Turn on thread page Beta

Why are people in this country so deluded about healthcare? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So the NHS would pay for the expensive part then pay a premium for manufacture.

    And you realise its a long term plan since it takes 15-25 years to get something from stating research to market. Thats when you have the researchers etc.
    Its cheap to make drugs , the high price is for research the NHS will also get its money back by selling drug to other people
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loki276)
    Its cheap to make drugs , the high price is for research the NHS will also get its money back by selling drug to other people
    In 20 years time yes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fusilero)
    I thought the Swedish had the best healthcare?
    Well not according to the widely quoted WHO ranking. It is a couple of years old now, so it might have changed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    In 20 years time yes.
    its still worth it instead of paying high price because of patents and is cheaper in the long run
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I would say the French system works better and more efficiently. Everything in Britain is a rip off, and even with far fewer strikes than the French we can't compete with them; its pathetic really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't go that far, the French system is way more expensive than ours and even they think our system is more efficient in some ways in that GPs play a larger role rather than people going straight to specialists which is one of the reasons their costs are higher and we probably spend less on admin than the French.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Banburyhammer)
    I have one issue with the NHS. Why are there so many employees of the NHS who arent doctors or nurses. Thats the only major fault, that there are too many administrators. Aprst from that, i think its pretty good. Maybe not the best, but definetly up there.
    The NHS needs people other than Drs and nurses to run it. For example a hospital needs drugs, equipement, building maintenance, food preparation, drivers, computer operators, health and safety, managing money, disposing of hazardous waste, managing appointments etc.

    I don't think Drs and nurses are trained to do all these things and it won't be very efficient to pay Drs and nurses to negotiate the cost of sausages or manage appointments when you can hire people with the skills to do these things at lower cost.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    The NHS needs people other than Drs and nurses to run it. For example a hospital needs drugs, equipement, building maintenance, food preparation, drivers, computer operators, health and safety, managing money, disposing of hazardous waste, managing appointments etc.

    I don't think Drs and nurses are trained to do all these things and it won't be very efficient to pay Drs and nurses to negotiate the cost of sausages or manage appointments when you can hire people with the skills to do these things at lower cost.
    Yes, but i never said ther shouldnt be any, i said that there are too many of them. When a close to a third of the people employed by the NHS do not have any sort of medical qualification, then you have got to ask a question.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Banburyhammer)
    Yes, but i never said ther shouldnt be any, i said that there are too many of them. When a close to a third of the people employed by the NHS do not have any sort of medical qualification, then you have got to ask a question.
    You don't need a medical qualification to order sausages or make appointments.

    Where did you get the idea the NHS has too many non-clinical staff?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    There a countries that use private healthcare but subsidise the health insurance for those who can't afford healthcare, e.g. the Netherlands or Singapore.
    Singapore isn't as amazing as a cursiary glance at the stats would tell you.

    The Netherlands meanwhile has national insurance for chronic healthcare (i.e. the vast majority of healthcare costs) and a heavily regulated. Or at least this was the case until the 2006 liberalisation reforms which have seen premium costs rise significantly.

    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    With the NHS they know you've paid already, and they have no real incentive to ensure their treatment is top quality. If its a private hospital, with competitors, and this firm needs your money - if they give bad treatment you'll go somewhere else next time. To keep customers and to do well, they have to provide a good servise. Plus with the middle classes now using private healthcare, and only the working class having to be subsidised by the state; the cost of healthcare for the government would be far less than £100 billion per year.
    Wait... you're saying that private healthcare in this country get better care? Private healthcare in this country is quicker and not even neccesarily better. You get treated by the same consultants (who, instead of being motivated by your well-being, they are motivated by what money they can off you) and usually you're on the same NHS wards. And when you're in a private hospital they don't have those expensive facilitates like blood banks and crash teams which lead to deaths when unexpected complications come around.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    <snip>

    With the NHS they know you've paid already, and they have no real incentive to ensure their treatment is top quality.
    the illusion of choice that CaB gives aims to do this, the real choice that liarbore removed when they removed GP fundholding did give that choice ...

    If its a private hospital, with competitors, and this firm needs your money - if they give bad treatment you'll go somewhere else next time.
    which GPFH did , and CaB gives the illusion of

    To keep customers and to do well, they have to provide a good servise. Plus with the middle classes now using private healthcare, and only the working class having to be subsidised by the state; the cost of healthcare for the government would be far less than £100 billion per year.

    few if any people in the UK use solely private healthcare becasue quite simply even for the many high earners their insurers simply would not be able to afford the 7 and 8 figure bills that individual care in the NHS
    can generate ( e.g. traumatic brain injury or spinal cord injury if eligable for fully funding continuing healthcare )
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by folde)
    The NHS is awful for the elderly as they only have a set budget.
    Wrong

    They don't treat prostate cancer,
    again incorrect , what the Uk doesn't do however is maximise the profits of urologists and radiologists by treating every raised PSA reading as cancer and claiming a 99 % cure rate
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You don't need a medical qualification to order sausages or make appointments.

    Where did you get the idea the NHS has too many non-clinical staff?

    but these people aren't the none job band 7s and band 8s who get in the way of HCPs doing their jobs with pointless interruptions, running round like headless chickens and endless spouting of discredited management theories ...

    if these failed baked bean stackers are such good managers why are they working for the NHS ?

    sack these pointless managers and give band 7 nurses., midwives and AHPs proper Admin support
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Wait... you're saying that private healthcare in this country get better care? Private healthcare in this country is quicker and not even neccesarily better. You get treated by the same consultants (who, instead of being motivated by your well-being, they are motivated by what money they can off you) and usually you're on the same NHS wards. And when you're in a private hospital they don't have those expensive facilitates like blood banks and crash teams which lead to deaths when unexpected complications come around.
    From personal experience, I agree totally. I'm in the unusual position of having had both my grandmas spend time in hospital over the last five years after they both managed to break their hips. One went to a NHS hospital, one went to a BUPA hospital. The NHS hospital was great and had extremely attentive staff. The BUPA hospital was awful: it was dirty and the staff were drongos. People shouldn't just assume that they'll get better care in a private hospital.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    No, it's just recent debates about the NHS have been in the context of ongoing US healthcare reform.
    There is no ongoing healthcare reform. It's as dead as my Aunt Maude. It's business as unusual.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,459

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.