Can the NHS be saved?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by asiangcse
I agree with the points above about privatisation. But the British public have an uproar whenever the words privatisation and NHS are mentioned in the same sentence. They automatically think we're going to turn into the American system. They have an emotional attachment to the NHS, many of them have given birth in NHS hospitals, experienced deaths of loved ones, I'd be impressed if any political party can convince the public. It's the closest thing to a national Religion.
Privatisation doesn't work though. Just look at schools. Academies are effectively private schools funded directly by the government. As a result all the central services that councils used to provide all local schools have gone and instead each school has to buy in those services by itself. As a result it costs more.
You can privatise low hanging fruit of the NHS like straightforward elective surgery but in doing so you water down the main body of the NHS leaving the public bit to pick up all the messy difficult to treat conditions. But because the critical mass has been lost that ends up failing.
You only have to look at the railways to see that privatisation doesn't save money or improve quality.
Original post by zayn008
It really doesn't. I dont know where you get this from? Partial privatisation is what got NHS into debt and led to today's crisis. Public borrowing would've much more efficient than PFIs. There should be little to no profit motivation in healthcare
The reason it was partially privatized in the first place was to save money. It would be less fiscally sustainable to have continued as completely government operated
the nhs is in a supposed "crisis" as its the result of economic funding. the UK pays less on healthcare in relative comparison to other similar countries. However, if we expect better healthcare then we should expect to pay more into healthcare. This is my general point.
However, the main question is who pays for healthcare?
if you dont want to pay for public healthcare from central governemnt from taxation etc. then the mian alternative is from private healthcare alternatives.
the nhs's crisis is a product of its own success. too many people, especially poorer/vulnerable people are treated for illness but then are also more likely to get ill or require treatment, espeically in older people. What we are doing is prolonging life, even if it is not profitable/economical to do so. A very harsh option similar to Nazism would be to put the weakest/ especially unhealthy people down/ to death either directly or indirectly by omission.
many people also take the nhs for granted and miss appointments as it is assumed to be free and thus do not think about costs as not realise or have burden of directly paying costs.
furthermore, a core principal of the nhs is compared to be the only last communist/ socialist/ nationalist remnant of part of the UK of free healthcare for all at the point of delivery. We are all assumed to be all equal when really we are not and have different needs/ wants. NHs standards are set high and this can costs more. If poorer people got poorer standards such as low quality meals/ non-comfy beds etc, simialr to trains, wheras richer poeple paid more but got more such as fresh cooked meals etc. it would raise more money and be more economical.
P.S. this problem is not new - look at Tony Blair/ New Labour debate on incrreasing
healthcare funding in the UK to improve standards similar to European countries.
However, the main question is who pays for healthcare?
if you dont want to pay for public healthcare from central governemnt from taxation etc. then the mian alternative is from private healthcare alternatives.
the nhs's crisis is a product of its own success. too many people, especially poorer/vulnerable people are treated for illness but then are also more likely to get ill or require treatment, espeically in older people. What we are doing is prolonging life, even if it is not profitable/economical to do so. A very harsh option similar to Nazism would be to put the weakest/ especially unhealthy people down/ to death either directly or indirectly by omission.
many people also take the nhs for granted and miss appointments as it is assumed to be free and thus do not think about costs as not realise or have burden of directly paying costs.
furthermore, a core principal of the nhs is compared to be the only last communist/ socialist/ nationalist remnant of part of the UK of free healthcare for all at the point of delivery. We are all assumed to be all equal when really we are not and have different needs/ wants. NHs standards are set high and this can costs more. If poorer people got poorer standards such as low quality meals/ non-comfy beds etc, simialr to trains, wheras richer poeple paid more but got more such as fresh cooked meals etc. it would raise more money and be more economical.
P.S. this problem is not new - look at Tony Blair/ New Labour debate on incrreasing
healthcare funding in the UK to improve standards similar to European countries.
Original post by Carlylean
When I survey the situation, and the disasters that have ensued in the NHS over the past few years, including major issues like staffing, overwork, incredible waiting times and strike action, I am tempted to hang my head in despair at the state of the NHS.
But there's no way it can be privatised. An overwhelming majority of Britons want the NHS to remain in public hands. But the only way to make the NHS sustainable, in my opinion, is to drastically raise taxes. If we want to benefit from high-quality healthcare, it seems only fair for us to cough up a little bit extra. But our country seems to have a weird aversion to paying taxes. And then I compare our situation to the Nordic countries, who have no problem paying high taxes in exchange for good-quality state services. Which gets me thinking that our entire model is in bad need of reform to a more German or Scandinavian system.
