Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Another reason to love your NHS
(07-16-2017, 11:36 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-16-2017, 09:06 AM)BoringBaggie Wrote:
(07-15-2017, 10:32 PM)Protheroe Wrote: No other nation funds their healthcare the way UK does. That's the first problem.

The UK isn't any other nation. The NHS has been a huge improvement on the compulsory health insurance system that it replaced, and that other European countries use. The healthcare system in this country affords opportunity of choice for private healthcare as well as a tax based safety net for those unable to afford it. Other countries that have compulsory insurance have natural monopolies form removing market competition, there is less interconnectivity making the services less efficient and there's just as much unnecessary middle management. We could fund it through tax to remove the burden from the low earners, but what will this improve? How will the private sector make the most efficient healthcare system in the world more efficient, considering that private healthcare is already less efficient.

A) It is funded from general taxation.

B) Like I said, efficiency doesn't matter if you're not very good at keeping people alive.

A) I know it is. How would the funding model work for a privatised system? Would it be compulsory insurance to level the playing field for all earners or through tax to remove the burden from high earners.

B) As has been said before, you're not going to provide the better healthcare unless you want unless you fund it more, private or national. Being the most efficient healthcare system, beating out our European counterparts who have the model you want, and still not being the best means that they're not getting enough funding. Our doctors are paid less in relation, we have less of them and nurses and there isn't enough facilities. How exactly would a private model work better in that respect if there isn't more money going in? Efficiency is a huge pointer in this respect as in relation to the other statistics, despite getting the most out of our staff, getting the most out of every penny we spend it is still under performing which means that we aren't giving enough money. This can be backed up with healthcare expenditure vs GDP as a percentage which we are way way down on.
(07-14-2017, 12:11 PM)Protheroe Wrote: The Commonwealth Fund study is an outlier. The NHS can be as affordable and efficient as it likes. I'd rather it was top for outcomes personally, wouldn't you? Otherwise what's the point.

10th out of 11 on keeping people alive is appalling.

Health outcomes have little to do with NHS


If you look at UK rates of obesity, diabetes etc you are near world leaders. Pitching up at your A and E and expecting the NHS to undo the damage is more than hopeful. Some work to do on sepsis and COPD for sure

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)