NHS Problems

[cyprusgrump]

The NHS problems will never be solved as long as a majority of voters in the UK treat it as a religious experience rather than a government service.

Anybody who actually thinks that the NHS' problems can be solved by continually throwing money at it is clearly a few bandages short of a first aid kit, and it is as if the entire sane portion of the electorate [i.e. excluding Momentum supporters, obvs], fully realise this but either consider it impolite or an act of heresy to mention it. Universal healthcare being, of course, an act of religious devotion.

The Germans and [to our continual shame] EVEN THE FRENCH understand this, and offer a publically funded but privately provided [in the main] service for those who actually need it, directly funded by specific employer and employee contributions, and actively encourage people to make their own independent provision via private health insurance. Therefore their system costs less overall, employs way less people but [and here's the kicker], actually end up spending more per person on those they actually do treat [and therefore offer a better service] than the NHS.

Though to be fair, watching Corbyn explain how he was going to ease pressure on the NHS, by punitively taxing people who have private healthcare [and therefore reduce the pressure on the NHS] has definitely become a candidate for the top 10 comedy routines of 2017

Splendid!

[cyprusgrump]

Excellent post Jimgward,

I agree with everything you said. The only thing that I would add is that I believe the NHS should not be providing any free service which is a lifestyle choice rather than a medical problem. This includes breast enhancement/reduction, IVF and vasectomies amongst others.

I wouldn't restrict vasectomies. Unwanted pregnancies would be more of a drain on the NHS in the long run.

Maternity services generally.

Why should those that choose to have babies receive care funded by those that do not...?

[Poppy]

Is that tongue in cheek CG? If you are going to stop NHS for people who choose to have babies then you would have to stop it for people who choose to be overweight,choose to smoke, take drugs,drink too much alcohol etc etc

Blimey all of a sudden the NHS would be meeting all targets as there would be hardly anyone left to treat!

[cyprusgrump]

Is that tongue in cheek CG? If you are going to stop NHS for people who choose to have babies then you would have to stop it for people who choose to be overweight,choose to smoke, take drugs,drink too much alcohol etc etc

Blimey all of a sudden the NHS would be meeting all targets as there would be hardly anyone left to treat!

Bingo!

Bizarrely, the NHS spends millions (through Public Health England) lecturing us on what we can put into our bodies - no fags, burgers, booze, salt, sugar, etc.

...and the government spends millions more funding fake charities and NGOs campaigning against fags, burgers, booze, salt, sugar, etc. and lobbying government to restrict/tax/ban fags, burgers, booze, salt, sugar, etc...

But then the NHS complains that we are all living longer and cost more to treat.

And the facts prove, that the longer we live through 'healthy' lifestyles the more we cost the taxpayer.

In reality, it is far better for the taxpayer to pour booze down our throats (or smoke fags, eat burgers, etc.) and die of cancer/diabetes, etc. relatively quickly than to spend many years of our lives drawing pensions in a care home...

[smudger]

Love it Grump!

My personal whinge is re procreation. Possibly not directly NHS related, but within weeks of the blue line it sure as hell will be.

Maybe I accept that it's every woman's/couple's right to have children. Maybe.

But why do the rest of the tax paying populace have to pay for it?? Maternity leave, paternity leave, child care costs.............sorry, not acceptable. I know from my past work experience that these costs are amongst the highest dependency costs in both business and school budgets. And, believe me, I can tell you exactly how teachers manipulate the maroon book to their advantage on maternity, paternity and sick leave.

Given the current pressure on schools, let alone business, surely it's time to expect people to fund their own child care costs, from birth onwards. Or choose the alternative, not to procreate if you can't afford it.

