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

Any links for this Whitewavemark2?

Yes I’ll dig it out and post.

Wreck it then privatise it to ‘improve services’?
Privatisation by the back door is already here - part of the NHS in diagnostics and logistics.

Just ask Mr. Richard Branson.

No luck so far but will keep looking.
Live found this and know that it was mentioned because the U.K. has fallen another place.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiIzLGW5-fqAhW_QRUIHY3WBAoQFjAEegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fnhs-world-ranking-uk-healthcare-worse-ireland-spain-slovenia-30th-lancet-a7744131.html&usg=AOvVaw1-N3hJ2q9t7mcWaIhT0Q18

Someone has mentioned that it needs a complete overhaul.

I think we could do no better than look at the systems on our doorstep, like Switzerland, France Germany etc.

I think Switzerland is (this is only from memory) a good system. People pay into a set insurance which is used to fund not for profit charity run hospitals. If a person is poor the government contributes for them.

I’d rather have a European system, than the dreadful American system where the poor including children are allowed to die through poverty.

What an uncivilised country!

One of the things that I think is so very wrong, is that we haven’t had a national conversation about this.

There may be agreement over the fact that the NHS is failing in its present form, but we don’t know for sure that it is.

And if it is no longer sustainable then we should look at the world and see which system best suits our purposes.

The way it is going at the moment is that a piecemeal tinkering is being carried out without an intelligent farsighted overview to the future.

I would like to see an independent entity set up who actually know what they are talking about - not politicians! to look at the options and decide on the way forward.

It needs vision and bravery.

Re the American system, I agree Whitewavemark2. I really don't understand why Americans are so resistant to a health care system similar to the NHS. When Obama was trying to make changes to make health care more inclusive we met a lovely Ametucan couple on holiday; the lady was a solicitor who, once a week volunteered at a community centre to give free legal advice to the needy and poor - so a really altruistic person. But when we mentioned Obama Care and our NHS system she was dead against it. She said that she didn't agree with paying a tax that would fund a healthcare system for those that couldn't afford to pay the tax!!! I just can't get my head around that, she felt sorry that they couldn't afford legal advice, but they could sod off if they were ill!

I must add, I do realise that not all Americans think this way.

American, not Ametucan!

Tried the link Whitewavemark2 but it’s not staying open on iPad so will try again on laptop when DH is done with it.

One of points I’d make now though is judging the
UK as a whole and blaming the Tories for the subsequent decline, doesn’t give an accurate picture.

here in Wales we’ve been run by Labour since devolution and my own Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board covering the whole of north Wales has been in special measures since 2015 with no sign of improvement.

I’m sure other posters in Scotland and Northern Ireland can give a true picture of what’s happening there.

The reason many Americans are resistant to an NHS-style system is that it would mean the wealthier ones would have to share limited resources.

If you are ill in America with good insurance and/or private wealth, some of the treatments available really are world beating, but they're horrendously expensive.

People like "Professor" Sikora are in favour of American healthcare because he sells proton beam therapy, which is successful but extremely expensive. Sikora has called the NHS the "last bastion of communism" and has criticised NICE for limiting the use of expensive drugs in the NHS. The trouble is that for every patient treated with a world beating, expensive procedure or drug, many more people with more mundane conditions could be treated. People can't have both, unless funding is increased. If funding is related to progressive taxation, people don't want to pay for other people's healthcare.

It's a difference of values. Either use your money (if you have it) to pay for the best healthcare available for yourself and your family or use your money to contribute to the healthcare of the whole nation.

If countries go down the latter route, people start "blaming" other people for not doing enough to look after themselves. As countries become more developed, more illness is caused by preventable lifestyle factors rather than infection, so there is some underlying justification for urging people to look after themselves. However, that needs public education and an understanding of why people don't always look after themselves. It becomes complicated.

The other issue with private healthcare is that it's an opportunity for people to make a profit. It would be naive to suggest that some people don't make a profit within the NHS, but it's a question of degree. A crude comparison of the amount spent on healthcare in the US and life expectancy suggests that money isn't being spent efficiently.

Pantglas Why has the health board been put in special measures? I'm not suggesting it's not justified, but I'm interested in the criteria. Sometimes it's not for the most obvious of reasons.

I found this about Betsi Cadweladr health board:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-52963232#:~:text=Monday%20marks%20five%20years%20since,more%20direct%20Welsh%20Government%20control.&text=The%20decision%20came%20after%20a,Denbighshire%2C%20which%20closed%20in%202013.

The two main issues seem to be mental health and wasteful expenditure. Interestingly, the article doesn't mention the standard of care or health outcomes, such as death rates.

