ChatterBank3 mins ago
Wake Up And Smell The Coffee.
http://
But how much longer can we stick to the monolithic Socialist blueprint on which the NHS was founded, when life expectancy was 10 years shorter?
The time has surely come to stop treating the 1940s model as a sacred cow, and to launch a mature debate on radical reform of the way the NHS is structured and financed.
I believe the debate should include an examination of successful healthcare systems overseas, which mix private insurance with public funding.
As Margaret Thatcher put it so succinctly: ‘The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’
But will this happen?.........not a chance.
But how much longer can we stick to the monolithic Socialist blueprint on which the NHS was founded, when life expectancy was 10 years shorter?
The time has surely come to stop treating the 1940s model as a sacred cow, and to launch a mature debate on radical reform of the way the NHS is structured and financed.
I believe the debate should include an examination of successful healthcare systems overseas, which mix private insurance with public funding.
As Margaret Thatcher put it so succinctly: ‘The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’
But will this happen?.........not a chance.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sqad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
One thing that I have never understood is why should I go private, in order to get treatment that I need badly a little quicker, when all it does is ensure that I see the same Doctor that I would have seen under the NHS ?
By going private, I am jumping the queue but doesn't jumping the queue just make the queue longer in the first place ?
If people want to have private medicine, and be treated privately, I have no problem at all. After all the NHS is compulsory for those who can afford to pay. But treatment should be completely out of the NHS altogether. I know that is going to upset some surgeons but as the NHS is buckling under the pressure of work, they should be able to earn all the money they need within the NHS itself, not take resources away from the NHS and make the queues longer.
I agree with TTT here. I have travelled in America a great deal in years gone by and now many friends there. They are terrified of losing their jobs, because their health care goes as well.
I think we should stop knocking the NHS and start giving it the support and praise that it is most due.
By the way, parts of the NHS has effectively been privatised by stealth for years. Try to find a NHS Dentist if you need one !
By going private, I am jumping the queue but doesn't jumping the queue just make the queue longer in the first place ?
If people want to have private medicine, and be treated privately, I have no problem at all. After all the NHS is compulsory for those who can afford to pay. But treatment should be completely out of the NHS altogether. I know that is going to upset some surgeons but as the NHS is buckling under the pressure of work, they should be able to earn all the money they need within the NHS itself, not take resources away from the NHS and make the queues longer.
I agree with TTT here. I have travelled in America a great deal in years gone by and now many friends there. They are terrified of losing their jobs, because their health care goes as well.
I think we should stop knocking the NHS and start giving it the support and praise that it is most due.
By the way, parts of the NHS has effectively been privatised by stealth for years. Try to find a NHS Dentist if you need one !
-- answer removed --
It definitely needs a huge reform first and then money diverted from trident and all the other waste-of-time expenses. It's a case of priorities. The only part i would alter of sqad's post- is to allow GP home visits to people who are bedbound. Huge renovation needed, but well worth it. I would go further and say we also need a Mental Health NHS, because that is something not covered, but essential.
One either does things properly and pays the cost, or one does things cheaply either abusing those doing the work or those getting inadequate treatment as a result and dragging in cheap labour from other countries, or one tries to split folk into haves and have nots and and treat those who can pay and let the rest cope while they are still here.
The NHS is basically an obligatory insurance scheme with the actual treatment industry included. It is the civilised way to do things and no country needs further options, although it's nice to allow choice where applicable.
I'm unsurprised Thatcher could succinctly put her views on not giving a damn about those unfortunate enough not to be rich, not having more than their fair share of the country's wealth. It sort of sums up the philosophy being pushed at the time. No one cares, there is no community, go out and grab what you can from others for yourself.
The NHS is basically an obligatory insurance scheme with the actual treatment industry included. It is the civilised way to do things and no country needs further options, although it's nice to allow choice where applicable.
I'm unsurprised Thatcher could succinctly put her views on not giving a damn about those unfortunate enough not to be rich, not having more than their fair share of the country's wealth. It sort of sums up the philosophy being pushed at the time. No one cares, there is no community, go out and grab what you can from others for yourself.
O_G
\\\\One either does things properly and pays the cost,\\\
But that is the point........we ARE paying the cost and things Aren't always done properly AND the money is running out.
\\\It is the civilised way to do things and no country needs further options,\\\
Right, that is that then? No other country has followed the actual form of the NHS.
Pixie
\\\The only part i would alter of sqad's post- is to allow GP home visits to people who are bedbound.\\\
Your point is well taken, but "home visits" are inefficient and time consuming and depending upon the area a GP may only be able to see 3-4 patients maximum in an hour as probably double that number can be seen at a clinic.
Home visits are an anachronism in the Uk today.
Tell me what can a GP usefully do in the home than can't be done by a trained nurse?
\\\\One either does things properly and pays the cost,\\\
But that is the point........we ARE paying the cost and things Aren't always done properly AND the money is running out.
\\\It is the civilised way to do things and no country needs further options,\\\
Right, that is that then? No other country has followed the actual form of the NHS.
Pixie
\\\The only part i would alter of sqad's post- is to allow GP home visits to people who are bedbound.\\\
Your point is well taken, but "home visits" are inefficient and time consuming and depending upon the area a GP may only be able to see 3-4 patients maximum in an hour as probably double that number can be seen at a clinic.
Home visits are an anachronism in the Uk today.
Tell me what can a GP usefully do in the home than can't be done by a trained nurse?
Prescribing, sqad. Prescriber nurses only have certain things they can diagnose and prescribe for. They can be called out first- but will often suggest a doctor visit - they aren't so highly qualified. I do realise it's an inefficient way of treating people, but some situations (including mental health crises) can be made worse by moving somebody.
Pixie - non-medical prescribers these days can prescribe from almost anything in the formulary, it's no longer the case that their prescribing range is limited. (They can study a lesser programme and have limited prescribing ability afterwards, but in my experience the nurses in general practice in our area go for the full non-medical prescribing course.)
This from mikey is relevant! http://
