NHS no longer protected from any form of control outside UK

Watch
Burridge
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by Gundabad(good))
And they were still dumber. Like Labour, who are dumb.
Thanks for affirming my point!
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
(Original post by Napp)
Embracing your inner Trump?


In fairness the general opprobium is directed against the Americans getting their claws into it. Given how their own health service works its not an entirely unreasonable position to take.
The United States has one of the most (probably just 'the most') innovative healthcare sectors in the world - and an incalculable number of British lives have been saved and improved by US patented drugs, medical equipment and research. How the state chooses to fund healthcare isn't really relevant to that.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by L i b)
The United States has one of the most (probably just 'the most') innovative healthcare sectors in the world - and an incalculable number of British lives have been saved and improved by US patented drugs, medical equipment and research. How the state chooses to fund healthcare isn't really relevant to that.
I do think the debate needs to be had about whether or not the NHS is sustainable or not in the current model. I’ve said this on another thread but me and my wife have both had treatment through the NHS provided by private companies and it was head and shoulders above what we’ve had before.

I do also think at the times that we are extremely quick to defend the NHS when in actual fact, while it is free at point of entry and that is great, the question needs to be asked as to whether it provides the best care, because I dare add that in my opinion it doesn’t. It is chronically underfunded, but then I believe you could chuck billions at it and it still wouldn’t be enough.
Last edited by imlikeahermit; 1 week ago
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
"No longer" implies it was before when it wasn't
0
reply
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
It already is. The drugs and the equipment it uses is supplied by foreign companies. They control the prices and what the NHS pays.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I do think the debate needs to be had about whether or not the NHS is sustainable or not in the current model. I’ve said this on another thread but me and my wife have both had treatment through the NHS provided by private companies and it was head and shoulders above what we’ve had before.

I do also think at the times that we are extremely quick to defend the NHS when in actual fact, while it is free at point of entry and that is great, the question needs to be asked as to whether it provides the best care, because I dare add that in my opinion it doesn’t. It is chronically underfunded, but then I believe you could chuck billions at it and it still wouldn’t be enough.
The problem is people seem to believe that there are only two models in the world, the US and NHS models when in reality very very few countries use either. I don't think people are in love with the NHS itself but the "free at the point of use" element which is to varying degrees present in pretty much every model.

Whenever somebody leaps to the defence of the NHS model the first question that should be asked is: "if the model is so great they how come the whole world isn't using it?" to be followed up by "why is it one of the worst performing systems in Europe on an outcome basis despite others not being massively better funded?" and "before you say 'but muh America' are you aware that most systems in the world use neither model and have systems designed to keep access available to all?"
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I do think the debate needs to be had about whether or not the NHS is sustainable or not in the current model. I’ve said this on another thread but me and my wife have both had treatment through the NHS provided by private companies and it was head and shoulders above what we’ve had before.

I do also think at the times that we are extremely quick to defend the NHS when in actual fact, while it is free at point of entry and that is great, the question needs to be asked as to whether it provides the best care, because I dare add that in my opinion it doesn’t. It is chronically underfunded, but then I believe you could chuck billions at it and it still wouldn’t be enough.
The "chronically underfunded" stuff surely requires an understanding of what you expect from it. Does it do fine as a base level of healthcare for the general population? Yes, it does. But we will continue to expect more and more of it, as well as loading it with demographic challenges.

The comparisons with America are quite unusual really: TSR is a fairly middle class place full of university educated people: we would probably, transported to the US, receive considerably better healthcare there. The problem is, and always has been, one of equity, not quality. And, of course, from a British lens, we ignore the huge amount of healthcare that is publicly funded there, the level of provision by charities and other non-profit institutions and so on.

No-one wants the US healthcare system, it is an outlier, but so too is the dream of an entirely public NHS - it has never been that and never will be that.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(Original post by L i b)
The United States has one of the most (probably just 'the most') innovative healthcare sectors in the world - and an incalculable number of British lives have been saved and improved by US patented drugs, medical equipment and research. How the state chooses to fund healthcare isn't really relevant to that.
Given that a fair whack of the population are completely ineligible for its use due to the cost, i think you'll find its completely relevant.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by Napp)
Given that a fair whack of the population are completely ineligible for its use due to the cost, i think you'll find its completely relevant.
Absolutely not. The coverage of a healthcare system is irrelevant to its quality. If it was otherwise, the apparent universalism of failed socialist states would be hailed - obvious it is not, because they cannot effectively cure the sick.

