NHS fallen to 31 in the world since Tories took over.

quizqueen

What position is the NHS in the list of 'free at the point of contact for anyone in the world who happens to be in the UK' hospitals, I wonder?

You can't compare public services to private ones worldwide and, if the private ones rate so much better, then surely that's a better way to go!!!

I don't understand your logic. The vast majority of developed countries with a private healthcare system pay more per head for it.

It is a sorry fact that "pandering to populism" is often what politicians do.

I remember Brown's Big Clean of hospitals.
They had been in power for about 12 years then and super bugs such as MRSA, C difficile etc had become rife in hospitals throughout the country.

The Lancet said that Brown's Big Clean lacked scientific evidence and was 'pandering to populism'.
Although it was claimed that new money would be available for the deep clean, it was in fact money that had been held back from NHS Trusts by Strategic Health Authorities.
Bureaucracy which all costs money which was needed for frontline services.

Dayvidg, the problem with the health system being under Labour is the " free for all " jobs for the boys, including non-jobs and because of the over-spend of money that's thrown at them, in turn, creates years of austerity from a conservative government when they step in so the reins have to be pulled in on spending. It's happened religiously after a Labour government.

Look at Brown and the gold reserves, selling when its prices were rock bottom out of desperation because the economy was sinking during his office as PM. Half of this precious cargo-----gone !

I say it wasn't, Maizie.

The Francis Enquiry says it wasn't.
Tony Blair put up the NHS for sale and started dismantling it.
Cherie Blair benefited.
Changing the system so that many newly qualified doctors found there were no jobs for them so they emigrated.

You in England are still paying for Blair's PFI ventures. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the public.

There is no excuse in Wales for the poor performance as PFI never really took off.

growstuff

Callistemon

Re the Swiss system, one of our erstwhile posters had said, I think, that it was quite costly. They had to pay quite a lot per month for healthcare.

I think we do need to pay a separate, set amount to fund our healthcare system or pay more in income tax which should be ring fenced for the NHS.

The problems with some systems arise when people are just above the level of earnings to receive free healthcare but struggling to pay essential bills. Someone on a slightly lower wage would receive free healthcare.

Some of the financial problems of the NHS could be solved overnight by charging everybody, including the economically inactive such as pensioners, a health tax, which is what happens in many other countries.

How much would you be prepared to pay?

Oh yes, I agree, growstuff.

But whenever it is mentioned I have been told, quite firmly, that it is funded out of taxation.

I believe that we should all, pensioners included, be paying an extra NI 'stamp' for our healthcare, not to fund it totally but as a much-needed contribution.
As we do not pay a NI stamp after pensionable age but many of that age group are users of the NHS I do not think we should be funded by our prior contributions.

Who says it wasn't, Callistomen?

Are you citing an academic study of the NHS 1997 - 2009 which reaches that conclusion?

dayvidg

@MaizieD
The reason that the NHS was good under Blair's government was that it was given enough money to be good.
Bear in mind that a lot of that funding was through PFI, which became a serious burden on the NHS in later years

But it wasn't!!

P.S I do know that PFI was a bl**dy disaster. Too much inexperience versus companies with lots of experience and very sharp lawyers.

dayvidg

@MaizieD
The reason that the NHS was good under Blair's government was that it was given enough money to be good.
Bear in mind that a lot of that funding was through PFI, which became a serious burden on the NHS in later years

PFI funding was for buildings, not for clinical care.

I worked in the NHS in the early 70s, too, SuDonim. Just when the old structures were being swept away with the introduction of RHAs and AHAs. (Lots of nostalgia for Matrons among the older staff)

I don't think any organisation is ever perfect; there will always be cause for complaints and room for improvement, but by the early 21st C the NHS was being ranked very high in International comparisons.

I forgot to add that I worked in the NHS in the 70’s and people complained about it even then. It was of course much less sophisticated in those days but I don’t think there ever really was a golden age of the NHS.

Certainly, the NHS where I live now in Scotland has gone downhill in the past 10-15 years under the SNP. It’s just so inaccessible (prior to CV) with so many ‘pathways’ that need to be followed to access assessment and/or treatment. It took nine months for me just to have a scan and get the results.

What position is the NHS in the list of 'free at the point of contact for anyone in the world who happens to be in the UK' hospitals, I wonder?

You can't compare public services to private ones worldwide and, if the private ones rate so much better, then surely that's a better way to go!!!

