The Government commissioned a report on the NHS, but disagree with its findings so why waste the money in the first place
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8234841.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8234841.stm
New NHS report
- Thread starter jaysay
- Start date
Good question Jaysay, they could have saved the money and asked those poor s*ds running round like headless chickens to get jobs done......the answer is get rid of some of the tiers of management and spend the money that is saved on grass roots care and services.......but that is too simple.
My sentiment entirely Margaret, but you know and I know that the only jobs that will be lost will be at the sharp end not in the Ivory Towers
Yes and this where the loss would be more keenly felt.....by the patients.
I am so glad that I am out of it all.
I am so glad that I am out of it all.
The NHS has become so bloated that the chances of any worthwhile and benificial chanes will be blocked by the suit and tie brigade at the top. To me who knows best what the patient needs the medical staff or some business graduate. Granted the NHS should be run as a business but even businesses need to go on a diet when needed. When it comes to losing the excess fat the top has the most. G if it wasnt laughable that the govenment rejects the report then we would be crying. The govenment wants an efficient NHS yet does not want to put in on a diet in case it becomes anorexic. It seems like the NHS is heading for a banks style meltdown.
Patiants come first not some targets set that become a noose around the medical staffs necks. The comments that Jaysay made in another thread shows how screwed up the system has become. I do not like the idea of people losing jobs but sometimes the fews sacrifice will be for the better of the many. Get rid of these stupid reports suited slave drivers and let the people who do the front line job of fixing our illness wounds etc. Then maybe the dreaded postcode lottery will end as the money freed can be used where it is needed most.
Patiants come first not some targets set that become a noose around the medical staffs necks. The comments that Jaysay made in another thread shows how screwed up the system has become. I do not like the idea of people losing jobs but sometimes the fews sacrifice will be for the better of the many. Get rid of these stupid reports suited slave drivers and let the people who do the front line job of fixing our illness wounds etc. Then maybe the dreaded postcode lottery will end as the money freed can be used where it is needed most.
Businesses are run to make their owners/shareholders a profit......and while I agree that the NHS should pay its way(as far as it can).....I don't think that it should be run as a business.
Patients are not tins of beans, and should not be subjected to 'market forces'.......the paring down is always(it seems) done at the end that looks after the patient....and currently this end is looking positively skeletal......down to the bone.
Patients are not tins of beans, and should not be subjected to 'market forces'.......the paring down is always(it seems) done at the end that looks after the patient....and currently this end is looking positively skeletal......down to the bone.
Just a comment in the form of a question: do you realise that the private health care lobby in Washington pumps more money into the Republican Party coffers than does the oil industry? And all this to maintain a system which is far more wasteful and inefficient than the NHS?
Now its my turn to lie down, I agree with Rindi
Spot on Spugs, in fact if anybody is unlucky enough in having to spend time as an IN patient, here's a little game you can play. We all know that the highlight of the day when in hospital is visiting and meal time (sometimes
) So you can play spot the clip board, I can guarantee it will keep you busy when you've nothing else to do 
Well you'd hardly expect them to give campaign funds to the party of socialized medicine, would you?
The high costs, waste and inefficiencies are a direct result of government involvement. We haven't had a totally private system for a very long time now.
Some of us here have, over the weekend, been reading about an American-style cash payment for clinical teatment. In this instance, it involved an eminent oncologist paid money by a foreign government to offer a diagnosis which spiced up the true state of the patients condition. That patient was a Libyan national held in a Scottish jail and as a consequence he is now back in Libya. I'm sure you know to whom I am referring.
Personally, I prefer to see patient care the British way, which is according to need.The American way, is of course based on the profit to be gained by clinicians, insurance companies and now dodgy political regimes.
There's a lot going on here that we don't know about yet - since the Scottish government isn't releasing details. My understanding is that there were four specialists but only one of them was willing to support the claim that Megrahi had just weeks to live. As the person in question has not been named, we don't know if he or she was employed by the NHS, the Libyans or Megradi's legal team. Yep, it definitely smells fishy.
I prefer the American way prior to 1965 when patients paid doctors directly and filed their own insurance claims. A good system relies on an involved and well informed consumer. Once you take the consumer out of the loop problems can and do develop. By the way, there is nothing wrong with making a profit. Profits make possible reinvestment in new facilities and equipment, expanded services, more jobs and higher wages. It's a bad idea to exclude hospitals and doctors from that model. Free enterprise is more nimble and its competitive and innovative nature surpasses all other delivery systems.
Free enterprise was certainly very nimble in the recent banking crisis.
This is from Wikipedia. Its all about US healthcare and it makes grim reading:
Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. More is spent on health care in the United States on a per capita basis than in any other nation in the world.[1][2] A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S.[3] Medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States,[4] weakening the whole economy.
According to data compiled and published by the international pharmaceutical industry , the US is the world leader in biomedical research and development as well as the introduction of new biomedical products; pharmaceutical industry trade organizations also maintain that the high cost of health care in the U.S. has encouraged substantial reinvestment in such research and development.[5][6][7][8] Despite that, the US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, which are among the most widely collected, hence useful, international comparative statistics. For 2006-2010, the USA's life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[9]
Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[10][11] The WHO study has been criticized, in an article published in Health Affairs, for its failure to include the satisfaction ratings of the general public.[12] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[13] The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.[nb 1][14] According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[15][16]
In summary, your healthcare system sucks, as they say over there.
Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. More is spent on health care in the United States on a per capita basis than in any other nation in the world.[1][2] A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S.[3] Medical debt is the principal cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States,[4] weakening the whole economy.
According to data compiled and published by the international pharmaceutical industry , the US is the world leader in biomedical research and development as well as the introduction of new biomedical products; pharmaceutical industry trade organizations also maintain that the high cost of health care in the U.S. has encouraged substantial reinvestment in such research and development.[5][6][7][8] Despite that, the US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, which are among the most widely collected, hence useful, international comparative statistics. For 2006-2010, the USA's life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[9]
Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[10][11] The WHO study has been criticized, in an article published in Health Affairs, for its failure to include the satisfaction ratings of the general public.[12] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[13] The U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries.[nb 1][14] According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of insurance).[15][16]
In summary, your healthcare system sucks, as they say over there.
probably only to the "Have Nots" Tealeaf.
No, it sucks for 'em all, Cashy. They spend about 16% of their GDP on healthcare which is roughly twice that of the UK. About half of that 16% is actually government expenditure on Medicare and Medicaid (covering only the old and the poor); for that we cover everyone. So that means they're paying their taxes as well as their private insurance - double bubble! And what do they get in return? By international comparisons, third world healthcare.
but does that matter to the "Haves"? they probably swim along blindly thinking all is well in their world.
but does that matter to the "Haves"? they probably swim along blindly thinking all is well in their world.
Aye, they probably do.....until the time comes when they have a serious accident or develop a chronic illness or lose their job with it's cover or find they've not read the small print in their insurance policies and then they suddenly find get nowt.