The Myth of the British National Health Servi
When the NHS was formed in 1948, it was one of the greatest social achievements of any nation in the history of humanity. Setting up a healthcare system, for all citizens, free at the point of delivery was superb. The fact it was set up under an overarching set of Guiding Principles also illustrated the morality and aspiration of the scheme.
Britain in 1948 was a very different place to today. The country was nearly bankrupt following the war, the Empire was dissolving and malnutrition and life threatening sickness were rife. Average life expectancy for men was 66, the greatest issues were pneumonia, meningitis, polio and child mortality. This was the first time in the world that such a system has been set up.
fast forward nearly 70 years and things are very different;
Life expectancy is well over 70 now, and there has been a massive increase in palliative and complex treatments. These are much more expensive and time consuming than 'simply' curing the previous diseases which people suffered from.
our ageing population means we have already passed the mathematical point in time when working people (who pay tax to fund the system) have been outnumbered by non-working or retired people who no longer pay anything in. It is not relevant to say that they have already paid in for their working lifetimes because the system is not a 'bankable' one. In other words, money goes in every year and money goes out every year .... people do not build a fund of monies for treatment
It is a public point of grievance that non U.K. Citizens, foreigners and refugees etc are able to access the system equally despite having never paid anything towards it. Nobody really knows how many of these do so.
This means that it is essentially impossible to adequately budget for the services, nobody really knows how much next year will cost, nor where the pinch points will be in the service.
it is a fact that the Service has moved away from simply treating life threatening illnesses, which is what it was intended to do, towards palliative and lifestyle issues; dementia, Alzheimer's, smoking and alcohol related issues, obesity etc. It was not meant for that. Even today, the NHS is superb at dealing with emergencies, but not so good at non-emergencies.
Worst of all, the NHS has become a political football. The public and media 'love' the NHS, it is 'the best health service in the world', the 'envy of other countries', it is 'precious', everybody who works in the NHS is a 'hard working angel'. The media and politicians always trumpet they will 'save the NHS', or its 'in crisis' at an existential humanitarian level.
having personally worked on the fringes of the service for 20 years, and my wife has worked within it for 25, I can confidently say that therefore as many lazy good for nothing tossers working there as in any other big organisation. The leadership is sorely lacking, and the system is institutionally set up to resist change and innovation. Being run by the government really is a fate worth than death too.
Final salary pensions are pretty extinct now, because of black and white maths and also various government robberies of funds. Longevity and an imbalance in age demographics means they are financially simply unsustainable. Surely the same logic remorselessly applies to the NHS too?
Currently, we have a system that was fit for purpose in 1948. Now it's badly led, it's doing things it wasn't intended to do, it is simply too big and cumbersome to manage properly, it is very inefficient .... but it has become a 'holy grail' in the minds of the media, politicians and the public.
where to go?
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
Oh this will be fun....I won't comment because I already know Beanz will whine about me being American....but I sure will watch this clusterfuck of a thread. (It'll be a clusterfuck because how people react, I actually agree with you X).
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
So the myth is? That it's no good?
From a patient perspective I disagree. The service I've had personally and witnessed on behalf of family members is and always has been fantastic.
Also, for what it's worth. For every 'Best health service in the World', there's a 'falling apart at the seams' to go with it.
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
A few years back I was in hospital gettin my shoulder looked at, a nurse got talking to me and lets say she wasn't the most politically correct of people, in her eyes the foreigners were fucking everything up because of the way they turn up at A&E with colds and headaches.
I know that isn't really what your post was about but you could clearly see how much it was getting to her.
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Memphis
So the myth is? That it's no good?
From a patient perspective I disagree. The service I've had personally and witnessed on behalf of family members is and always has been fantastic.
Also, for what it's worth. For every 'Best health service in the World', there's a 'falling apart at the seams' to go with it.
Is immigration not a factor in that?
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
NHS is piss. Health and safety laws are utter white. Everyone's an alcoholic, Chavs with their socks.rolled.up, the weather sucks and its too expensive.
Plus immigrants have ruined the country.
Oh and everyone.pretty much hates everyone: Welsh/Scottish hate English and.vice.versa.
Plus cricket sucks.
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
A huge chunk of advanced countries' healthcare budgets go to treating diabetes and other obesity-related diseases. It's a problem for every healthcare system.
