Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Is the NHS Fit For Purpose

Is the NHS fit for purpose?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 20.6%
  • No

    Votes: 85 79.4%

  • Total voters
    107


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,677
The Fatherland










DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
17,346
It may be a simple question, but not a simple answer.
I remember hearing an English woman living in France on a phone-in a while ago talking about her experiences after finding a lump in her breast. Appointment with GP, who contacted the specialist while she was there. Appointment with the consultant about a week later, who agreed it needed investigating/treating. She was booked in about a week later for the full works, which ended with a mastectomy.
we have a French friend who had ovarian cancer a few years ago, and it was identified and treated very quickly. We have two English friends living in France who have had similar experiences of being dealt with in a very timely fashion - one a female with a breast lump, the other a male with a heart (non-emergency) problem.
However they do it, it works.
 




ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,771
Just far enough away from LDC
There are a lot of experts on here so would be good to know how true this is but I read this morning that uk health funding per head is £3042 whilst france is £3735. That's govt funding - france also has mandatory mutuelle insurance with employer funding

As for pensioners I read it is c110 euros per month out of the state pension (French state pensions are nearly double uk)

It all boils down to whether we do fund health enough in the UK and the knock ons of other benefits (I include pensions as benefits)
 




dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
55,513
Burgess Hill
There are a lot of experts on here so would be good to know how true this is but I read this morning that uk health funding per head is £3042 whilst france is £3735. That's govt funding - france also has mandatory mutuelle insurance with employer funding

As for pensioners I read it is c110 euros per month out of the state pension (French state pensions are nearly double uk)

It all boils down to whether we do fund health enough in the UK and the knock ons of other benefits (I include pensions as benefits)
The 165b cost mentioned several times on here divided by 67m population gives you around £2,400 for NHS
 




drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,607
Burgess Hill
There are a lot of experts on here so would be good to know how true this is but I read this morning that uk health funding per head is £3042 whilst france is £3735. That's govt funding - france also has mandatory mutuelle insurance with employer funding

As for pensioners I read it is c110 euros per month out of the state pension (French state pensions are nearly double uk)

It all boils down to whether we do fund health enough in the UK and the knock ons of other benefits (I include pensions as benefits)
Exactly. Not always easy to compare systems but this website seems to give it a good go. Comparing health costs Germany in 2022 spent US$8,011 per head of population in 2022 whereas we spent US$5,493. That's about 45% more than the UK spend. Food for thought.
 


Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
7,081
While I was waiting in the shiny new discharge lounge at RSCH yesterday, to take a mate home, I spotted an 'improvement huddle board' with big letters, telling me that it was an improvement huddle board. I didn't see any post-it notes on it, signifying a sense of movement or progress across the board.

Nevertheless, thinking positively, I thought that this is a good sign, in that someone cares enough to have an improvement huddle board. They'll be having scrums and sprints in no time, I thought. Only a matter of time before the board is empty, and there's nothing left to improve.

Or maybe not. Maybe they are just doing it for the optics. To be seen to be doing something, and not actually progressing the items for improvement.

Apologies for the cynicism.
 






bhadebenhams

Active member
Mar 14, 2009
353
Theres to many fakeing sickness and costing the NHS billions. Bring back the birch and threatem them with that and they will be striaght back to work.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,677
The Fatherland
On the other hand, the actual £180bn cost of England (also mentioned on here) divided by 56m population is £3,214 per head. The £165bn was the National Insurance take, not the health spending.
Germany is around double this, at £6.305,20 per head.

"Germany spends $8011 per capita on health, more than the OECD average of $4986 (USD PPP). This is equal to 12.7% of GDP, compared to 9.2% on average in the OECD."
 


Me Atome

Active member
Mar 10, 2024
118
Germany is around double this, at £6.305,20 per head.

"Germany spends $8011 per capita on health, more than the OECD average of $4986 (USD PPP). This is equal to 12.7% of GDP, compared to 9.2% on average in the OECD."
What I'm not sure about is whether all these figures which bounce around are the expenditure by the state, or whether these include privately funded and insurance funded health care as well.
 








sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
4,078
What most people seem to forget is that even when you go private, most of the time for proper surgery or healthcare you’re being pushed through the NHS anyway, you’re just getting there quicker than someone without private. What this means is that it becomes a game for the rich, as much has over the past 14 years.

Now I’m lucky - I have private healthcare through work, and I’ve used the NHS very successfully on a number of occasions. Alternatively, my wife works in the NHS and regularly bemoans the lack of staff, the incredible stress due to poor resourcing, but also highlights how incredible most people are.

What is clear to many though, is that we simply aren’t training enough people for key medical roles, which is why we have so many admin staff blocking routes to the medical staff who are in much shorter supply… obviously our political choices over the past 10 years haven’t helped retain key staff either, nor has our government’s decision to take away much of the funding, or to continue to pay staff really poorly compared to many private sector jobs that have much less responsibility and stress.

So, is it fit for purpose… that’s up for debate. What’s clear is that the people in charge are running it into the ground, and purposefully outsourcing key elements to the private sector isn’t proving to offer solutions. And until we deal with the labour issues, nothing will get much better, especially with our aging population.
 


drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,607
Burgess Hill
What most people seem to forget is that even when you go private, most of the time for proper surgery or healthcare you’re being pushed through the NHS anyway, you’re just getting there quicker than someone without private. What this means is that it becomes a game for the rich, as much has over the past 14 years.

Now I’m lucky - I have private healthcare through work, and I’ve used the NHS very successfully on a number of occasions. Alternatively, my wife works in the NHS and regularly bemoans the lack of staff, the incredible stress due to poor resourcing, but also highlights how incredible most people are.

What is clear to many though, is that we simply aren’t training enough people for key medical roles, which is why we have so many admin staff blocking routes to the medical staff who are in much shorter supply… obviously our political choices over the past 10 years haven’t helped retain key staff either, nor has our government’s decision to take away much of the funding, or to continue to pay staff really poorly compared to many private sector jobs that have much less responsibility and stress.

So, is it fit for purpose… that’s up for debate. What’s clear is that the people in charge are running it into the ground, and purposefully outsourcing key elements to the private sector isn’t proving to offer solutions. And until we deal with the labour issues, nothing will get much better, especially with our aging population.
What exactly do you mean that 'admin' staff are blocking routes to medical staff? You make it sound like medical staff are possibly sitting around not working to full capacity?
 




chickens

Have you considered masterly inactivity?
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
2,688
I’ve relied extremely heavily on the NHS in the past few weeks, and I found pretty much what I expected to find, great people working with insufficient resources.

Standing room only in the initial waiting area, beds in corridors and patients slumped on chairs in every alcove.

While I accept the OPs opinion as genuinely held, I fear he’s parroting what the Conservative Party has been waiting to hear. Conservative Party policy has always been:

1. Underfund a service and make impossible demands of it.

2. Wait until public opinion has turned against the level of service being provided.

3. Say that because the service being provided is so poor, it’s important that the service is opened up to private competition, and then sell licences to operate public health contracts to its mates.

The NHS worked very well under the last Labour government, there’s nothing wrong with it that resourcing it properly wouldn’t fix.
 


Weststander

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
69,238
Withdean area
Germany with compulsory contributing to statutory or private insurance funds, and a decentralised healthcare system, outspends the rest of the EU per capita. Not in these EU numbers, our NHS spend per capita matches that of Finland.

IMG_2239.png
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here