I recall a recent TV programme, and apologies, can't recall which one, may have been The One Show. This showed many families moving back in with parents as they could not afford mortgages and running costs of a family as well as child care costs. So their parents were now becoming child careers and providing accommodation for their offspring solely to enable them to have children. Is that bonkers or is it bonkers? If you can't afford to provide for and care for children, then why have them? What is it which instills it into the minds of young couples that it is their overriding right to give birth? Yes it is, but surely not at the cost of ageing parents or rest of the tax paying public??

Socialism has much to answer for. Tory supporting teachers are as rare as hens teeth, if not more rare!

[cyprusgrump]

Love it Grump!

My personal whinge is re procreation. Possibly not directly NHS related, but within weeks of the blue line it sure as hell will be.

Maybe I accept that it's every woman's/couple's right to have children. Maybe.

But why do the rest of the tax paying populace have to pay for it?? Maternity leave, paternity leave, child care costs.............sorry, not acceptable. I know from my past work experience that these costs are amongst the highest dependency costs in both business and school budgets. And, believe me, I can tell you exactly how teachers manipulate the maroon book to their advantage on maternity, paternity and sick leave.

Given the current pressure on schools, let alone business, surely it's time to expect people to fund their own child care costs, from birth onwards. Or choose the alternative, not to procreate if you can't afford it.

I recall a recent TV programme, and apologies, can't recall which one, may have been The One Show. This showed many families moving back in with parents as they could not afford mortgages and running costs of a family as well as child care costs. So their parents were now becoming child careers and providing accommodation for their offspring solely to enable them to have children. Is that bonkers or is it bonkers? If you can't afford to provide for and care for children, then why have them? What is it which instills it into the minds of young couples that it is their overriding right to give birth? Yes it is, but surely not at the cost of ageing parents or rest of the tax paying public??

Socialism has much to answer for. Tory supporting teachers are as rare as hens teeth, if not more rare!

Blimey!

It isn't often I agree with a post 100%. But I agree 100%!

[jeba]

The Germans and [to our continual shame] EVEN THE FRENCH understand this, and offer a publically funded but privately provided [in the main] service for those who actually need it, directly funded by specific employer and employee contributions, and actively encourage people to make their own independent provision via private health insurance. Therefore their system costs less overall, employs way less people but [and here's the kicker], actually end up spending more per person on those they actually do treat [and therefore offer a better service] than the NHS.

I´m not sure whether German health care is cheaper. The mandatory contributions are quite high (about 18-19 % of your salary, including long-term nursing insurance). How much is the tax for the NHS?
I wouldn´t say that Germany actively encourages people to take out private health insurance. Quite the contrary, given that public health insurance is mandatory for most. You can of course take out private insurance but that wouldn´t release you from the obligation to stay publicly insured, meaning you´d be insured in duplicate. Not really an encouragement, is it? What makes more sense at best is to take out private top-up insurance which will cover you for luxuries like that you don´t have to acccept any doctor who happens to be on duty when in hospital or having a private room. But not many people have that.

[Firefly]

Some would have us on the slippery slope it seems to me. No maternity care ?

How far should we go ? stop treating sports injuries, people who indulge in contact sports are asking for trouble, as are those who ski, race cars, race bikes etc. no-one makes them do it. Overdoses, no treatment. I take it that no ambulances would attend either. As has already been said, eliminate anyone overweight, who drinks alcohol, smokes, or takes drugs, eats animal fats, doesn't eat 5 a day, all lifestyle choices, but common sense has to be applied.

I certainly agree that if you have children, then you must be able to support yourself, and the children without the receipt of benefits, but for the sake of the unborn child and it's mother, maternity care is essential, and in my opinion the NHS should provide that care.

Jackie

[smudger]

I don't believe I mentioned maternity care. I have no problem with that. It's the costs of maternity leave, paternity leave and child care. I see no reason why these costs should be borne by the tax payer. If prospective parents are unable to fund these costs then surely they should seriously consider whether they can actually afford to have children?
To go ahead and have children and then expect the tax payer to fund the care for those children, and to have to move back to living with parents in order to be able to afford the care of said children is sheer nonsense to me.

