by Bornblue)
That logic doesn't apply too well. I don't like my taxes going to trident for example but I get shouted down and called anti-british if I say that.
Has nulli tertius done that though? It doesn't make sense to say, as you're effectively doing here that, 'because people make invalid arguments against my position on a different issue, it's okay for me to do so here.'

We all pay for things we personally don't agree with.
That's not the point though; you're trying to shut down legitimate criticism of the NHS by offering the 'don't like it don't use it' mantra as justification. You're entitled to complain about Trident and our trade relations with Saudi Arabia, as are the rest of us to criticise the NHS. It's nonsensical to say that nulli tertius should just cease to use the NHS if he doesn't like it as a way to stop him from making legitimate criticisms of it because ceasing to use/support it doesn't actually do anything about the fact that he's still paying for it through his taxes.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't pay those taxes; I'm saying that you're wrong in telling him that simply not using it would remove from him the right to complain about it.

He seems to be complaining the NHS isn't great and wants to cut funding to it - it's illogical.

It's saying 'it's bad because it's underfunded so let's fund it less'.
Well, that's just an out-and-out straw man. His position is that it isn't underfunded. A real summary of his position would be phrased like this:

'The NHS is very inefficient owing to a number of structural and management problems and could do with reducing these inefficiencies so that a reduction in funding may be possible at some point in the future.'

To which you've replied:

(Original post by Bornblue)
Stop thinking of it like a business. Stop thinking about 'efficiencies', and start focusing on the wonderful service is does provide and has provided.
Which, quite frankly, amounts to a call to sentimental avoidance of the problems of the NHS and proposing to solve it by unthinkingly throwing more money at it.

He of course has a right to complain, but not a right to nonsensical criticisms
This seems to be something of an oxymoron... You cannot say that he has the right to complain, but not in a way that you find nonsensical. It's either all or none in this case, I'm afraid.
0
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#52
Report 3 years ago
#52
(Original post by Bornblue)
Of course there will be waste, but you are acting like private systems are perfect and there is no problem at all.
nulli tertius has neither said nor implied this.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#53
Report 3 years ago
#53
(Original post by Bornblue)
It's not a business and shouldn't be treated as such. Of course there will be waste, but you are acting like private systems are perfect and there is no problem at all.

There would be something wrong if it was making a profit. I want every penny of tax payer money going into the system providing more money for patients, treatments and training.

Why should funding ever be cut? Why not more and more money into the system so it carries on becoming better and better. There should never be a stage where the service is just 'good enough' - it should always be improving and always be getting increased funding.

A GP has a duty to treat anyone who comes before him. It's not for you to say who does and doesn't need treatment. Again i'd rather wasted than cut corners. I'd rather GPs are over, not under cautious. I'd rather risk wasting time than missing potential signs.

The NHS isn't a business. Don't compare it to one.
Why do you keep referring to a business and a profit?

The NHS is monumentally inefficient for a variety of reasons mostly related to its scale.

It needs to be made more efficient regardless of who owns it. Governments have thought that introducing internal pretend markets would increase efficiency. In no real sense have they done so and it is more than arguable that they have added to the NHS's problems.

They NHS can contract with a private supplier to do 500 knee operations or the such like but that has no real impact on the internal management of the NHS. It merely says here are a few operations that are not subjected to that management.

We could get in some private sector management to try and run the existing system better. They have tried one hospital. It didn't work. The problem isn't that the quality of NHS management isn't high enough. The problem is what they are managing.

The entire NHS or parts of it could be flogged off to a private company with the government paying a fee for using the service. This might work. The great success stories are BT and BA. But against them, put Railtrack and the National Air Traffic Control Service. If we did this, we would have to expect that some things are done differently.

None of these things necessarily has any impact on how the service is paid for and we can change how it is funded without changing how it is managed at all.

However the danger of changing how it is funded without changing how it is managed, is that the new funders (be that patients, insurers, employers, mutuals etc) will vote with their feet and buy provision elsewhere with new entrants setting up in opposition to the NHS and without its baggage.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#54
Report 3 years ago
#54
(Original post by Bornblue)
Whereas it's all sunshine and roses in corporate firms.
Public sector does have a reputation of needlessly spending money to ensure all of the budget is used up. Recruitment firms, suppliers etc all live the month or two before the end of the financial a year as that's when public sector splurge.

The mentality isn't often seen in privately run organisations. Nobody gives you a well done for spending money unnecessarily.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 3 years ago
#55
(Original post by anitax)
Even ones like Sweden, Finland etc.?
Sweden and Finland's systems are quite similar to ours - both mainly state funded and free at the point of use. (Some small charges for some things, as with the NHS.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland

The only real difference is they devolve more to local authorities than here, although the comparison is complicated, because social care for the elderly and disabled is provided by local authorities in the UK, whereas this is more centralised in Sweden and Finland.

Most other EU countries operate free-at-point-of-use or 'minimal charge' systems, less so in the poorer emerging E. European states.
.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#56
Report 3 years ago
#56
(Original post by nulli tertius)

The NHS is monumentally inefficient for a variety of reasons mostly related to its scale.
Providing a service for a nation is always going to be, but you don't seem to admit any of the good things it does, nor have you said anything positive about it at all. Again i'd rather a few inefficiencies, then serious corner cutting.

