FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Investors are making a fortune from UK healthcare
Investors are making a fortune from UK healthcare
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"More wasted money What did we get for the £1.7trn increase in the national debt over the last 14 years. The interest alone is £9bn every month. " We got debt,while others became richer | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The Tories dream of private healthcare is even closer. Even if labour get in the next election it'd probably take 20 years to sort out the shambolic state we are in, that's assuming that labour have the brains to sort it out and not getting their pockets lined by rich corporation's " Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? | |||
"The Tories dream of private healthcare is even closer. Even if labour get in the next election it'd probably take 20 years to sort out the shambolic state we are in, that's assuming that labour have the brains to sort it out and not getting their pockets lined by rich corporation's Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS?" God forbid such a suggestion  | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS?" No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all. | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all." That's how business operates - a service is provided, and if the enterprise is efficient, a profit is made. Investors in the business take a risk with their capital, and again, in a good year receive a dividend in return. The business pays corporation tax, employee NI, VAT and tax on dividends. So where is the problem if a business can provide a service more efficiently and cost effectively than the state-run NHS? | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all." How do we describe the current lot. Is it 'old Labour' or 'not as new as new Labour' or 'newer than new Labour'. | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all. How do we describe the current lot. Is it 'old Labour' or 'not as new as new Labour' or 'newer than new Labour'. " Newish Labour has a nice ring to it. | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS?." No. But they accelerated it… 1988 Oliver Letwin, a privatisation expert at NM Rothschild Bank, and MP John Redwood (Conservative) write Britain’s Biggest Enterprise, a manual on how to privatise the NHS through the stealthy and gradual introduction of trusts, private companies, charges, profits and health insurance. The Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank, flesh out this manual in The Health of Nations by Pirie & Butler. 1991 John Major (Conservative) brings in the NHS and Community Care Act introducing an Internal Market to the NHS with a ‘purchaser-provider’ split, de-centralising the service by forming NHS trusts, adding a corporate management structure and the principle of competition. Analyses of NHS marketisation show costs escalating. By 2005, the cost of NHS bureaucracy is estimated to have increased by 10% (Bloor Report). 1992 The Conservatives introduce Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs), an unnecessary and expensive method of borrowing money for new hospitals designed to deliver attractive, risk-free returns for private investors, drain money out of the NHS, lock the taxpayer into long-term debt and justify hospital closures. 1997 Tony Blair (New Labour) dumps Labour’s tradition of support for public service and opts for privatisation and deregulation, funding 100 new NHS hospitals with PFIs. In total, approximately £12.7 billion is borrowed, with repayments reaching over £80 billion. Even when fully repaid, the public won’t own the hospitals! PFIs enable a covert bed closure program to shrink NHS capacity, and a future land grab. As the costs of paying off debts rise, NHS trusts will be forced to sell assets. Oliver Letwin becomes a Conservative MP to action his NHS privatisation manual. | |||
"How do we describe the current lot. Is it 'old Labour' or 'not as new as new Labour' or 'newer than new Labour'." "Newish Labour has a nice ring to it." Didn't the Labour party get fined for being nasty to Newish people? | |||
"From care homes to cancer treatment, millions are being siphoned out of the system every year. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/13/uk-healthcare-private-equity-cancer-treatment-services" Ah the old "anti big pharma" again. Without shareholders there would be no "big pharma" Without "big pharma" there would be no cancer treatments If you have a private pension then you benefit directly from these "profits" If you get any sort of welfare benefits you gain from these profits through taxation. "Syphoned" lol | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all. That's how business operates - a service is provided, and if the enterprise is efficient, a profit is made. Investors in the business take a risk with their capital, and again, in a good year receive a dividend in return. The business pays corporation tax, employee NI, VAT and tax on dividends. So where is the problem if a business can provide a service more efficiently and cost effectively than the state-run NHS?" The problem is speculators and their government stooges have defunded the NHS to breaking point to make it look like privatisation is a more efficient system. It isn't. The problem is the ulyimate goal is a US-style HMO system where businesses get rich while people not wealthy enough to afford either coverage or treatment can be bankrupted by serious illness or just die because they can't afford care. | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all. That's how business operates - a service is provided, and if the enterprise is efficient, a profit is made. Investors in the business take a risk with their capital, and again, in a good year receive a dividend in return. The business pays corporation tax, employee NI, VAT and tax on dividends. So where is the problem if a business can provide a service more efficiently and cost effectively than the state-run NHS? The problem is speculators and their