How have the mighty fallen? OT.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:36:58 +0100, The Reid wrote (in article ):

The UK NHS is the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese army and the Indian railways. This inevitably leads to colossal waste and has done since the inception of it.

I am not saying that there should not be a means of obtaining medical care for people unable to pay themselves. In a civilised society, that should be there but via a voucher system that people can spend on healthcare where they choose to do so.

The mistake is that the government is involved in the *delivery* of it. That isn't necessary.

Reply to
Andy Hall
Loading thread data ...

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:44:25 +0100, Clive George wrote (in article ):

I am afraid that I have a very high level of expectation of a service for which I pay through the nose.

The NHS is nowhere close to being able to deliver what I consider to be a reasonable level of service.

Specifically, this means

- waiting times in days or certainly under a month

- appointments at a time to suit me

- not being referred back to the GP if a second consultant referral is needed

- not being given excuses regarding non delivery

- clean facilities with modern and adequate equipment

- not being expected to feel grateful for what I get

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs

At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of these, I might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it don't see a problem.

Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be an improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for a third world service.

Reply to
Andy Hall

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:07:23 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ):

the budget for this thing is absolutely colossal. Do you realise that they are the third largest employer in the world. A total nonsense.

I think you are right in that respect. Unfortunately it is still in the British psyche that doctors are exalted members of society and should be placed on a pedestal and never questioned. I suppose that that may change when the pre-NHS generation departs the mortal coil.

The receptionists certainly use that to advantage and seem to believe that they can be the labrador laying across the entrance to the surgery.

My strategy on that is pretty simple and is to basically ignore it, assertively insisting on access to the appropriate doctor.

After that, it has to be realised that GPs are generalists. As I said, I research any medical issue that I have. On two in particular, my GP has openly admitted that I know more than he does, and is quite comfortable with that.

Unfortunately, most patients just show up and expect him to fix their problems by their popping a pill once a day. Frankly it's demoralising for them because the whole NHS has become highly politicised under successive governments with clinically inappropriate targets. Some GPs are happy to sit back an play that game, while others are refreshed by somebody willing to involve themselves in their treatment.

It's not always easy to do, unfortunately. For a lot of issues, especially clinical studies, one at least needs to have a scientific background and some awareness of statistical information.

I was sufficiently persuaded of their problems and limitations that I was pleased o be rid of them all

Reply to
Andy Hall

Oh - I wondered what you were doing in uk.d-i-y!

Mary

Reply to
Mary Fisher

Indeed. I'm still here - tough! - because of the NHS.

Mary

Reply to
Mary Fisher

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:32:58 +0100, Guy King wrote (in article ):

She might well.

I didn't say that there should not be funding for healthcare for people needing it, or that that shouldn't be through central taxation.

My point is that the government should not be involved in provisioning and delivery of healthcare itself. It can't do that efficiently or effectively and shouldn't deceive all of us by pretending that it can.

I am perfectly happy to pay taxes for healthcare so that people like your mum are able to get what they need. Removal of the government middle man would mean that more of that would arrive at the point of delivery.

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that is the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

Reply to
Andy Hall

Mine too.

Perhaps your attitude has influenced what you've received.

I have that.

I have that.

You mean if you think a second opinion is needed? I've never had a problem with my first consultants' opinions.

eh?

I get that.

You mean you're NOT grateful for what you get? I've not experienced expectations of gratitude but I always have been.

I've had Rolls Royce treatment, no parsimony.

All my experience has been in NHS.

Nothing is perfect, I know that when Spouse had private treatment on the whole it was superb but there were exceptions which spoilt the lot. Exceptions are due to individuals, not systems.

Don't worry, the NHS doesn't need you.

Oh don't be silly!

Reply to
Mary Fisher

The government would still have to decide what it was prepared to fund and how much money it would make available. IMHO this would lead to two things:

  1. The providers following the money: there was a bit of research re private hospitals in Melbourne Australia a while back. When asked whether they could take an older person who needed little more than extended bed care quite a few claimed to be full. When the enquiry was re someone who would need lots of extra services they suddenly had room. You see this now with universities closing departments (science esp) that are expensive to run and expanding the more 'profitable' ones.
  2. Anyone who has ever had a car repaired post-accident will know the "is it an insurance job?" scenario. Somehow the cost of treatment would always rise to meet the funds that could be extracted from the system. How much will your local undertaker charge for a DHSS-funded funeral: the amount the DHSS pays. IIRC BUPA had problems with hospitals trying to rip them off. You'd lose the current bureaucracy but just substitute another one .