Privatising the NHS is not the answer. Contrary to popular belief, privately supplied healthcare is far more expensive than a single payer system, two or three times even.
But privatising the NHS is exactly what's going to happen and the public 's erroneous belief that privatised business is more efficient than government-run business will mean that the public eventually have to pay huge healthcare costs. We'll be like America where families are impoverished and bankrupted when they lose their healthcare due to losing their job or they reach lifetime limits on coverage or their continuing healthcare is denied or any of the myriad other reasons that make medical bills the overwhelming number one reason that Americans go bankrupt.
The government is going to keep on giving more and more parts of the system over to the private sector who will massively reduce coverage and treatments and take huge profits out of the system. Then eventually the government will say that despite all the privatisation of the system, costs have spiralled out of control and the only possible option is to now privatise the whole thing.
And whichever government gets elected, conservative or labour, the same privatisation thing happens. Here's an example of what happened the last time a Labour government was in power:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...s-2012-m25-pfi
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
NHS is a beautiful concept and we should continue to support, fund, and improve it. The fact that we are getting older is down largely to having a great system because of early intervention and prevention. NHS is truly world class in what it does.
However the NHS can improve and it does waste money. i believe 50% of its costs go on non-front line services like senior management, it could use the voluntary sector more and there are too many Trusts. There would be greater savings if they commissioned centrally.
Car park charges are a rip off.
The NHS rely on non-UK staff and without them it would be worse off. The nurse you met needs to get another job if she feels that way.
I think the Tories will run NHS to the ground and then privatise it.
Do not privatise it, they are not more efficient and effective. They waste as much money as the public sector but give it to their friends. I know as I work in one. It is horrible.
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Oh this will be fun....I won't comment because I already know Beanz will whine about me being American....but I sure will watch this clusterfuck of a thread. (It'll be a clusterfuck because how people react, I actually agree with you X).
If it was not for the NHS my Mrs would be dead. If it was not for the NHS my daughter would have died whilst her mother was in a coma. If it wasn't for the NHS then my three grandchildren would not be here. None of that has anything to do with whining or you being American, but you know according the Brock the NHS is piss. So sit back and wait for the clusterfuck if that is your idea of an evening well spent.
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
X
When the NHS was formed in 1948, it was one of the greatest social achievements of any nation in the history of humanity. Setting up a healthcare system, for all citizens, free at the point of delivery was superb. The fact it was set up under an overarching set of Guiding Principles also illustrated the morality and aspiration of the scheme.
Britain in 1948 was a very different place to today. The country was nearly bankrupt following the war, the Empire was dissolving and malnutrition and life threatening sickness were rife. Average life expectancy for men was 66, the greatest issues were pneumonia, meningitis, polio and child mortality. This was the first time in the world that such a system has been set up.
fast forward nearly 70 years and things are very different;
Life expectancy is well over 70 now, and there has been a massive increase in palliative and complex treatments. These are much more expensive and time consuming than 'simply' curing the previous diseases which people suffered from.
our ageing population means we have already passed the mathematical point in time when working people (who pay tax to fund the system) have been outnumbered by non-working or retired people who no longer pay anything in. It is not relevant to say that they have already paid in for their working lifetimes because the system is not a 'bankable' one. In other words, money goes in every year and money goes out every year .... people do not build a fund of monies for treatment
It is a public point of grievance that non U.K. Citizens, foreigners and refugees etc are able to access the system equally despite having never paid anything towards it. Nobody really knows how many of these do so.
This means that it is essentially impossible to adequately budget for the services, nobody really knows how much next year will cost, nor where the pinch points will be in the service.
it is a fact that the Service has moved away from simply treating life threatening illnesses, which is what it was intended to do, towards palliative and lifestyle issues; dementia, Alzheimer's, smoking and alcohol related issues, obesity etc. It was not meant for that. Even today, the NHS is superb at dealing with emergencies, but not so good at non-emergencies.
Worst of all, the NHS has become a political football. The public and media 'love' the NHS, it is 'the best health service in the world', the 'envy of other countries', it is 'precious', everybody who works in the NHS is a 'hard working angel'. The media and politicians always trumpet they will 'save the NHS', or its 'in crisis' at an existential humanitarian level.
having personally worked on the fringes of the service for 20 years, and my wife has worked within it for 25, I can confidently say that therefore as many lazy good for nothing tossers working there as in any other big organisation. The leadership is sorely lacking, and the system is institutionally set up to resist change and innovation. Being run by the government really is a fate worth than death too.