But there's no way it can be privatised. An overwhelming majority of Britons want the NHS to remain in public hands. But the only way to make the NHS sustainable, in my opinion, is to drastically raise taxes. If we want to benefit from high-quality healthcare, it seems only fair for us to cough up a little bit extra. But our country seems to have a weird aversion to paying taxes. And then I compare our situation to the Nordic countries, who have no problem paying high taxes in exchange for good-quality state services. Which gets me thinking that our entire model is in bad need of reform to a more German or Scandinavian system.
The UK has for too long had its cake and eaten it. The NHS is an absolute mess and tjhere are dozens upon dozens of reasons for it. Not the least of which is Joe Public using it for the most minor of things.
The British are a great nation for "our NHS" but are loathe to actually pay for it thinking the money comes from think air.
Original post by LeCroissant
I think the government should stop spending millions of pounds on random crap like changing the way our money and passports look, and instead put this money towards the NHS. That would be a good starting point.
and where does it stop? How much money can be sank into the black hole that is the NHS?
Original post by silverbolt
and where does it stop? How much money can be sank into the black hole that is the NHS?
and where does it stop? How much money can be sank into the black hole that is the NHS?
It is only a 'black hole' if that's what you imagine it as.
Original post by quasa
nurses would be impossible to replace tbh.
The Japanese are working on robots for hospitals.
Even existing technology can save labour such as networked patient monitoring where nurses hook up patients to a machine then only need to return to them if a problem has been reported at a central monitoring station.
We could go even further than medical devices. The question that still hasn't be raised is why anybody should have to go to a hospital apart from A&E or to have a baby. Could genetic engineering of humans be the solution to the NHS crisis? Tampering with life in such a way is a deeply controversial subject verging on playing God but if genes can be eliminated that result in medical complications or macrocellular degeneration then people would not become ill like they do today so will not require anywhere near as much medical treatment.
Original post by LeCroissant
It is only a 'black hole' if that's what you imagine it as.
I dont imagine it - it is a financial black hole.
Labour sank how many millions into it, thinking that the best way to save it was to keep injecting cash ?
The Tories then went the opposite way, cutting cutting and cutting.
Original post by ByEeek
Privatisation doesn't work though. Just look at schools. Academies are effectively private schools funded directly by the government. As a result all the central services that councils used to provide all local schools have gone and instead each school has to buy in those services by itself. As a result it costs more.
You can privatise low hanging fruit of the NHS like straightforward elective surgery but in doing so you water down the main body of the NHS leaving the public bit to pick up all the messy difficult to treat conditions. But because the critical mass has been lost that ends up failing.
You only have to look at the railways to see that privatisation doesn't save money or improve quality.
You can privatise low hanging fruit of the NHS like straightforward elective surgery but in doing so you water down the main body of the NHS leaving the public bit to pick up all the messy difficult to treat conditions. But because the critical mass has been lost that ends up failing.
You only have to look at the railways to see that privatisation doesn't save money or improve quality.
Your stupidity amazes me . Hurr durr "railways" because that disproves privatization
We have some of the lowest subsidies, and one of the best quality services (only Finland saw higher satisfaction), and to say they have so many more high speed lines, they aren't actually much faster.
We pay about 40% the subsidies per passenger km than the French, and about a third that of the Germans.
Off peak fares are actually comparable to else where in Europe but it is peak fares which are higher. There are 2 reasons for this
1) Network Rail is inefficient and unable to control its costs, with significant overspend.
2) Probably the biggest reason for the peak time difference is that in the UK rising costs are fed to the consumer through higher ticket prices, on the continent its much more common for costs to be paid by the taxpayer.
The railways are bad but nationalization would not solve the problem , only make it worse.
Since privatisation a new zeal of innovation has occurred on the railways which has not been seen since the Twenties and Thirties when the “Big Four” would compete for passengers. This new innovation has helped deliver a doubling in the annual number of passenger journeys since the early Nineties.
Punctuality is at a record high and Britain can now boast the safest railways in Europe. BR’s safety record was lamentable and regional routes were often ignored and suffered chronic underinvestment. It is also worth remembering that fares rose at an alarming rate under BR; it was not unusual for them to rise by 5pc or 6pc a year. Under privatisation the Tories pegged fare rises at less than inflation.
The answer is probably to introudce measures to improve competition such as this proposal by the TSR tory party not nationalisation
Speaking of nationalization , look at how well its working in Venezuela.
Let me examine one of many many many many times privatization has worked.