Just watching an old episode of Location, Location, Location, where three generations of one family are trying to relocate to be nearer family purely for the sake of saving on child care costs. If I remember the figures just quoted, Phil Spencer said that grandparents are saving families over £7.5 million in child care costs. Crazy. And this episode is several years old!

For totally different and unavoidable reasons I care for my granddaughter who is now 12, she has been with me for 4 years now and will be with me until she is 18. I know just what the costs are on my pocket, my lifestyle, my quality of life and my health.

Prospective parents should consider all costs of child bearing before embarking on a life times commitment. Sadly, they rarely do and then expect the tax payer and/or their own parents to plug the gaps. Not acceptable.

[josef k]

I guess that is what we call natural selection.

However, the idea of only well off people having kids doesn't hold water. Without poor people's kids growing and entering the workforce, the UK wouldn't have people to do the work at the more manual and unskilled end of the spectrum (generalisation alert). This would in turn result in a need to import such workers, i.e. immigration. The majority of the population having just voted against immigration, I would say there isn't much support for your idea.

[Firefly]

No not your post, it has been mentioned stopping maternity services financed by the NHS, just picking up the baton as it were. I quite agree with you re. care for the children and finance, but maybe the parents later divorce, mum has to work, so child ends up with granny. Not quite so straight forward.

It was mentioned that lifestyle choices should have a bearing on NHS treatment, so I highlighted a few. I suggest that all of us in one way or another make choices that could have ended up in injury or illness, at some time in our lives.

I'm sure that your granddaughter will be grateful to you for your care of her. I know my grandchildren can be a drain, and I only have them for a week or two at a time ! I hope you can find some 'me'' time to relax and take stock. All best wishes to you and your granddaughter.

Jackie

[smudger]

Thanks Jackie, understand!

From another Jacqui! Or Jacs, or if my mum were still around Jacqueline!! Knew I was in trouble when I got my full name

[Firefly]

Hi Jacs, and me

Jackie

[Pete G]

I´m not sure whether German health care is cheaper. The mandatory contributions are quite high (about 18-19 % of your salary, including long-term nursing insurance). How much is the tax for the NHS?
I wouldn´t say that Germany actively encourages people to take out private health insurance. Quite the contrary, given that public health insurance is mandatory for most. You can of course take out private insurance but that wouldn´t release you from the obligation to stay publicly insured, meaning you´d be insured in duplicate. Not really an encouragement, is it? What makes more sense at best is to take out private top-up insurance which will cover you for luxuries like that you don´t have to acccept any doctor who happens to be on duty when in hospital or having a private room. But not many people have that.

Im sure you're correct, my experience is with the French system.

Point still holds, though. Both France and Germany get a much better service [GP/person, beds/person, nurses and midwives per person etc.] for much less direct Govt expenditure because they are purchasers rather than providers. Effectively all 1st line healthcare in France is 'private' as you have to pay the GP a fee for a visit in most circumstances. It also means their bed-blocking levels are way down on the UK, hence the higher per capita [effective] spend on actual patients

[Royal]

Some would have us on the slippery slope it seems to me. No maternity care ?

How far should we go ? stop treating sports injuries, people who indulge in contact sports are asking for trouble, as are those who ski, race cars, race bikes etc. no-one makes them do it. Overdoses, no treatment. I take it that no ambulances would attend either. As has already been said, eliminate anyone overweight, who drinks alcohol, smokes, or takes drugs, eats animal fats, doesn't eat 5 a day, all lifestyle choices, but common sense has to be applied.

I certainly agree that if you have children, then you must be able to support yourself, and the children without the receipt of benefits, but for the sake of the unborn child and it's mother, maternity care is essential, and in my opinion the NHS should provide that care.

Jackie

I first mentioned lifestyle choices, but illustrated the type of treatment I meant as including such things as vasectomies, breast enhancement/reduction and IVF. I stand by these three as clear lifestyle choices - not emergencies, not life threatening and not (in my opinion) things which the taxpayer should fund through the NHS.