Final salary pensions are pretty extinct now, because of black and white maths and also various government robberies of funds. Longevity and an imbalance in age demographics means they are financially simply unsustainable. Surely the same logic remorselessly applies to the NHS too?
Currently, we have a system that was fit for purpose in 1948. Now it's badly led, it's doing things it wasn't intended to do, it is simply too big and cumbersome to manage properly, it is very inefficient .... but it has become a 'holy grail' in the minds of the media, politicians and the public.
where to go?
Principles do not stop being sound because it is no longer 1948. You are right that it has become a political football but is is also an institution that people right across the political spectrum actually care about preserving. The fact that successive governments have undermined it's efficiency in order to cook the books and provide sweetners for companies their daddies own or whom will have them on the board after retiring from politics does not help matters. So much money could be saved if the rot did not start at the top. It's a kind of inverted craziness that the populace has taken to blaming everyone but the people who were elected to manage and plan for a future that they seem happy to wantonly destroy in order to make a political point. It is an ideological kind of war that feeds the fats cats. It is and always has been a class war. So the peasants dragged into factories despite being quite happy being self sufficient are now enslaved by private contractors who have replaced the former Lord of the Manor with Some toff who inherited the directorship. Breaking the service apart is a microcosm of the selfish attitude that the Tories have and New Labour tried to ape under Blair. It is now seen as a weakness and stupid idea to even think about things like social justice because the corporate mindset has now poisoned things so much that people living longer rather being seen as a triumph of the NHS is now seen as 'forcing people to live longer'
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...cking-our.html
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
1st off, as a one off, Beanz is right to now be addressing me as The Brock. Not Brock. He has learned to address me in a royal manner, as I do so well deserve to be, as I have utterly earned it by my gracious and magnanimous character, demeanor and disposition, and that is without even mentioning my sanctimonious persona, or my merciful.reluctance to.resort to cruelty, malice, or meanness.
Now then, as grateful as Beanz clearly and most justifiably is to the NHS for the family reasons he has provided here--and that goes without saying that, in all honesty (and not without the least bit of sincerity) every single one of us would WITHOUT QUESTION feel in equal measure precisely that gratefulness he expressed above were WE to have been the beneficiaries of that service he was provided--it is also noteworthy that even in the poorest of countries (the UK not falling within that category, at least not before 2030 anyway) there is indeed (as amazing as it may seem to some westerners) an actually surprisingly adequate and well-equipped health care system.which delays.rather well if I may say so myself with similar urgent health.matters, rendering the argument that the NHS is any kind.of unique godsend etc. quite null and.void, to say the very least.
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Oh this will be fun....I won't comment because I already know Beanz will whine about me being American....but I sure will watch this clusterfuck of a thread. (It'll be a clusterfuck because how people react, I actually agree with you X).
If it was not for the NHS my Mrs would be dead. If it was not for the NHS my daughter would have died whilst her mother was in a coma. If it wasn't for the NHS then my three grandchildren would not be here. None of that has anything to do with whining or you being American, but you know according the Brock the NHS is piss. So sit back and wait for the clusterfuck if that is your idea of an evening well spent.
Despite my antigovernment stances I do favor a safety net for people. If we weren't so quick to kill one another we could accomplish great things. No more ZOG wars say no to the ZOG
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
1st off, as a one off, Beanz is right to now be addressing me as The Brock. Not Brock. He has learned to address me in a royal manner, as I do so well deserve to be, as I have utterly earned it by my gracious and magnanimous character, demeanor and disposition, and that is without even mentioning my sanctimonious persona, or my merciful.reluctance to.resort to cruelty, malice, or meanness.
