Humanitarian Crisis in UK

Pondering... does this mean the European countries whose hospitals are supposedly not so overstretched have has much more left-wing governments than Britain? And if so, why?

Hard to say thatbags because each Tory government, like each Labour government will be different.Tony Blair's Labour was different to one ( should it ever happen, unlikely I know) to one under Corbyn. Etc.No government is exactly like the previous one.I think people were more concerned about the economy at the time, but of course the economy was and is central to the running of the NHS.

David Cameron promised that the NHS was safe in the hands of the Conservatives. That's what people believed when they voted Tory at the last two elections.

(That, and all the guff about the need for austerity which has brought the country to its knees and led to the silliest decision ever..)

If statistics are to be trusted (i.e hospital admissions figures for previous years) we have not yet seen the worst. Admissions peak in about February. Just pray that you don't get ill enough to need hospitalisation in February.

No, I don't think it does. France lurches from left to right, but has a very vocal public. Germany has had centrist coalitions since the end of WW2. The CDU/CSU has been the most powerful political party and is essentially conservative, but in a different way from our Conservatives, but it has had to listen to Social Democrats.

Interesting question though.

So-called austerity is at the root of the current NHS problems. When Osborne sent his departments away to come up with plans for cuts, each department came up with its own plans. Local government was particularly hard hit and councils were forbidden from raising council tax for political reasons.

At the same time, some NHS responsibilities were transferred to local authorities without extra cash. Inevitably, local authorities had to make severe cuts and these included public health and social care. When the Cabinet sat down to discuss these cuts, the Health Secretary should have realised that the cuts would impact on the NHS and protested. Maybe he did, but was shouted down.

There is written evidence that some former and current ministers (Hunt, Gove, etc) want to decrease the role of the state in public services, so it's probable they knew what they were doing, either for personal and/or ideological gain - either that, or they're incompetent.

Comparing the UK and France, the main difference is method of funding. The NHS is funded by taxation, so for most things is free.
France is funded by various insurance schemes, either from the various occupational 'caisses' or from personal payments. Except for those who are really poor.

I agree that the method of funding is different, but in total France spends much more per head and as a percentage of GDP on healthcare. So is it much better (in which case the NHS needs to spend more to bring itself up to the same standard) or is it more inefficient (in which case the method of funding could be a factor)?

I wouldn't have any objection to the NHS being funded in the same way as France or Germany. It's essentially the same as a hypothecated NHS tax and ensures that healthcare tax is spent on healthcare, but both France and Germany pay more. The question is whether it's worth it.

And pensioners continue to pay for healthcare, which they don't in the UK.

MaisieD ^ brought the country to its knees^
I think you'll find that Mark Carney would disagree with you. Yesterday he was before the select committee and hinted that his economic forecast for the U.K. would be upgraded again after a run of strong figures.

That's good to know Petra

Yes DD I would say that it is much better here in France and we are happy to pay the additionsl costs. Hardly any waiting times, much longer appointments, spotless hospitals (in our experience) and very good aftercare. There ar overspends but those have been reduced by this government. There used to ba lot of over-prescription, but that has been cut and there has been a big campaign to move to cheaper generic drugs. We have had routine and urgent care over eleven years and I can't fault it. Even the hospital food was good!

That's my impression too, Mamie. I've taken many school groups on exchanges and trips to France, so have had my fair share of visits to walk-in medical services for broken/sprained limbs and serious cuts and grazes, etc. (I've forgotten what they're called.) I really think the NHS would benefit from having more minor injury units to take some of the pressure off A & E. Another difference seems to be that people make more use of pharmacists, who are allowed to sell drugs only available on prescription in the UK, although I believe this contributed to overuse.

My big complaint about France is the amount of paperwork which seems to be involved in claiming back costs - certainly for foreigners.

However, the bottom line is that the French pay more!

I think it is the whole wrap-round process DD. You get 20 minutes minimum with the GP, you never wait for x-rays and blood tests which are at separate buildings in every town, you may wait a few weeks for the specialist consultants but not if it is urgent. You get moved from hospital to rehabilitation and the district nurses visit every day. And yes, you pay. Contributions are high for employers and businesses and apart from the poorest you pay top-up insurance (200€ a month for us). Life-threatening conditions are 100% funded. It is another bill like car insurance and house insurance, but we have never doubted value for money. The paperwork can be painful but not too bad when you are in the system.

What if you don't need twenty minutes minimum? It'd be wasteful to extend appointments that only need five or ten minutes.

It could be a shorter time Bags but I go twice a year and always get a thorough check-up. There are no nurses or support workers attached to the practice which I think could save time and money sometimes but our GP says that seeing everyone enables her to spot things early. She certainly picked up OH's skin cancer that way. I booked yesterday to see her next week and was offered the first appointment on Tuesday so no waiting either.

There's something in human nature that leads to not appreciating things that are free. On the other hand if we're paying we expect better service.

But the French and British all pay. It's just done by a different route and the French pay more.

I don't think paying makes me appreciate the service more or less, but it is interesting to see the actual figures involved, I am certainly more aware of how much things cost.

Yes, the French pay more, but they accept that is the way to get the health care they want.

Cancer operations now being cancelled.

On the recent programme "Hospital", it was shown how a cancer patient had his vital operation cancelled twice because unexpected emergency admissions for surgery caused there to be insufficient beds on HDU for after care. Apart from the fact that such cancellations must negatively affect prognosis, the emotional turmoil must be awful.

Yes, it must, but this isn't a new thing btw.In 1998 the same happened to a friend of ours, 2 cancellations because more urgent cases had to be seen.

Yes eloathan I felt so sorry for the poor chap. I remember when I was diagnosed one of the terrors was that a rogue cancer cell would make it into the rest of my body. And each day as far as I was concerned made the risk bigger.

What if you don't need twenty minutes minimum? It'd be wasteful to extend appointments that only need five or ten minutes

In answer to your question, thatbags perhaps the doctor gets a chance to go to the loo? Have a quick coffee? Perhaps see the next patient early as long as he/she has checked in (which always makes you feel better than if you have been kept waiting!)