How are Welsh hospitals funded in comparison with those in England? How much responsibility does the Welsh Assembly have for health boards?

Comparisons are difficult because the population is different. There's more deprivation in Wales than there is in England and there is a known correlation between deprivation and poor health.

The article also doesn’t mention waiting times for non-urgent ops either Growstuff which is my bugbear with the Board.

18 weeks was the target between referral and op in 2012 and DH waited 12months for his first hip op. He was told that the other hip would probably need doing within 1-2 years but he developed his own exercise routine and spent summers in Spain which alleviated the problem until Jan 2017 when nothing other than painkillers worked, which is when he was referred again.

The wait to see the consultant was 12 months, he was informed the op would be another 18 months! He was eventually sent across the border to Gobowen orthopaedic hospital and was seen and operated on within 3 months, three years after referral.

Mismanagement knows no politics and needs calling out wherever it occurs.

My DH has had a similar experience Pantglas . Messed about by 2 hospitals in the same trust . Operations booked and cancelled 3 times until he was so ill he ended up in intensive care . Then COVID happened and no one gets any treatment at all . What a rubbish non system .

The reason that the NHS was good under Blair's government was that it was given enough money to be good.

Subsequent tory governments have systematically starved it of funding. While what it has been given each year looks impressive it has not been sufficient to keep pace with inflation or an increasing population. Health services have had to make cuts to keep going. The breaking of the NHS into 'markets' hasn't helped, with the resultant increase in administration.

One thing we do not need is an alternative method of funding it. I know I keep banging on about this, but as the government is an issuer of money it cannot run out of it. It can issue enough money to fund whatever it wants (this being the key word, wants). In the case of public services it doesn't want to fund them. It wants to privatise the lot.

I agree that the whole area needs an overhaul, but it doesn't need any sort of alternative funding arrangements.

So if there is so much wrong, the question is: does our health service need a complete re-think and what do we want, and what do we not want.

I am firmly against the American system.

In would always like a system free at the point of need.

I would not like to see a two tier system in the U.K.

I believe that there are certain principles that I would not like to lose. One is that everyone regardless of wealth is entitled to a comprehensive , quality health care system.

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.

Anyone who thought healthcare was good under Blair

Did Not Live in Staffordshire!!!

Whitewavemark2

So if there is so much wrong, the question is: does our health service need a complete re-think and what do we want, and what do we not want.

I am firmly against the American system.

In would always like a system free at the point of need.

I would not like to see a two tier system in the U.K.

I believe that there are certain principles that I would not like to lose. One is that everyone regardless of wealth is entitled to a comprehensive , quality health care system.

So would you be prepared to look at the various systems in Europe and give them consideration.

What I have real difficulty with is that ever since it’s inception, the NHS has been at the mercy of the vagaries of the government. Look at the present government. Regardless of what they say, we know that they are relaxed about parcelling out piecemeal the various parts to private enterprise to be run for a profit.

I think that it should be entirely taken out if the governments hands and run by not for profit charities or something similar.

Funding can be governed by legislation etc.

MaizieD

The reason that the NHS was good under Blair's government was that it was given enough money to be good.

Subsequent tory governments have systematically starved it of funding. While what it has been given each year looks impressive it has not been sufficient to keep pace with inflation or an increasing population. Health services have had to make cuts to keep going. The breaking of the NHS into 'markets' hasn't helped, with the resultant increase in administration.

One thing we do not need is an alternative method of funding it. I know I keep banging on about this, but as the government is an issuer of money it cannot run out of it. It can issue enough money to fund whatever it wants (this being the key word, wants). In the case of public services it doesn't want to fund them. It wants to privatise the lot.

I agree that the whole area needs an overhaul, but it doesn't need any sort of alternative funding arrangements.

My post should have included Maizies post not mine!

Waiting times for operations such as hip replacements etc were so inordinately long in Wales that even the then Labour First Minister's father paid for his to be done privately
Those living on the border were sometimes lucky enough to be sent to England to have treatment free of charge in a combined NHS/private facility.

Why are you so fixated on the financing aspect, Wwmk2?

There's plenty to be overhauled in the structure, but there is no need to change the government funding.

The government cannot run out of money and public spending is entirely beneficial for the economy. It directly supports the private enterprise which it buys goods and services from and it indirectly supports private enterprise by its employees spending the money it pays them.

Sorry, Wwmk2, you were replying while I was typing.

I kind of get your point about taking it out of government hands, but the government is the only body that can create the necessary funding. Anything else would sooner or later encounter the problem of having a finite amount of money, surely?