Page 1 of 1
The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 18:36
by Rubble again
First topic on the new site so please be gentle with me.
Not in the UK, so this question may seem a bit naive and has probably already been answered or dismissed as a load of bollox at some point.
Simply, why is the NHS used as a political football? Most would agree it's one of the best things to come out of Britain, although it has taken a bit of a battering over the years. So why can't all parties agree to fund it with a % of GDP each year, reforms carried out where needed and not try and score points but to do what's best for it and the country? Run independently of any party.
Genuine question, so thanks in advance for any answers.
Re: The NHS
Posted: 29 Nov 2024, 06:40
by Massive Attack
Agreed. Let's have a cull. Starting with Gooners. Then Millwall, Chelsea, Scousers and of course Spurs fans..
Re: The NHS
Posted: 29 Nov 2024, 06:37
by Mike Oxsaw
cup of tea" wrote: ↑28 Nov 2024, 22:03
It may seem that the NHS gets untold amounts of money, but they don't compared to other countries.
Successive government's whether Tory or Labour seem to think throwing money at the NHS is the solution, it isn't, first and foremost the NHS as one of the largest organisations in the world needs top down restructure but for reasons unbeknown yo me they have failed to do so. Too many managers not enough clinicians, plus all the new bollocks like diversity managers etc.
The NHS wasn't designed for the amount of people in this country, it cant cope, and never will at this stage unless some serious decisions are made yo totally transform the ethos of the NHS plus morr money diverted to the NHS for building infrastructure and training clinicians. I'd start by taking money from the foreign aid budget.
As an accountant who has audited parts of the NHS it's scary looking at their accounts and budgets, the wastage is truly astonishing.
There isn't an easy solution BUT it needs total transformation balancing top down restructure AND money, both are needed, not one.
Anyway, thats enough from me, up at 4am as got a flight to Tenerife to catch and the UK can fuck off for 2 weeks
The solution to all (ALL) of the UK's woes is...wait for it...LESS PEOPLE - a smaller population. Simple as that.
This does not mean state sponsored genocide, or even strongly assisted dying; it means severely restricting the number of people coming into the country, for whatever reason, from whatever region of the world.
Simple numbers. Nothing to do with race, religion or culture - those are attributes only to be considered when fine-tuning immigration policy to match the needs and requirements of the nation (and not big business), but the total annual number allowed in must be set in stone and sacrosanct. No "borrowing" from future determinations to "just" let a few "urgent cases" in immediately.
Tough shit if that impacts more those desiring to come here from "developing nations", it's not "racist" in any way, shape or form. It's equality in action - all that matters is the numbers. Join the queue like everybody else and wait for your number to be called.
Whip those who try to queue-jump out of the islands as soon as they're identified; Process ALL immigration applications at the relevant country's British Embassy, not in Kent.
Then make claiming benefits more difficult for the newly arrived - especially those who have no desire to accept British culture and integrate into UK society.
Local people applying for benefits get (severely) Means Tested, so why not everyone?
Such people, through personal choice, show no desire to be the equal of the indigenous population, so make them officially 2nd & 3rd class citizens and adjust their benefits entitlements accordingly.
Plenty of moral and legal ways to do that.
We may have had an empire once, but so did the Romans...and the Ottomans...and the Russians.
What about the Umayyad Caliphate? If the British have responsibilities to the rest of the world for once forming an empire, then so does that group (at least), and the descendants of the Umayyad Caliphate have all that oil which they can use to pay reparations to (descendants of) those once under their control. Follow the money is how it goes, is it not?
For those who seek to arrive here illegally (sorry, irregularly or unofficially), the UK needs to be seen as a not so desirable place to be - and fuck all those egos who strut about the planet/country trumpeting how "civilised" we are; we may have been once, but we're not now - mainly thanks to people like them.
Re: The NHS
Posted: 29 Nov 2024, 01:12
by Collins Wong - A Free Man
Don't understand why everyone sucks it off tbh
Re: The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 22:35
by Westside
"When did it become fashionable to set spending as a % of GDP?"
Indeed. If GDP were to fall and NHS spending was set as a set percentage of GDP, then you'd have to cut NHS spending.
Same as a hypothecated tax, for any item of government expenditure, you'd be forced to cut spending, should the hypothecated tax revenue fall.
Re: The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 22:03
by cup of tea
It may seem that the NHS gets untold amounts of money, but they don't compared to other countries.
Successive government's whether Tory or Labour seem to think throwing money at the NHS is the solution, it isn't, first and foremost the NHS as one of the largest organisations in the world needs top down restructure but for reasons unbeknown yo me they have failed to do so. Too many managers not enough clinicians, plus all the new bollocks like diversity managers etc.
The NHS wasn't designed for the amount of people in this country, it cant cope, and never will at this stage unless some serious decisions are made yo totally transform the ethos of the NHS plus morr money diverted to the NHS for building infrastructure and training clinicians. I'd start by taking money from the foreign aid budget.
As an accountant who has audited parts of the NHS it's scary looking at their accounts and budgets, the wastage is truly astonishing.
There isn't an easy solution BUT it needs total transformation balancing top down restructure AND money, both are needed, not one.
Anyway, thats enough from me, up at 4am as got a flight to Tenerife to catch and the UK can fuck off for 2 weeks
Re: The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 20:57
by riosleftsock
When did it become fashionable to set spending as a % of GDP?
Why is the NHS model sacred? Why can't we have a mixed model like in France or Germany where outcomes are far superior?
If the NHS model is so good, why has nobody else implemented it?
Re: The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 20:30
by ,
The Uk spends around 10% of its GDP on the NHS compared to the USA which spends around 16/17%.
Other countries that spend a bigger GDP proportion include France, Germany, Japan and Canada. It is worth mentioning that all the countries mentioned spend around 10% with the USA being a complete outlier.
Re: The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 20:26
by MaryMillingtonsGhost
The NHS is a fantastic ideal (NOT idea)
The problem appears to be the sheer amount of waste they appear to tolerate.
Mrs Ghost has recently undergone an op on her foot.
Attempted to return both boots she was issued with. Told to bin them.
Also attempted to return the self-administered blood thinning syringes prescribed (10 of them).
All sealed, never used.
Once again, told to either bin them or return to a chemists, where THEY will bin them.
Would appear to be very little accountancy involved.
Re: The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 19:06
by Nurse Ratched
Why is the NHS always and only compared to the US system? Why not compare the NHS with the health systems of Spain, Sweden or France?
Re: The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 19:05
by Leavemyarcelona
The NHS was not designed to deal with the amount of people living in the UK
Re: The NHS
Posted: 28 Nov 2024, 18:57
by nychammer
There is no easy answer, but for the UK, generally, healthcare provision works well as a publicly funded entity and you simply don't realize how good you have it with the NHS until you don't have it any more. Yes on the NHS you may have to wait a year for certain elective procedures and yes people dying on a waiting lists does happen, but it deals with the basics very well. I don't think politicians of any party want to tinker too dramatically with the general premise of the NHS, despite the constant moaning about it.
Whilst the standard of healthcare here in the US is generally better, its only affordable if you have an employee sponsored health plan, and even then the out of pocket costs can still be high. If you are self employed or unemployed you are fucked with either no coverage or astronomical premiums. The cost of just about everything here is sky high too. I actually do think some Doctors go into the profession because its a good earner more so than they felt a calling to help people, and you certainly wouldn't say that about the NHS.