New NHS report
 

The Government commissioned a report on the NHS, but disagree with its findings so why waste the money in the first place
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8234841.stm

Re: New NHS report
 

Good question Jaysay, they could have saved the money and asked those poor s*ds running round like headless chickens to get jobs done......the answer is get rid of some of the tiers of management and spend the money that is saved on grass roots care and services.......but that is too simple.

Re: New NHS report
 

My sentiment entirely Margaret, but you know and I know that the only jobs that will be lost will be at the sharp end not in the Ivory Towers:(

Re: New NHS report
 

reports are fine when they agree with the inexperienced sods that commisioned them.:rolleyes:

Re: New NHS report
 

Yes and this where the loss would be more keenly felt.....by the patients.
I am so glad that I am out of it all.

Re: New NHS report
 

'The government says it has rejected advice from management consultants to cut the NHS workforce in England by 10% over the next five years.'

Laughable.

It's the management consultants who should be cut...by 100%.

Re: New NHS report
 

The NHS has become so bloated that the chances of any worthwhile and benificial chanes will be blocked by the suit and tie brigade at the top. To me who knows best what the patient needs the medical staff or some business graduate. Granted the NHS should be run as a business but even businesses need to go on a diet when needed. When it comes to losing the excess fat the top has the most. G if it wasnt laughable that the govenment rejects the report then we would be crying. The govenment wants an efficient NHS yet does not want to put in on a diet in case it becomes anorexic. It seems like the NHS is heading for a banks style meltdown.

Patiants come first not some targets set that become a noose around the medical staffs necks. The comments that Jaysay made in another thread shows how screwed up the system has become. I do not like the idea of people losing jobs but sometimes the fews sacrifice will be for the better of the many. Get rid of these stupid reports suited slave drivers and let the people who do the front line job of fixing our illness wounds etc. Then maybe the dreaded postcode lottery will end as the money freed can be used where it is needed most.

Re: New NHS report
 

Businesses are run to make their owners/shareholders a profit......and while I agree that the NHS should pay its way(as far as it can).....I don't think that it should be run as a business.
Patients are not tins of beans, and should not be subjected to 'market forces'.......the paring down is always(it seems) done at the end that looks after the patient....and currently this end is looking positively skeletal......down to the bone.

Re: New NHS report
 

Just a comment in the form of a question: do you realise that the private health care lobby in Washington pumps more money into the Republican Party coffers than does the oil industry? And all this to maintain a system which is far more wasteful and inefficient than the NHS?

Re: New NHS report
 

Now its my turn to lie down, I agree with Rindi:D

Re: New NHS report
 

Spot on Spugs, in fact if anybody is unlucky enough in having to spend time as an IN patient, here's a little game you can play. We all know that the highlight of the day when in hospital is visiting and meal time (sometimes :rolleyes:) So you can play spot the clip board, I can guarantee it will keep you busy when you've nothing else to do :rolleyes:

Re: New NHS report
 

Well you'd hardly expect them to give campaign funds to the party of socialized medicine, would you?

The high costs, waste and inefficiencies are a direct result of government involvement. We haven't had a totally private system for a very long time now.

Re: New NHS report
 

Some of us here have, over the weekend, been reading about an American-style cash payment for clinical teatment. In this instance, it involved an eminent oncologist paid money by a foreign government to offer a diagnosis which spiced up the true state of the patients condition. That patient was a Libyan national held in a Scottish jail and as a consequence he is now back in Libya. I'm sure you know to whom I am referring.

Personally, I prefer to see patient care the British way, which is according to need.The American way, is of course based on the profit to be gained by clinicians, insurance companies and now dodgy political regimes.

Re: New NHS report
 

There's a lot going on here that we don't know about yet - since the Scottish government isn't releasing details. My understanding is that there were four specialists but only one of them was willing to support the claim that Megrahi had just weeks to live. As the person in question has not been named, we don't know if he or she was employed by the NHS, the Libyans or Megradi's legal team. Yep, it definitely smells fishy.

I prefer the American way prior to 1965 when patients paid doctors directly and filed their own insurance claims. A good system relies on an involved and well informed consumer. Once you take the consumer out of the loop problems can and do develop. By the way, there is nothing wrong with making a profit. Profits make possible reinvestment in new facilities and equipment, expanded services, more jobs and higher wages. It's a bad idea to exclude hospitals and doctors from that model. Free enterprise is more nimble and its competitive and innovative nature surpasses all other delivery systems.