When we're discussing involvement of US firms in delivering healthcare in the UK, how the state funds healthcare in the US is not a consideration. The quality of their service, their innovation - that's what matters.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
(Original post by L i b)
The "chronically underfunded" stuff surely requires an understanding of what you expect from it. Does it do fine as a base level of healthcare for the general population? Yes, it does. But we will continue to expect more and more of it, as well as loading it with demographic challenges.

The comparisons with America are quite unusual really: TSR is a fairly middle class place full of university educated people: we would probably, transported to the US, receive considerably better healthcare there. The problem is, and always has been, one of equity, not quality. And, of course, from a British lens, we ignore the huge amount of healthcare that is publicly funded there, the level of provision by charities and other non-profit institutions and so on.

No-one wants the US healthcare system, it is an outlier, but so too is the dream of an entirely public NHS - it has never been that and never will be that.
The reality is that the NHS is overwhelming popular amongst Britain's who regularly use the service. If it was as terrible as its critics made it out to

(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The problem is people seem to believe that there are only two models in the world, the US and NHS models when in reality very very few countries use either. I don't think people are in love with the NHS itself but the "free at the point of use" element which is to varying degrees present in pretty much every model.

Whenever somebody leaps to the defence of the NHS model the first question that should be asked is: "if the model is so great they how come the whole world isn't using it?" to be followed up by "why is it one of the worst performing systems in Europe on an outcome basis despite others not being massively better funded?" and "before you say 'but muh America' are you aware that most systems in the world use neither model and have systems designed to keep access available to all?"
That logic doesn't hold. The fact that other countries don't follow our model, doesn't itself mean our model is not superior.

By way of example, Finland have virtually eradicated homelessness (or at least it was the only EU country in which homelessness was falling). By your logic, the fact other countries haven't followed Finland's strategy would mean that their strategy wasn't good.

The fact that other countries haven't copied our system is neither here nor there. You could just as easily flip that and say 'well if other country's systems were so good, we'd have copied them'.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
(Original post by Napp)
Given that a fair whack of the population are completely ineligible for its use due to the cost, i think you'll find its completely relevant.
Quite. Any evaluation of the US heathcare system must start with the fact that millions of Americans are excluded from it due to affordability and/or having pre existing conditions.

If you're heathcare system doesn't cover everyone, it has failed.
1
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
(Original post by L i b)
Absolutely not. The coverage of a healthcare system is irrelevant to its quality. If it was otherwise, the apparent universalism of failed socialist states would be hailed - obvious it is not, because they cannot effectively cure the sick.

When we're discussing involvement of US firms in delivering healthcare in the UK, how the state funds healthcare in the US is not a consideration. The quality of their service, their innovation - that's what matters.
Hardly, as Dsilver said if the system doesnt cover much of the population it has already failed. If a hospital was the best in the world but no one but the super rich could ever go to it it rightly wouldnt be counted.
I'm not sure what purpose that example serves here? Given a poor attempt to cure the sick is better than no attempt.
Not when it drives up prices for the NHS.. The point about US firms involvement being them being known for price gouging. There's a good reason medicine in the US is one of the most expensive in the world.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 week ago
#33
(Original post by L i b)
The United States has one of the most (probably just 'the most') innovative healthcare sectors in the world - and an incalculable number of British lives have been saved and improved by US patented drugs, medical equipment and research. How the state chooses to fund healthcare isn't really relevant to that.
Is this true though? Private drug companies follow the profit. So the bulk of US resrarch goes into diet pills and face lifting drugs where as high risk, low profit, high societal gain drugs like cancer or anti-biotics are left in the hands of public health and charities. Rather a sad state of affairs if you ask me.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
(Original post by DSilva)
The reality is that the NHS is overwhelming popular amongst Britain's who regularly use the service. If it was as terrible as its critics made it out to
I think a bit was missed off the end here, but you have a fair point. I would temper it slightly with the converse point that very few British people actually experience healthcare in other countries, and only a relatively small proportion utilise private treatment options. There's also that bizarre dichotomy where the NHS seems to be adored, but is constantly under threat - or is constantly getting worse - in the public mind. Some of the polling on it is positively schizophrenic.