It's good to stimulate debate though, and you have given some good examples worth discussion. I certainly do not advocate that treatment is simply withheld in any of the cases you have mentioned as clearly they are all in need of medical intervention for health and/or survival. However, I think that one of the many problems we have with the NHS is the simplicity of dispensing free care at the point of delivery. No questions about entitlement (Residency/Citizenship) or causes. If you are involved in a road accident in the UK which requires an ambulance, then you will usually get a bill for this and the assumption is that the bill is passed to your insurance company to pay (or they pass it on to the third party insurers to pay). Why not have the same for the subsequent medical treatment too - including ongoing physiotherapist treatment etc?

As far as sports injuries are concerned, I'm not advocating that the NHS simply withholds treatment. However, all my adult life, I served in the military, and any 'hazardous sports' we undertook were not automatically covered by them. Individuals had to have personal insurance cover for hang gliding, paragliding, ski-ing and a whole host of other things. It's quite possible or even probable that many who undertake hazardous or extreme sports have such cover. But how much is paid back to the NHS if they use that system when injured rather than private medical care? There have been numerous instances during my lifetime of idiots who put to sea in unworthy craft and had to be rescued by the brave men of our Search & Rescue teams using expensive to operate helicopters, often in hazardous conditions to save these fools. Yet what comeback is there for the taxpayer which funds such things and the treatment afterwards? At present nothing.

I absolutely agree with you that common sense has to be applied, and as an overweight, alcohol drinker who loves animal fats (in moderation of course) and who doesn't always eat five a day, I'm certainly not excluding myself from being treated - nor would I advocate someone suffering from anorexia from being treated. I agree that prevention is better than cure and therefore have no problem with taxpayers money being spent on health education. However, during my lifetime I have seen campaigns which have been against eggs and for eggs, against butter and for butter, against red wine (in moderation of course) and for red wine, against cholesterol reducing foodstuffs and for cholesterol reducing foodstuffs. Health information is, to say the least, rather haphazard and changeable.

[Varky]

If bad lifestyle choices are to be a filter for accessing the NHS services then should those that are filtered out be given a refund of the proportion of their NI contributions that are allocated to the NHS? Food for thought (as long as it is healthy food that is)!

[jeba]

I don't believe I mentioned maternity care. I have no problem with that. It's the costs of maternity leave, paternity leave and child care. I see no reason why these costs should be borne by the tax payer. If prospective parents are unable to fund these costs then surely they should seriously consider whether they can actually afford to have children?
To go ahead and have children and then expect the tax payer to fund the care for those children, and to have to move back to living with parents in order to be able to afford the care of said children is sheer nonsense to me.

I disagree. While I support your concept that people should behave responsibly you can´t ignore the fact that many don´t and you shouldn´t let their children suffer for their parent´s poor choices (more than they will suffer anyway). A certain minimum level must be guaranteed for all children even if the parents can´t provide for it (or don´t want to). It´s also in the taxpayer´s best interest that people procreate. You can´t on the one hand complain about low birth rates and on the other wish for only those having children who are well off.

[jeba]

I certainly agree that if you have children, then you must be able to support yourself, and the children without the receipt of benefits,

As I said in my previous post I don´t think this is the right approach. Isn´t it better to have children whose parents are not so well off than to have no children at all?

[jeba]

How much do you have to pay for the NHS? Is it a flat rate, is it a percentage of your earnings? How is it funded?

[jeba]

Both France and Germany get a much better service [GP/person, beds/person, nurses and midwives per person etc.] for much less direct Govt expenditure because they are purchasers rather than providers.

What do you mean when you say "they are purchasers"? I only can talk about the German system (which is covering me in all of the EU as well, btw) but the government isn´t involved at all. Neither do they purchase nor provide health care. They set the regulatory framework but that´s it.