Slashdot Mirror
British NHS May Soon No Longer Offer Free Care
An anonymous reader writes "Coinciding with challenges in the rollout of the U.S. Affordable Care Act are challenges for NHS. The Independent reports, 'A National Health Service free at the point of use will soon be "unsustainable," if the political parties do not come forward with radical plans for change before the 2015 election, top health officials have warned. Stagnant health spending combined with ever rising costs and demand mean the NHS is facing "the most challenging period in its 65-year existence," the NHS Confederation said ... In a frank assessment of the dangers faced by the health service, senior officials at the confederation say that the two years following the next general election will be pivotal in deciding whether the NHS can continue to provide free health care for all patients. "Treasury funding for the service will be at best level in real terms," they write. "Given that demand continues to rise, drugs cost more, and NHS inflation is higher than general inflation, the NHS is facing a funding gap estimated at up to £30bn by 2020."' From The Guardian: 'Our rose-tinted view of the NHS has to change.' More at the Independent, Mirror, and Telegraph."
I sense controversy in the air, a lot of it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
And this is the system Democrats want the United States to emulate?
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
the US's lap dog emulates its master.
Cameron must have figured out that, if US corporation can make big money out of healthcare, then britfag corps can do the same...and gratefully share some profit with his party...
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
That's pretty misleading. More people die in hospitals in the UK because they can go to the hospitals for free. In the US, they're more likely to die at home, because they can't afford to go to the hospital.
But dead is dead, and the UK's life expectancy is better than America's, while spending less per capita on health care. No amount of spin can change that.
European countries created socialized healthcare after they had been devastated bu WWII. They had no money for it but they had the political will. Now that they produce more wealth than ever (France GDP gown 700% since 1945, while population only doubled, for instance), European countries have the money but no political will to move it to socialized healthcare instead of shareholders profits.
The UK's NHS has, for most of its life, been neither a single-payer nor an insurance based system ... instead its costs came out of general taxation with no treatment-accounting. By that I mean there was no financial record-keeping related to individual treatments or doctor consultations ..... Family doctors (GP) receive a flat annual sum for each patient they have registered, regardless of how many or how few times the patient visits them. Likewise Hospitals were funded based on the medical needs of the area, with no financial records kept of individual's treatment episodes.
this approach resulted in admin costs of about 5% of expenditure only
Tony Blair started the rot when his Labour government introduced the "internal market", forcing every medical episode to be recorded and costed.. The excuse being that hospitals would compete for patient-referals from family doctors ... as the NHS had gone through a phase when it relocated most district's hospital services onto single sites, most areas of the country have only a single hospital competing against itself. There was no medical advantage to this change BUT it introduced the financial recording system needed for future privatisation
The result was an explosion of admin and financial staff ..... and admin costs that reached 11% of expenditure..
the current government's reforms are predicted to push admin costs over 20% of expenditure.
The other aspect that the Tories hate is that it is paid for out of general taxation not through an insurance premium ... so the rich contribute more than the poor and the unemployed and the less affluent pensioners still receive health-care. with the original funding method, most people paid far less in their taxes for healthcare than in insurance systems such as the US.
In general there are no medical co-pays as in the US ... Drugs are free BUT, unless are exempt (over 60, under 16, etc) you pay $10 for the prescription ... there are small co-pays for a few services such as dentistry and glasses .... things like hearing aids, breathing equipment etc, are provided free .... the NHS used to be the worlds biggest manufacturer of hearing-aids, false-teeth, glasses and artificial limbs ...
Shorter version: they should pay more money for worse care. Other options, like hiking taxes on the rich or slashing military spending to create more revenue, would just be hippie nonsense.
Publicly they've claimed to want to maintain the NHS, but every single policy has been towards further privatisation, with the ultimate goal being that people "pay their own dues". They are the closest thing you'll find in Britain to the Republicans, but they know they wouldn't get elected if they publicly admitted to this, so they lied and a lot of people have been fooled.
That said. Norway's national health service (and I've just moved back here) is not free at the point of service. Everyone pays approximately $30 per GP consultation and something like $50-100 for a specialist appointment. Unless you're a child (in which case everything is free) or get a "free card" or if it is an emergency (in which case I've never heard anyone get charged).
A free card you get either for being unemployed, on benefits, or if you simply have alread spent more than about $300 on medical bills that year. So a few hundred dollars is the most anyone will spend on health care appointments in a year.
I find this to be a reasonable compromise and it does stop a lot of people from going to their GP "frivolously" and will thus save the health service a considerable amount of money. My only concern is that patients aren't necessarily the greatest judge of what is "frivolous". Men, in particularly, can take a long time going to the GP because they're sure "it's nothing". I'd hate for genuinely ill people to not turn up to the GP because they don't want to waste $30.
You hear wrongly.
http://euobserver.com/social/121778
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10361971/Britain-admits-it-has-no-figures-on-EU-welfare-tourist-numbers.html
Unproductive immigrants are largely a myth. People who can work themselves up enough to emigrate are not usually the sort of people to shy away from work. Statistically, an immigrant is more likely to be in work than a UK native, and is likely to make greater net payments to the state (paying taxes versus using government services) than a native.
Immigration is a knee-jerk right-wing bugbear. You can argue, if you like, that they're taking our jobs. But you can't also argue that they're all work-shy scroungers. Can't both be true.
The right-wing party hate the NHS because it represents a large slice of the economic pie that their buddies in industry want to get their fork into. They don't care that it's one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world with excellent outcomes.
The left-wing party just fucked things up by being corrupt and not having the balls to bring the contracts started by the right-wing party to an end.
The biggest crisis facing the NHS is the Public Private Partnership scheme - in which big private companies get the contract to build hospitals and other medical facilities AND a sweetheart contract to run them for 30 years, which typically runs the total cost of ownership up to around 300% of what it actually would have cost.
That was probably the killer blow - you now have hospital trusts struggling to make their buildings payments and keep their clinical services functioning at the same time, which enables the politicians to step in and say "Look, this hospital is struggling! The only thing that can save it is the Invisible Hand of the Market!" ... with no actual coherent explanation of how a private company which by definition will take their cut off the top, can provide a better service than a public institution that has had years of practice at running an operation on a shoestring budget, having had their income cut to the bone so many times that their bones are now rather thin.
The Invisible Hand of the Market of course just wants to reach up the patient's backside and pull the gold fillings out of their back teeth. They don't care about the risky, expensive, uncommon, and difficult procedures, they care about the assembly-line procedures and services that have predictable consumption rates and costs, like hip replacements, haemorrhoids, etc, which they can monetize nicely, ignoring the fact that that surplus on these procedures is what paid for the difficult stuff, like open heart surgery that saves the lives of babies with congenital defects.
The destruction of the NHS is just outright evil, because it will result in less healthcare (because doing less and charging more makes more money), at a greater cost (when the NHS struggles, the private company is brought in. When the private company struggles, it will be bailed out), for less of the people that need it (the lower social demographics require NHS services disproportionately more and are less likely to be able to stump up the co-pay), all to line the pockets of a few Conservative party donors. Doing bad unto others for your own benefit or amusement being the definition of evil.