Argentina privatized many of its municipal water supply systems in the 1990s, investment soared, the network expanded into previously underserved poor areas and the number of children dying of infectious and parasitic diseases tumbled.
To argue privatization didn't work is farcical look at the success of privatization during the 79-97 tory government( Blair finishes some off I believe)
(edited 7 years ago)
Again, nobody even gives consideration to medical devices and their impact on the NHS.
I wonder had the architects of the NHS known about the number and complexity of medical devices in use today would they have even set up the NHS in the first place? Should the NHS revert to only using the medical devices that were around in the 1970s, 1940s, etc. or should they use modern devices that did not exist in the past? Should the NHS buy medical devices from private (and often American) companies or should they be designed and manufactured by the NHS itself to its own specifications and requirements?
I wonder had the architects of the NHS known about the number and complexity of medical devices in use today would they have even set up the NHS in the first place? Should the NHS revert to only using the medical devices that were around in the 1970s, 1940s, etc. or should they use modern devices that did not exist in the past? Should the NHS buy medical devices from private (and often American) companies or should they be designed and manufactured by the NHS itself to its own specifications and requirements?
The NHS is being run to the ground and once it fails completely to deliver the health care that our nation requires, the Tories will push for more privatisation because, well, ''the NHS is ruined, the country needs to balance the books, we need private companies to help restore our great NHS''.
Original post by Carlylean
When I survey the situation, and the disasters that have ensued in the NHS over the past few years, including major issues like staffing, overwork, incredible waiting times and strike action, I am tempted to hang my head in despair at the state of the NHS.
But there's no way it can be privatised. An overwhelming majority of Britons want the NHS to remain in public hands. But the only way to make the NHS sustainable, in my opinion, is to drastically raise taxes. If we want to benefit from high-quality healthcare, it seems only fair for us to cough up a little bit extra. But our country seems to have a weird aversion to paying taxes. And then I compare our situation to the Nordic countries, who have no problem paying high taxes in exchange for good-quality state services. Which gets me thinking that our entire model is in bad need of reform to a more German or Scandinavian system.
But there's no way it can be privatised. An overwhelming majority of Britons want the NHS to remain in public hands. But the only way to make the NHS sustainable, in my opinion, is to drastically raise taxes. If we want to benefit from high-quality healthcare, it seems only fair for us to cough up a little bit extra. But our country seems to have a weird aversion to paying taxes. And then I compare our situation to the Nordic countries, who have no problem paying high taxes in exchange for good-quality state services. Which gets me thinking that our entire model is in bad need of reform to a more German or Scandinavian system.
Like any business that has overreached i believe the answer to our problem lies in cutting back the number of services it provides to fufil only its core goals. As per the headline a week or so ago regarding prescription restrictions the NHS should evaluate every service it provides and ask themselves whether that money would be better spent on treating cancer or something life threatening. Right now for example the NHS performs operations for cultural reasons and transgender operations for adults with no hormonal imbalance (by definition, a mental illness). Restrict the services the NHS provides and you reduce the increase in funding needed from government.
Further i agree with Scottish Brexiter in that for those who are employed and not elderly or children we should look to have them purchase outpatient medical insurance so that instead of dealing with foot complaints, NHS waiting rooms can be used to create bed space and divert the funds to important stuff like cancer.
I would also strongly support expansion of the sugar tax to include anything with more than 25% RDA per 100g of sugar, salt, calories or saturated fat and the revenue being diverted to the NHS. I would also reduce the prescription charge exemptions (apparently 50% of the population are on prescription drugs!) and increase the charge.
Original post by missedhit
The NHS is being run to the ground and once it fails completely to deliver the health care that our nation requires, the Tories will push for more privatisation because, well, ''the NHS is ruined, the country needs to balance the books, we need private companies to help restore our great NHS''.
Ignoring the fact that a multitude of Labour MP's also have corporate health interests i think that you vastly underestimate the Conservative Party and their sanity in electing the leadership. While i'm sure that a load of back benches are up the rectum of big health firms, these people are much less prevalent in the cabinet who actually care about being electable.
The only way to save the NHS is to privatise it. It is inefficient and by offering free healthcare at the point of consumption offers no financial disincentive to getting ill.
Unfortunately there are too many socialists in Britain, particularly those that chose to be poor, that would object to this.
Unfortunately there are too many socialists in Britain, particularly those that chose to be poor, that would object to this.