Re: New NHS report
 

Free enterprise was certainly very nimble in the recent banking crisis.

Re: New NHS report
 

This is from Wikipedia. Its all about US healthcare and it makes grim reading:

Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. More is spent on health care in the United States on a per capita basis than in any other nation in the world.[1][2] A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S.[3] Medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States,[4] weakening the whole economy.

According to data compiled and published by the international pharmaceutical industry , the US is the world leader in biomedical research and development as well as the introduction of new biomedical products; pharmaceutical industry trade organizations also maintain that the high cost of health care in the U.S. has encouraged substantial reinvestment in such research and development.[5][6][7][8] Despite that, the US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, which are among the most widely collected, hence useful, international comparative statistics. For 2006-2010, the USA's life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[9]

Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[10][11] The WHO study has been criticized, in an article published in Health Affairs, for its failure to include the satisfaction ratings of the general public.[12] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[13] The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.[nb 1][14] According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[15][16]

In summary, your healthcare system sucks, as they say over there.

Re: New NHS report
 

probably only to the "Have Nots" Tealeaf.:rolleyes:

Re: New NHS report
 

No, it sucks for 'em all, Cashy. They spend about 16% of their GDP on healthcare which is roughly twice that of the UK. About half of that 16% is actually government expenditure on Medicare and Medicaid (covering only the old and the poor); for that we cover everyone. So that means they're paying their taxes as well as their private insurance - double bubble! And what do they get in return? By international comparisons, third world healthcare.

Re: New NHS report
 

but does that matter to the "Haves"? they probably swim along blindly thinking all is well in their world.:rolleyes:

Re: New NHS report
 

Aye, they probably do.....until the time comes when they have a serious accident or develop a chronic illness or lose their job with it's cover or find they've not read the small print in their insurance policies and then they suddenly find get nowt.

Re: New NHS report
 

What a hard and lonely slog it can be on this site when trying to explain to you good folks why it is such a bad idea to relinquish to the state those things which should be the responsibility of every fully functioning adult. I have always been of the opinion that there is no problem so bad that government cannot make it even worse.

I don't have time this morning to rebut every assertion you have made because I'm flying out to California shortly and won't be back online for quite a while. First of all, the U.S. has the best medical care in the world. Yes, we generally pay too much - due to some of the reasons I have already mentioned on this thread, as well as others in the past. Americans have a high degree of satisfaction with the medical services they receive and 80% of them do have insurance - although they would like to have more flexibility in that area. Of those remaining, you have the young and healthy who forego insurance because they choose to spend their money elsewhere, those who can afford to pay out of pocket, the millions of illegal aliens and people who are temporarily between jobs or long-term unemployed.

The WHO stats are skewed. For example, in the matter of infant mortality, the U.S. counts every birth. Other countries don't count as live births infants below a certain weight or gestational age because they aren't as likely to survive. Once beyond infancy, America catches up with the average life expectancy stats. We have much higher survival rates for all types of cancer as well as heart disease. Far in excess of the U.K. (which has survival rates lower than those for Europe as a whole.)

Countries with government-run healthcare save money by relying on the U.S. to pay the research and development costs for new medical technologies and medications. Doctors in the U.K. are paid less and have less autonomy than those in the U.S. The last time I checked, one in every nine Canadian doctors come to the U.S. to practice. Others spend at least a portion of each year here. America is a very dynamic and complicated country. We also have a much larger and diverse population than you do. If our government ever succeeds in implementing socialized medicine here, it will be a spectacular failure.

Re: New NHS report
 

......... ........

Re: New NHS report
 

You seem confused. Don't forget that there is a strong current of "screw you bud, I'm alright" among priveleged Americans. I think Barb is leading a campaign to change the motto of the US from "E Pluribus Unum" to something like "Chacun pour soi" ... if the American poor want health care, they can always join the military and get their asses shot off in places like Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Re: New NHS report
 

Hey there, Mr. Cheapshot. Whatever you do, don't let the facts get in your way. You may scoff at my opinions but at least they are based on the actual experience of having lived with a variety of delivery systems, including the British NHS. If your NHS is superior and more equitable, how come so many Canadians come to the U.S. for medical care? And let's not forget all of those Canadian doctors and nurses now working in American hospitals.