I do think the expectations placed on the NHS are a tad unrealistic. Once you get into the realms of cancer drugs and orphan medicines, you realise the huge figures that are being expended - and then the decisions over allocations of funding become pretty stark. As things go, the NHS is OK: it's not world-beating, but neither is it poorer than you might expect for the national healthcare system in a developed country.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 week ago
#35
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The problem is people seem to believe that there are only two models in the world, the US and NHS models when in reality very very few countries use either. I don't think people are in love with the NHS itself but the "free at the point of use" element which is to varying degrees present in pretty much every model.

Whenever somebody leaps to the defence of the NHS model the first question that should be asked is: "if the model is so great they how come the whole world isn't using it?" to be followed up by "why is it one of the worst performing systems in Europe on an outcome basis despite others not being massively better funded?" and "before you say 'but muh America' are you aware that most systems in the world use neither model and have systems designed to keep access available to all?"
Completely agree and that's the point I was trying to make. We hold the NHS in high regard because of the free at the point of use point, and constantly bleat on about 'Protecting the NHS' but what on earth are we protecting it from? We're protecting it from investment to be honest, in my opinion.
(Original post by L i b)
The "chronically underfunded" stuff surely requires an understanding of what you expect from it. Does it do fine as a base level of healthcare for the general population? Yes, it does. But we will continue to expect more and more of it, as well as loading it with demographic challenges.

The comparisons with America are quite unusual really: TSR is a fairly middle class place full of university educated people: we would probably, transported to the US, receive considerably better healthcare there. The problem is, and always has been, one of equity, not quality. And, of course, from a British lens, we ignore the huge amount of healthcare that is publicly funded there, the level of provision by charities and other non-profit institutions and so on.

No-one wants the US healthcare system, it is an outlier, but so too is the dream of an entirely public NHS - it has never been that and never will be that.
Again, completely agree. That was the again the point I was trying to make. I fully believe you could chuck a blank cheque at the NHS as it is now and see no improvement because of the model that it is currently in, but also because we expect too much from a free at the door system.

I think our issue now is moving forward which model to transpose too. The current model does not work, and as a country, we are so inward to 'Protect the NHS.' It is my belief, and I state belief that private companies are always better ran than public sector models, and I maintain that here. Private sector companies are ran for profit. Public sector services essentially at times have no upper limit therefore they piss money into the wind. I think we've also grown used to the NHS providing everything. From counselling to gastric bands. It does literally everything, jobs which arguably should be picked up by the social care sector.
0
reply
IbeIC123
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 week ago
#36
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Completely agree and that's the point I was trying to make. We hold the NHS in high regard because of the free at the point of use point, and constantly bleat on about 'Protecting the NHS' but what on earth are we protecting it from? We're protecting it from investment to be honest, in my opinion.


Again, completely agree. That was the again the point I was trying to make. I fully believe you could chuck a blank cheque at the NHS as it is now and see no improvement because of the model that it is currently in, but also because we expect too much from a free at the door system.

I think our issue now is moving forward which model to transpose too. The current model does not work, and as a country, we are so inward to 'Protect the NHS.' It is my belief, and I state belief that private companies are always better ran than public sector models, and I maintain that here. Private sector companies are ran for profit. Public sector services essentially at times have no upper limit therefore they piss money into the wind. I think we've also grown used to the NHS providing everything. From counselling to gastric bands. It does literally everything, jobs which arguably should be picked up by the social care sector.
You forget that the vast size of the NHS does actually increase efficiency it’s size allows it to have greater bargaining power over the negotiations of drug prices. The fact that we’re a service based economy means 90% of our drugs are imported which is less for other countries in Europe. So the UK having a massive organisation that bullies big pharma is pretty beneficial to the public. It was also proven that the torys wanted to increase patent time for new drugs allowing pharmaceutical companies to better monopolise the market and grossly increase prices leaving the NHS in a weak position
0
reply
Gundabad(good)
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#37
Report 6 days ago
#37
(Original post by ByEeek)
Its a great soundbite. Then you look at the Tory A-team and things aren't much better.
The Tories have the Great Sunak.
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

Did you get the SQA results you wanted today?

Yes- I did even better than I hoped! (35)
18.23%
Yes- I got what I was hoping for (53)
27.6%
No- my results weren't as good as I'd hoped (104)
54.17%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed