Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #101
No, it is never, ever, ever free.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] The NHS
- Thread starter Sussex Nomad
- Start date
No, it is never, ever, ever free.
German health care and German railways?
The NHS is amazing. It just can't do EVERYTHING that EVERYBODY wants anymore. Privatisation isn't the answer because the question is wrong. The NHS isn't broken but we do need to take the politics out of the equation. Then we can celebrate the million and one successes of the NHS happening every day and CONSTRUCTIVELY discuss how to deal with the areas of concern. Every time someone (politician to nsc poster) blames the government, past governments, brexit etc they reveal themselves as someone who doesn't care about the NHS (or the fantastic people working in it) but as someone who just wants to make political capital to support their own political agenda.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
At one extreme, Someone who never ever works and never pays taxes. It’s free.
For taxpayers the government taxes as they wish and then distributes as they wish. Usually inefficiently.
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,157
Because he contributes a fair proportion of his earnings to National Insurance system. He earns more and contributes more. However, most investment companies offer their staff private healthcare insurance. So he probably pays for an NHS system he doesn't use as often as the average man on the street.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #106
So why not have the option to opt out?
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
I know many very wealthy working people who use the NHS, and some who don’t. But the point is they can.
NI is just another tax, its a pretence that is funds the NHS, it does not come close to it.
In a world where we have an ageing population, we have cut off an easy stream of young immigrants through Brexit and the government can’t afford the promises it made on health then yes, I would expect the wealthy to pay for health care and the free use age to be restricted t other those who need support.
For me use age should be charged, those who need financial support should get it.
Half Time Pies
Well-known member
Because of costs and logistics, its not simple to build and open a hospital. You end up with a monopoly which is one of the situations were the free market tends to fall down.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,151
NHS seriously needs to split A&E into Timewasters & Emergency.
Ever had the misfortune to have a loved one admitted to hospital by ambulance round about pub closing time on a weekend? I have. I'd estimate it's about 10% Emergency, 90% pissed-up white trash. But I guess that's the Medway Maritime for you. Reflects the demographic of Gillingham and Chatham innit
Ever had the misfortune to have a loved one admitted to hospital by ambulance round about pub closing time on a weekend? I have. I'd estimate it's about 10% Emergency, 90% pissed-up white trash. But I guess that's the Medway Maritime for you. Reflects the demographic of Gillingham and Chatham innit
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #110
Much like road tax, plenty taken, nothing shown.
A few points. Apologies for any repetition.
The NHS was considered the MOST EFFICIENT health provider in the world, at least prior to Cameron's reorganization to CCGs to increase privatisation.
Seriously MOST EFFICIENT IN THE WORLD, but because it is socialist in nature dogma means the Tories had to change it.
Whatever large numbers are bandied about can we be real about how well funded it actually is? Our level of spending does not match most European countries, and our appalling social care and lax attitude to public health issues puts far greater demands on ours.
A culture of doing the bare minimum causes cost issues elsewhere in hospitals. This is what contracting out inevitably causes.
The issue of agency's creaming multi millions out the NHS for cover nurses and doctors was brilliantly addressed by the NHS. They set up their own agency which charged less, paid more to the staff and returned money to central NHS funds. So the Tories privatised it.
The NHS was considered the MOST EFFICIENT health provider in the world, at least prior to Cameron's reorganization to CCGs to increase privatisation.
Seriously MOST EFFICIENT IN THE WORLD, but because it is socialist in nature dogma means the Tories had to change it.
Whatever large numbers are bandied about can we be real about how well funded it actually is? Our level of spending does not match most European countries, and our appalling social care and lax attitude to public health issues puts far greater demands on ours.
A culture of doing the bare minimum causes cost issues elsewhere in hospitals. This is what contracting out inevitably causes.
The issue of agency's creaming multi millions out the NHS for cover nurses and doctors was brilliantly addressed by the NHS. They set up their own agency which charged less, paid more to the staff and returned money to central NHS funds. So the Tories privatised it.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #112
Do you have any idea about the UK GDP? We spunk so much money on shit it's unbelievable.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Indeed
Correct. Really not sure how the whole thing works but if the private costs are indicative of what the NHS pays it’s no wonder the service is woefully short of funds.
I saw a consultant about a minor shoulder problem a few weeks ago. I was referred from the GP and am lucky to have BUPA. Initial consultation was within 3 days (10 minutes, £250), MRI scan the following Monday (45 mins, £750), follow up consultation 2 days later (15 mins, £250), guided steroid injection 2 weeks later (only delayed due to Xmas, bill awaited). A family member has been waiting for similar for 4 months so far.........
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
It's not simple to build and open any business. When a business starts up and builds a factory, it's an outlay, an investment with a view to creating a successful business which will pay those initial costs and more. That's how things work. In a free market you don't end up with a monopoly except where that monopoly has been achieved honestly, because a product or service is very very good and nobody can provide it any better, in which case it's not such a problem. Any time there is a gap in the market, any time a product or service is not being provided at the standard people want and things can be done better, that becomes an opportunity for someone else to come in, meet that need, and reap the rewards. This is how markets work.
The only places you find unhealthy monopolies is where business and government get in bed with one another, corporations are allowed to write the regulations to stifle competition and keep others out and governments do favors for their friends. But that's not a free market, that's government sanctioned corruption.
Last edited:
Johnny RoastBeef
These aren't the players you're looking for.
- Jan 11, 2016
- 3,157
The whole point of the NHS is the provision of free healthcare for all. If high earners were restricted from using the service then how could we demand they contribute to the financing of it? It would be counter productive as they seldom use the service anyway.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #117
Do you know we spunk 3 billion a year on offshore charities? This is our money. Our taxes.
Because having the lovely efficient NHS both as an alternative and for private patients to be fed back into makes his healthcare plan about 5 times cheaper.
Also when he or his family get something horrible and their insurance company refuses to renew the NHS is all they will have.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #119
It is not free, so many get this so wrong.
Brighton Mod
Its All Too Beautiful
Reduce the use of agency nurses, or reduce the cost of agency nurses?