As for your little crack about our military personnel - what place does that have on a thread about the NHS? I realize that it has long been in vogue to pigeonhole every member of the U.S. military as some poverty-stricken, ill educated rube. But you, sir, ought to be ashamed for indulging in such language.

For your edification, my husband came from a solid middle-class family and interrupted his education in order to enlist in the U.S. Army. He volunteered to serve in Viet Nam. It has been my priviledge to know many of the men he served with. They returned home and went on to have successful careers, long-term marriages and raise decent, productive children. I am confident that those currently serving will do the same.

Re: New NHS report
 

NHS rules

Re: New NHS report
 

I'll tell you why it is a hard slog for you Bullseyebarb...60-70yrs ago citizens in this country had to pay direct for any health care which the vast majority of "fully functioning" adults could not afford for themselves nor their children.. that is why the NHS was formed...get it?

Re: New NHS report
 

I do get it. That's the point. All I am attempting to do here is make you think outside the box. I was hoping that Eric would have weighed in by now, since my previous post was directed at him. To my knowledge, he has never explained why residents of any country with a National Health Service should ever find it necessary to travel to the U.S. for medical treatment. It's a simple enough question - but perhaps the answer is too difficult for him to spin.

I predate the advent of the British NHS. I was born into a typical working class family of the period. Growing up, I had my share of childhood illnesses and accidents. Yet, (amazingly, if your account is to be believed), my parents somehow managed to procure the services of a physician whenever necessary. I guess they considered that to be a priority. And they were far from alone in that.

The inherent danger of allowing government to take over such a critical aspect of life is that it can then exert a tremendous amount of control over you. The issue becomes a political weapon and a dandy vote buying tool. They own you. Acquiescence in one area only encourages the government to expand its role and pretty soon they are into everything....and taxing you up the wazoo for the priviledge.

Can you at least be honest enough to admit that?

Re: New NHS report
 

Just checked this one ... I don't know of anyone who finds it "necessary" to visit the US for health care. No doubt, there are well-heeled Canadians who go there and pay for whatever service they need without having to wait ... and waiting times in Canada are getting shorter all the time; I had to wait about three weeks for my surgery. Much of that time was taken up by visits to one or the other of the two major hospitals in our city for pre op testing .... after the surgery, I had three days in ICU and ten days in hospital. When I went home, I had home care. Cost to me ... nothing. Admitedly, there are a few extra cents tax on cigs, booze, and gas.

But it seems to me that your argument is not about the level of medical care .... you so serenely ignore the WHO stats ... but about your paranoid fear of your own govt., or of any govt. Seems like, for you, this is a conspiracy theory thing and should be debated in "Anything Goes":rolleyes:

Re: New NHS report
 

Perhaps you don't, but it's still going on....and it isn't just the wealthy who come down here for care. Even your own government often finds it necessary to send Canadian patients to American hospitals for treatment. And you
only have a population of 34 million. Dr. Anne Doig, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said this year that your NHS was "imploding." Canadian doctors agree.

I ignore nothing - serenely or otherwise.

The U.K. is already considering changing their system as they cannot continue to give "free" care to everyone. They suggest an emphasis on prevention rather than curing. Looks like they are out to target smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly....for starters.
Remember, he who holds the purse gets to make the rules.

One of the justifications for the massive growth of government in the 20th and now 21st century was the need to promote what the government defines as fair and just. But this begs the more fundamental question: What is the legitimate role of government in a free society? It is here that you and I have divergent opinions. I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist, nor am I paranoid. However, I do have more than merely healthy skepticism when it comes to centralized power. Considering what is going on in Washington DC at the moment, I think I am more than justified in that.

Re: New NHS report
 

Well blow me!

You learn something new every day.

I didn't know the land of freedom and liberty had a class hierarchy.

We all thought your caste system was based on wealth, which you equated with success.

You live and learn.

Re: New NHS report
 

I think you are sort of correct. I was discussing this issue with an American friend and he was explaining how everything the US government touches will end up costing more money with a reduced service in the end.