Original post by fleky6910
The NHS needs partial privatisation while maintaining universal access. Partially subsidised healthcare works best,
Why does it need to be privatised? We spend HALF (as % of GDP) of what the US do on healthcare. Absolute
s do we need to privatise it, we just need to fund it. It's being deliberately underfunded just so people can point at it and say "look, public healthcare obviously doesn't work!"
Contrary to the general consensus here, we've been hearing that the NHS has been dying on its backside ever since the thing was created. Yes it has its shortcomings, but this is nothing new.
The problem is one of expectations. Increasingly people are demanding more and more from the NHS. The very latest and most expensive treatments are demanded, people with relatively minor health conditions expect them to be cured at considerable cost, treatment is expected to be more personalised, instead of being told to go home and stop wasting everyone's time patients' want a prescription.
In the 1950s, a root-and-branch review of costs was commissioned after it was widely suggested that need outpaced funding. It concluded even then that "the advance of medical science continually places new demands on the Service, and the standards expected by the public also continue to rise".
There's also another side: that every reform is resisted not only by NHS staff but by the public who interpret it as some sort of nuisance foisted upon them not for the betterment of care, but out of an instinctive desire for cuts (the NHS has virtually never had spending cuts in any year: funding has virtually always risen ahead of inflation).
Ultimately what we have is a good basic system of comprehensive healthcare available to all. It suffers the same problems of any large organisation: people feel overworked, there is always a desire for more money, change is difficult and things don't always go as planned. Accept it for what it is, spend sensibly and try to avoid criticising people who have to make difficult decisions about balancing where funding is directed.
The problem is one of expectations. Increasingly people are demanding more and more from the NHS. The very latest and most expensive treatments are demanded, people with relatively minor health conditions expect them to be cured at considerable cost, treatment is expected to be more personalised, instead of being told to go home and stop wasting everyone's time patients' want a prescription.
In the 1950s, a root-and-branch review of costs was commissioned after it was widely suggested that need outpaced funding. It concluded even then that "the advance of medical science continually places new demands on the Service, and the standards expected by the public also continue to rise".
There's also another side: that every reform is resisted not only by NHS staff but by the public who interpret it as some sort of nuisance foisted upon them not for the betterment of care, but out of an instinctive desire for cuts (the NHS has virtually never had spending cuts in any year: funding has virtually always risen ahead of inflation).
Ultimately what we have is a good basic system of comprehensive healthcare available to all. It suffers the same problems of any large organisation: people feel overworked, there is always a desire for more money, change is difficult and things don't always go as planned. Accept it for what it is, spend sensibly and try to avoid criticising people who have to make difficult decisions about balancing where funding is directed.
Original post by Rakas21
The issue with cancer is presumably that actively increasing survival rates costs more and it disproportionately targets the old. There is surely a counterbalance here: that we cannot simply invest endlessly in keeping the old alive longer and longer.
Right now for example the NHS performs operations for cultural reasons and transgender operations for adults with no hormonal imbalance (by definition, a mental illness). Restrict the services the NHS provides and you reduce the increase in funding needed from government.
Assuming we were to look at transgender issues in a mental health context, presumably cutting off the old chap might in many cases be a cheaper option than other mental health treatments?
Original post by missedhit
The NHS is being run to the ground and once it fails completely to deliver the health care that our nation requires, the Tories will push for more privatisation because, well, ''the NHS is ruined, the country needs to balance the books, we need private companies to help restore our great NHS''.
Except, ridiculous conspiracy theories aside, any political party that presided over a major public service being brought to the brink of destruction would pay dearly for it politically. This nonsense seems to float around the far-left quite a lot and it's easily exposed as absolute claptrap by anyone who devotes more than two minutes' hard thinking to the proposition.
If we stopped giving so much in foreign aid, that money could then be reallocated to the NHS, and it could be improved as a result whilst keeping our taxes the same.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Current nursing students: What's your dream career or area to work in?
- NHS LSF £5000 Grant, without taking a student loan.
- Nurse band 5 Salary
- How can I afford to go to university as a mature student?
- MSc Dietetics Funding
- Physician Associate funding (Bangor 2023)
- Is there a horrible lurgy going round?
- Speech therapy / early years teaching
- I dropped out of uni and am considering starting a Nursing course, funding?
- Graduate entry medicine
- NHS Jobs constantly unsuccessful with my job applications
- Is intercalation still worth it?
- lsf without sfe
- Absolutely furious with the NHS
- BSc Podiatry SMAE institute
- Dental Hell
- funding for 5th year medical school
- how are people affording uni!
- A short guide to writing a Personal Statement...
- Computer Science or Medicine? Career Choice Crisis
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