Now then, as grateful as Beanz clearly and most justifiably is to the NHS for the family reasons he has provided here--and that goes without saying that, in all honesty (and not without the least bit of sincerity) every single one of us would WITHOUT QUESTION feel in equal measure precisely that gratefulness he expressed above were WE to have been the beneficiaries of that service he was provided--it is also noteworthy that even in the poorest of countries (the UK not falling within that category, at least not before 2030 anyway) there is indeed (as amazing as it may seem to some westerners) an actually surprisingly adequate and well-equipped health care system.which delays.rather well if I may say so myself with similar urgent health.matters, rendering the argument that the NHS is any kind.of unique godsend etc. quite null and.void, to say the very least.
Nowhere else would she have been operated on so quickly by one of the top neurosurgeons in the country with our limited financial resources. That alone makes the NHS much more than the piss that you label it as. The NHS is unique. Just because you do not understand or appreciate that does not make it not so.
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
1st off, as a one off, Beanz is right to now be addressing me as The Brock. Not Brock. He has learned to address me in a royal manner, as I do so well deserve to be, as I have utterly earned it by my gracious and magnanimous character, demeanor and disposition, and that is without even mentioning my sanctimonious persona, or my merciful.reluctance to.resort to cruelty, malice, or meanness.
Now then, as grateful as Beanz clearly and most justifiably is to the NHS for the family reasons he has provided here--and that goes without saying that, in all honesty (and not without the least bit of sincerity) every single one of us would WITHOUT QUESTION feel in equal measure precisely that gratefulness he expressed above were WE to have been the beneficiaries of that service he was provided--it is also noteworthy that even in the poorest of countries (the UK not falling within that category, at least not before 2030 anyway) there is indeed (as amazing as it may seem to some westerners) an actually surprisingly adequate and well-equipped health care system.which delays.rather well if I may say so myself with similar urgent health.matters, rendering the argument that the NHS is any kind.of unique godsend etc. quite null and.void, to say the very least.
Nowhere else would she have been operated on so quickly by one of the top neurosurgeons in the country with our limited financial resources. That alone makes the NHS much more than the piss that you label it as. The NHS is unique. Just because you do not understand or appreciate that does not make it not so.
I do not expect that you compared the speed with which they attended to your families urgent needs with the potential speed of other systems around the world, and you'd be surprised how quickly Singapore, Taiwan, Brunei, UAE or even Canada's systems may have responded in equally speedy measure.
Re: The Myth of the British National Health Servi
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
1st off, as a one off, Beanz is right to now be addressing me as The Brock. Not Brock. He has learned to address me in a royal manner, as I do so well deserve to be, as I have utterly earned it by my gracious and magnanimous character, demeanor and disposition, and that is without even mentioning my sanctimonious persona, or my merciful.reluctance to.resort to cruelty, malice, or meanness.
Now then, as grateful as Beanz clearly and most justifiably is to the NHS for the family reasons he has provided here--and that goes without saying that, in all honesty (and not without the least bit of sincerity) every single one of us would WITHOUT QUESTION feel in equal measure precisely that gratefulness he expressed above were WE to have been the beneficiaries of that service he was provided--it is also noteworthy that even in the poorest of countries (the UK not falling within that category, at least not before 2030 anyway) there is indeed (as amazing as it may seem to some westerners) an actually surprisingly adequate and well-equipped health care system.which delays.rather well if I may say so myself with similar urgent health.matters, rendering the argument that the NHS is any kind.of unique godsend etc. quite null and.void, to say the very least.
Nowhere else would she have been operated on so quickly by one of the top neurosurgeons in the country with our limited financial resources. That alone makes the NHS much more than the piss that you label it as. The NHS is unique. Just because you do not understand or appreciate that does not make it not so.
I do not expect that you compared the speed with which they attended to your families urgent needs with the potential speed of other systems around the world, and you'd be surprised how quickly Singapore, Taiwan, Brunei, UAE or even Canada's systems may have responded in equally speedy measure.
Do not expect -potential- may have- none of these are anything but supposition so your entire post is meaningless. You do this a lot you just dribble out stuff and pretend that it is debate. I am talking about real life experience of a NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE being able to utilise the best person for the Job in the place he was needed at that time. You are pretending that not having to fill out a mountain of forms or travel to find the right neurosurgeon or hospital like we would have elsewhere is irelevant because then you can justify the following stupid statement.
The NHS is piss. Tell us more how is the NHS piss. That from you personal experience? Something you read? Something you want to be true?
It's weird it seems that a few americans don't really give a f**k about many things and are quite offended or nonplussed when others do.