I have just been at a conference in the USA and the most horrific story was from someone who had been in a good IT job and was made redundant. Healthcare went with the job. His wife was diagnosed with cancer just before the work cover ran out and she was treated. But now no company will cover any future because of a pre-existing condition provision. Should it come back they are probably broke. Fortunately we don't have to face this sort of possibility.

Reply to
Tony Bryer

Judging by the USAian experience, private enterprise can't either.

What about funding several smaller megaliths which together add up to the same size? Coz that's all that will happen in your privatised healthcare model.

cheers, clive

Reply to
Clive George

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:36:44 +0100, Tony Bryer wrote (in article ):

That will always be an issue, and government provisioned services are not immune from it either.

That can easily be addressed by having a cover continuity arrangement and not allowing actuarial exclusions like this. It would of course affect premiums, but would still be a more effective way of provisioning.

Reply to
Andy Hall

|>>Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless, |>

|> tell that to someone who has long term illness or isn't affluent. | |Indeed. I'm still here - tough! - because of the NHS.

Since I became an OAP prescriptions and eye tests are *free*, not to mention the GP and hospitals. Good old NHS.

Reply to
Dave Fawthrop

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:48:51 +0100, Clive George wrote (in article ):

That's the opposite situation and I'm not suggesting it. Certainly there should be government in funding - simply not in delivery.

Microliths would be better - i.e. each hospital and GP practice running itself. There is no need for central administration or of PCTs etc. and there is no need for central ownership.

There may be some value in having a small central purchasing function in order to negotiate good medication prices.

Reply to
Andy Hall

|Microliths would be better - i.e. each hospital and GP practice running |itself. There is no need for central administration or of PCTs etc. and |there is no need for central ownership.

So when I was on holiday in Scotland, I needed a test, and just walked in to the local health centre, booked a test, got it and they phoned me back with the results. All free on the NHS. Your want me to have to fill in forms as well?

Reply to
Dave Fawthrop

In message , Andy Hall writes

Where exactly do you think our NICS go?

Reply to
June Hughes

In message , Andy Hall writes

Have you tried moving to the USA?

Reply to
June Hughes

Would you if it were the fouth?

Or the twenty fourth?

Or the seventy sixth?

Where do you draw the line?

Reply to
Mary Fisher

In message , Andy Hall writes

Can you prove that?

Snip.

Erm - most of us here are intelligent enough to know that already.

Snip rest of post, which is simply unsnipped by you.

Reply to
June Hughes

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:16:01 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote (in article ):

Definitely not. That's how it should be. Always. It isn't. I don't want to waste time wondering whether it is or not or having to have a discussion with the receptionist on the results.

For example, the nonsense that I had from the GP surgery after a comprehensive set of blood tests was a note of "tell patient OK" from the doctor. The alternative would be "make appointment" if there had been an issue. I don't consider that acceptable and so there was a "discussion" with the practice manager after which all the results were faxed to me 5 minutes later. Then I made the appointment with the doctor. He doesn't make notes like that on my test results any longer.

Reply to
Andy Hall

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:14:42 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote (in article ):

At the point where it didn't even figure in the stats and there was no government involvement whatsoever.

Reply to
Andy Hall

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:11:00 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ):

I don't differentiate. It's a tax wrapped up with a different name. I am over the upper earnings limit. However, my company pays an unlimited percentage.

As I said, I don't have an issue with contributing a reasonable sum via taxation towards the funding of healthcare.

I strongly object to government involvement in delivering it.

I object even more strongly to the government propaganda that it's free at the point of delivery and is a good service. It isn't either, and I don't appreciate being lied to by suppliers.

The icing on the cake is being told that I should be grateful for it. What kind of nonsense is that?

Reply to
Andy Hall

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.