It needs to be made more efficient regardless of who owns it. Governments have thought that introducing internal pretend markets would increase efficiency. In no real sense have they done so and it is more than arguable that they have added to the NHS's problems.
Again I refer you to Blair's waiting lists, which dramatically reduced as he poured money into the NHS. There's only so much 'efficiency' you can get by on, I know the tory mantra is 'more for less', but there comes a time when you do just need more money to provide a better service. There is no magic money tree. If we want the NHS to have the resources to treat us all then it needs more money. Yes it can be more efficient but the end result is it needs funding.

We could get in some private sector management to try and run the existing system better. They have tried one hospital. It didn't work. The problem isn't that the quality of NHS management isn't high enough. The problem is what they are managing.

The entire NHS or parts of it could be flogged off to a private company with the government paying a fee for using the service. This might work. The great success stories are BT and BA. But against them, put Railtrack and the National Air Traffic Control Service. If we did this, we would have to expect that some things are done differently.
Different doesn't equal better. And yes some services can be done better by private but the NHS is not one of them.
Shown by how it regularly rates as one of the best in the world.

However the danger of changing how it is funded without changing how it is managed, is that the new funders (be that patients, insurers, employers, mutuals etc) will vote with their feet and buy provision elsewhere with new entrants setting up in opposition to the NHS and without its baggage.
It really should be as simple as more money going into the NHS = a better service. That's it. You can be as efficient as you want, but if you don't have the money to buy a new cancer machine there's nothing you can do.


What do you want? To scrap the NHS? To make it not free at the point of use?
It's a great system and you seem to have nothing good to say about it.
0
reply
heimdala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 3 years ago
#57
(Original post by Bornblue)
A free-at-the-point-of-us health service
You seem to believe that there is only 2 ways of running a health care system, UK or USA. Neither are particularly good, for different reasons.
(Original post by Bornblue)
which regularly is rated as one of the best in the world and allows even the poorest to be treated.
Please do provide sources, the exact measurement that are used and why such measurements are relevant. As you will soon find out a lot of healthcare rankings are misleading. For example the WHO penalises the US system for not having a sufficiently progressive tax system, not providing all citizens with health insurance, and having a general paucity of social welfare programs. Such judgments clearly reflect a particular political point of view, rather than a neutral measure of health care quality. Other rankings will include life expectancy as a measure even though this is affected by exogenous factors such as violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues completely unrelated to health care. Infant mortality, a common measure in crosscountry comparisons, is also highly problematic. In the US, very low birthweight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low birthweight babies die soon after birth, which boosts the infant mortality rate of the US, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, lowbirth-weight infants are not included when infant mortality is calculated. Many countries use abortion to eliminate problem pregnancies. For example, Cuba has low infant mortality rates, yet the country has one of the world’s highest abortion rates, meaning that many babies with health problems that could lead to early deaths are never brought to term.
(Original post by Bornblue)
How awful!!!!
To be honest, i agree that those of low income should also be able to receive healthcare. I don't understand why criticising the NHS for its failures and wanting a more efficient system is wrong.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#58
Report 3 years ago
#58
(Original post by heimdala)
You seem to believe that there is only 2 ways of running a health care system, UK or USA. Neither are particularly good, for different reasons.
Which one is better, one that ensures every single person is covered and can receive the same level of helthcare, or one in which 40 million people are priced out of healthcare?

Neither is perfect, but seeing them as 'equally bad' is absurd.
0
reply
troubadour.
Badges: 18
#59
Report 3 years ago
#59
(Original post by Bornblue)
Which one is better, one that ensures every single person is covered and can receive the same level of helthcare, or one in which 40 million people are priced out of healthcare?

Neither is perfect, but seeing them as 'equally bad' is absurd.
As is treating them as the only two systems possible, which you seem to be doing here. At no point has nulli tertius argued that the NHS should be scrapped or privatised or that the USA's private healthcare model is preferable and yet you've repeatedly attacked him for apparently doing so, on the basis that he hasn't praised it enough. Please stop doing that.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#60
Report 3 years ago
#60
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Sweden and Finland's systems are quite similar to ours - both mainly state funded and free at the point of use. (Some small charges for some things, as with the NHS.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland

The only real difference is they devolve more to local authorities than here, although the comparison is complicated, because social care for the elderly and disabled is provided by local authorities in the UK, whereas this is more centralised in Sweden and Finland.

Most other EU countries operate free-at-point-of-use or 'minimal charge' systems.
The key issue is how important those differences are.

Does the county by county approach to Swedish health care provision make the scale manageable? Any attempts at devolution of management in the UK even with Scotland which has always had a separate NHS are met by the "postcode lottery" argument. I have spent a lot of time in Sweden and the system feels more efficient (flu jabs in shopping centres-I think they would have given me one-no questions asked).

The big question with charging is what effect does nominal charging have?

In the UK it is usually done for admission to facilities. When something like an antiques fair charges for admission that isn't really for revenue raising. It is to keep the non-customers out. When the national museums abolished entrance charges attendances went up hugely but most people think it attracted the disinterested. Westminster Abbey imposed charges not because it needed the money but to cut numbers. The recent imposition of court fees would have been a more comparable service but the charges were by no means nominal. There is very large difference in take up between solicitors who offer a free introductory interview and those who charge a nominal £10 or £20 for one.

The key thing with medicine is not only are people deterred but who is deterred?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices? (November update)

Yes I know where I'm applying (216)
70.59%
No I haven't decided yet (57)
18.63%
Yes but I might change my mind (33)
10.78%

Watched Threads

View All