Maybe barb could explain how medical care works in the US. As far as I understand it people without medical insurance still get treated as they would with an NHS type system.

Re: New NHS report
 

Yes, people get taken care of one way or the other. Your American friend is correct in his assessment. Most of the problems we have in healthcare today are the result of previous government intervention in the free market system.

First of all, most us do have insurance of one kind or another. There is group insurance, which is usually offered through one's employer. Individual insurance, which is a single or family policy purchased directly from an insurance company. We also have networks of free and low cost clinics where doctors and dentists volunteer their time. These are well supported with private contributions and have good facilities and equipment. We also have "Minute Clinics" in many stores around the country where you can just stop in without an appointment and receive treatment for minor problems for a very reasonable fee. Then there is the government run Medicaid system for the poor and indigent, which is free to the recipient and covers primary and hospital care. For those 65 and older there is Medicare, a government run program. Seniors pay monthly premiums and there are the customary deductibles and co-pays, as with any insurance. Medicare currently reimburses doctors and hospitals for 80%. Our government is currently proposing to drop the rate of reimbursement to 65%. Seniors pick up the rest of the tab, either out of pocket or by purchasing what is known as Medigap insurance. By the way, Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt - which is typical of any government run program. The government sets prices for each service covered under these two programs. Of course, these bear little relationship to what it actually costs for a doctor or hospital to deliver such service.

Private insurers reimburse at rates around 26% higher than government. Hence, hospitals and doctors have relied on the private sector to keep them going. There has also been a fair amount of cost shifting, which has not been helpful to anyone. In addition, there are many unfunded government mandates which push up prices and limit choices in some cases. So, all in all, we really haven't had a true free market in medicine for a very long time.

I am of the opinion that if our current government succeeds in taking over the whole shebang....and believe me they are desperate to do so, the first thing to go will be quality, followed shortly by rationing. Many doctors here are refusing to accept new Medicare patients because they just can't afford to take the hit. Others have already opted out completely and are going all private. There are a lot of very troubling things going on in Washington at the moment and I have no idea where this will end up.

Re: New NHS report
 

Out of interest could you give us some idea what sort of monthly premiums are charged by insurance companies. I also, presume that if you suffer from a medical condition, which is incurable and needs a daily medication (such as diabetes or parkinsons) you would have to pay much higher premiums. Also what about people who might possibly have inherited a medical problem, do they have to pay more, in case they develop the medical condition?

What you seem to forget is that everyone in the UK is already paying for their healthcare through taxes (even if they are not working VAT is paid on many items). However, our healthcare is free to all at the point of use, and no one has to pay any more money even if they have longstanding medical conditions.

Re: New NHS report
 

this has turned into a health care in America debate.. the basic principle in Britain is that health care is free and indiscrimanate..wether a person has insurance or not... it may be funded by direct or indirect tax..and that is the big diference between our health care principles and those of the USA.. some Americans seem to have the idea that if you can't afford it you should not get it.

Re: New NHS report
 

This is far from the first thread to have taken a detour. That tends to happen during the course of any conversation.

Whilst most Americans still believe in personal responsibility, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any who think that people without resources should be denied medical care. I have repeatedly explained the many ways in which such treatment is delivered. You just don't wish to be persuaded.

Re: New NHS report
 

It depends very much on what sort of coverage you desire. There are 1,700 insurance companies in the U.S. offering a wide variety of plans. Some are quite restrictive, others are not. And some companies are nonprofit, (like Blue Cross Blue Shield.) Higher risk or preexisting conditions can, of course, result in higher premiums - but not always.

I cannot give you a nationwide average monthly premium since these vary state to state. However, I can give you some idea based upon my own community. There are eight different insurance companies operating in the county where I live. Between them, they offer 107 different medical plans. Depending upon individual need, a couple with two children can purchase a family insurance policy with a monthly premium ranging from 145 dollars to 625 dollars, with the average running around $300. For seniors, the Medicare premium is currently $98 per month.

Personally, I have never had a problem with any of the insurance companies I have used over the years. A policy is a contract. You read the fine print. I like high deductible policies with no strings attached.....because I want access to any doctor, specialist or hospital I choose in the U.S. I also maintain a Health Savings Account for out of pocket expenses and carry full coverage and medivac insurance when I travel abroad. So far, so good.