Non-political Save our NHS

Is this non-political?

www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/emma-bishton/pay-for-healthcare-we-already-do-3-question-mps-must-answer

I can't find a good criticism of the Dutch/Swiss system . The only ones I can find are those published by the Republican press in the USA when the argument over the Obama health bill was raging.

I. Was going to do an overview of the NHS but can hardly teach grans to suck eggs and there are a lot of you with far more information than I can bring to the table.

There are of course lot more health systems we haven't covered but this exercise me has taught me a number of things some of which have surprised me.
1. Other health systems work
2. You get what you pay for.
3. The NHS is not unsustainable, that is simply a code for not wanting to spend more than the current per capita GDP.
4. I think that those systems where the government is kept at arms length with the day to day running work better.

Been really good to hear from grans in other countries and their experiences.

One other argument I keep flogging so would be grateful for thoughts on the subject is

If as seems likely this government will continue to tinker and pursue the privatisation agenda, then would it not be better to say "OK but let's do it with firm principles and a grand plan" then hopefully ending up like some of the best alternatives we have looked at rather than a mish mash and worse of all world's ending up like the USA which I thought was absolutely dreadful.

I agree with 1. 2. and 4.

3.Having looked at some of the systems whitewave, how much more?

Well soon those health systems in Europe who appear to be both well run and with good outcomes pay on average about 11% whereas we pay about 9%.

More thinking on the subject

I would very much like to keep the money we pay into the Health service out of the government hands, because we know that they find it very tempting to misuse the money. It would also have the advantage that we would know exactly how much was going into the Health service, and then we may well be prepared to pay more for the service.

If we are currently paying 9%, and have to find another 2%, that is roughly 22% more needed than we are paying currently into the NHS budget.
That is a colossal figure.

But 2% of the GDP is perfectly achievable. But that is assuming that is what we want. I am not suggesting that we should spend more, but I am saying that we need to be realistic about what we want from our health system and how much we are prepared to pay. The two may well be incompatible and so we must face up to what can be achieved with what we are prepared to pay. It may be that at 9% we will have to be satisfied with a less than best or even good health service. It is an argument that needs to take place.

Of course it would be better to do it properly learning from other countries and stop this bleating about the NHS being the'best in the world' Like the UK legal system I just can't hear it anymore. Other countries don't brag all the time about being best. They try to improve. Put that to bed and start out to make a working system better with more freedom for the doctors and more efficiency and more responsibility by the sick people for their own health. Make them pay sometimes!
Looking at it, it seems an impossible task and you would need a larger majority than David Cameron has got.

Thanks Margaret it is good to have an opinion from a gran not in the UK.
I now realize that I was wrong thinking the NHS is the best in the world, and it is a salutary lesson to realize that.

One of the things that annoys me is that every time something is changed by the government it is always to make the UK the best in the world. I find myself wanting to strangle whoever says it. What's wrong with just being very good?

The NHS was very good, even excellent at one time. Research using figures from 2011 showed us being ranked 1,2 or 3 among 11 in OECD figures.
However, this was before the government brought in the new Health and Social Care bill and decided to copy the US which was ranked 11th out of 11.

Over 111,000 have signed the government e-petition to get rid of Jeremy Hunt. The new site has only been working for two days!

One of the things that annoys me is that every time something is changed by the government it is always to make the UK the best in the world. I find myself wanting to strangle whoever says it. What's wrong with just being very good?

Health - quality of care, even lives.
Education - I would take the best please.

Though I think I get your point. But still, the best please, realistically. If at all possible. Within reason.

In order to be the best we would have to copy the best, and stop greedy people fleecing us by not paying taxes. We would need to ensure that some people do not get bonuses worth more than most of us earn in a lifetime of working and then secrete the money offshore so they do not pay tax on that money.

Are you up for that, soon?

Yes.
I think that if the Conservatives dont get to grips with this within the next 4 years, they may well not get into power next time around.
I dont know though, whether they are hampered by EU law. And tax laws of different countries. And to what extent.

No, soon. The only thing they are hampered by is their rich friends who pay them to help them.

Reminder of OP....non-political look at the NHS please.

Surely the future of the NHS is a political issue; it cannot be otherwise. I took the OP to mean not a party political issue. Otherwise this thread would have degenerated, as so many others have, along blind party lines.

Good point Anya.

I took that way too absent which is why I posted a reminder as the first seeds of degeneration were being sown.

My dad always used to tell us to aim for the top. Getting there was unlikely, he said, but we'd achieve more than if we aimed lower. Good advice. So I have no issue with any government aiming to make aspects of the country it governs the best in the world.

Whether I agree with any such government's methods or ideals is a separate issue. I don't think it's worth getting het up about verbage in such situations.

I suppose some people just like getting het up though. How they tick. Hey ho.

Please lets return to the non-vituperative version of this thread. Casting blame on one party or another is not what it was about, was it?

Non-political is quite clearly in the title. It is about What we want not about whose fault it is we are likely to get what we don't want.

I wish someone would bash around the idea that governmental roll should be strictly regulatory with the financial contract out of their hands. It seems a good way forward to me but there are probably problems that I am not understanding?

What regulation should the government have a role in, Whitewave?

Do you mean regulation of the professionals, or regulation of requirements issued by NICE (which is supposed to be independent) such as everyone with a more than 10% risk of developing cardiovascular disease must have their arm twisted by their GP to go on statins?

(The above is an example only, and not intended to spark another heated statins argument.)

The healthcare professions are self-governing, and arguably the NHS might be in a better position today were it not for the numerous, almost annual top-down reorganistaions foisted on them by successive governments.