@MaizieD
The reason that the NHS was good under Blair's government was that it was given enough money to be good.
Bear in mind that a lot of that funding was through PFI, which became a serious burden on the NHS in later years

The NHS was set up in 1948 and was designed to cope with the infectious diseases of the time- polio, diphtheria, TB etc it was thought that once these were dealt with the population Would be healthy and there would be fewer demands on the service. Of course that hasn’t happened and demand has increased. If we were designing a health service now we wouldn’t choose the same model

growstuff

Yes, I am listening Maizie and my point stands. The people who cost the NHS most are contributing the least. Most pensioners in most countries continue to pay a healthcare tax.

Even with MMT, taxation needs to be distributed. At the moment, it's not distributed fairly.

My point is that individuals do not need to 'contribute' anything because it isn't paid for by taxation. Taxation ensures that there isn't surplus money sloshing around in the economy to cause inflation. It withdraws surplus money from circulation. Think of it like a tap filling a sink, government spending being the tap. If there is no overflow (taxation) in the sink water will spill over the edge and cause a lot of damage. That is the limit on spending. Until the overflow is reached (and while ever there is something the money can be spent on it can't be reached) the government can issue and spend as much as it needs. It mostly comes back anyway through taxation; all financial transactions are subject to taxation. The only money that doesn't eventually come back is that which is sent offshore (which is why offshoring should be controlled)

taxation needs to be distributed.

I agree that it should in order to distribute the country's wealth more fairly. That's a secondary function of taxation.

And of course, the more that comes back through taxation the less needs to be newly created.

But spending comes first.

If we, as a nation, have decided that the people's health is sufficiently important (both to themselves and to the economy in the form of a healthy workforce) to offer health services freely we shouldn't be constrained by notions of 'deserving' or 'ability to pay'.

(I feel like the local nutter for having these views but I never seem to have been on the majority side of a debate)

I highly recommend Stephanie Kelton's book 'The Deficit Myth'.

The Aussie health system seems to work alright and is much the same as ours. It's freely available regardless of your financial situation and also funded by the government and local governments. They too have private health care.
It's run by a system known as Medicare and each member carries a card to enable care/ treatment to be given on production of the card.

Visitors who have medical needs apply for a medicard straight away and have to initially pay for consultations/treatments and medications but when you take your card to a Medicare outlet ( post office ) a percentage of what you've paid out is then returned to you.
Which in turn, can be claimed back from your own insurance company.

It’s time indeed for an overhaul (not tinkering around the edges) and a cross-party consensus.

And that was just the beginning SueDonim. The situation has got much worse since then, despite two top down reorganisations by the Conservative governments.

I agree with you Razzy, especially the first part of your post. Treatments are available to keep people alive for longer, but some of them are prohibitively expensive.

I don't know what the answer is with technology. Personally, I hate being informed by text and remote consultations.

I’m currently reading a book of his experiences by an A&E doctor. He is bemoaning the state of the NHS, the money wasted, the poor IT systems, the patients falling through the cracks, the ones denied appropriate, timely treatment, the pressure on staff, the wholesale privatisation of the NHS.

I wondered when it had been published. To my astonishment, it first came out in 2007, in the heyday of the New Labour era.

The NHS has been in trouble a long time and is getting more and more expensive for 2 reasons - population is ageing and more (expensive) treatments are being found. I think the whole NHS needs a big modernisation overhaul also. Technology should be key. But money is thrown at software companies who cannot produce the goods. Let’s get someone in who can do the job!

Are you seriously suggesting that QE (or some form of it) should finance the whole of the NHS?

Yes, I am listening Maizie and my point stands. The people who cost the NHS most are contributing the least. Most pensioners in most countries continue to pay a healthcare tax.

Even with MMT, taxation needs to be distributed. At the moment, it's not distributed fairly.

Exactly Greeneyedgirl. The French system is sometimes praised, but it costs more per person than the NHS and even in France, there are serious questions being asked about rationing services.

Some of the financial problems of the NHS could be solved overnight by charging everybody, including the economically inactive such as pensioners, a health tax, which is what happens in many other countries.

How much would you be prepared to pay?

Nobody is listening, are they?

TAXATION DOESN'T FUND SPENDING

We have a sovereign currency. Government can create as much of it as it wants to. It could fully fund the Health service if it wanted to. It doesn't want to.

So long as people go on believing that taxes pay for everything the government can get away with underfunding and selling bits off to private enterprises while everyone goes along with their 'we can't afford it' line.