government stooges have defunded the NHS to breaking point to make it look like privatisation is a more efficient system. It isn't. The problem is the ulyimate goal is a US-style HMO system where businesses get rich while people not wealthy enough to afford either coverage or treatment can be bankrupted by serious illness or just die because they can't afford care." There are some on here who will challenge that by pointing to places like Germany and say it won’t go the USA route. But that conveniently ignores who is behind the lobbying and neo-liberal “think tanks” that advocate wholesale privatisation of the NHS. | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all. That's how business operates - a service is provided, and if the enterprise is efficient, a profit is made. Investors in the business take a risk with their capital, and again, in a good year receive a dividend in return. The business pays corporation tax, employee NI, VAT and tax on dividends. So where is the problem if a business can provide a service more efficiently and cost effectively than the state-run NHS? The problem is speculators and their government stooges have defunded the NHS to breaking point to make it look like privatisation is a more efficient system. It isn't. The problem is the ulyimate goal is a US-style HMO system where businesses get rich while people not wealthy enough to afford either coverage or treatment can be bankrupted by serious illness or just die because they can't afford care. There are some on here who will challenge that by pointing to places like Germany and say it won’t go the USA route. But that conveniently ignores who is behind the lobbying and neo-liberal “think tanks” that advocate wholesale privatisation of the NHS." Exactly. If they're not too busy claiming that healthcare privatisation is a Labour initiative. | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all. That's how business operates - a service is provided, and if the enterprise is efficient, a profit is made. Investors in the business take a risk with their capital, and again, in a good year receive a dividend in return. The business pays corporation tax, employee NI, VAT and tax on dividends. So where is the problem if a business can provide a service more efficiently and cost effectively than the state-run NHS? The problem is speculators and their government stooges have defunded the NHS to breaking point to make it look like privatisation is a more efficient system. It isn't. The problem is the ulyimate goal is a US-style HMO system where businesses get rich while people not wealthy enough to afford either coverage or treatment can be bankrupted by serious illness or just die because they can't afford care. There are some on here who will challenge that by pointing to places like Germany and say it won’t go the USA route. But that conveniently ignores who is behind the lobbying and neo-liberal “think tanks” that advocate wholesale privatisation of the NHS." You agree the ultimate goal is a US style system? | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all. That's how business operates - a service is provided, and if the enterprise is efficient, a profit is made. Investors in the business take a risk with their capital, and again, in a good year receive a dividend in return. The business pays corporation tax, employee NI, VAT and tax on dividends. So where is the problem if a business can provide a service more efficiently and cost effectively than the state-run NHS? The problem is speculators and their government stooges have defunded the NHS to breaking point to make it look like privatisation is a more efficient system. It isn't. The problem is the ulyimate goal is a US-style HMO system where businesses get rich while people not wealthy enough to afford either coverage or treatment can be bankrupted by serious illness or just die because they can't afford care. There are some on here who will challenge that by pointing to places like Germany and say it won’t go the USA route. But that conveniently ignores who is behind the lobbying and neo-liberal “think tanks” that advocate wholesale privatisation of the NHS. You agree the ultimate goal is a US style system? " The goal can be whatever we want it to be. We could stay with the principle of 'free at the point of need', but open up the provision to private providers. Why not? What business did the government ever run well? Remember steel, mines, ports, cars .... all an unmitigated disaster, rather like the NHS. | |||
" The goal can be whatever we want it to be. We could stay with the principle of 'free at the point of need', but open up the provision to private providers. Why not? What business did the government ever run well? Remember steel, mines, ports, cars .... all an unmitigated disaster, rather like the NHS." Why not? Because there will be a phase where the private healthcare providers gradually break their commitments to keep it within budget, costing the taxpayer billions more than projected. Meanwhile because they are for-profit businesses, they will provide the absolute minimum standard of care they can get away with to maximise profits. And they will apply pressure to government regulators to relax those standards. Meanwhile, the same businesses will compete with themselves by opening private healthcare businesses offering a much higher standard of care. Insurance companies (owned by the same people) will start to occupy the market so more people can "afford" these private options. Ultimately the semi-public system will fail altogether and the private providers/insurance companies will take over completely. It's all, I guess, down to whether you think the NHS should be a business or a public service. Your opinion on whether it should be possible, or desirable, to turn a profit off people getting sick is what will determine your position on it. | |||
| |||
"Your opinion on whether it should be possible, or desirable, to turn a profit off people getting sick is what will determine your position on it." Quite right, it's disgusting to make a profit off sick people. We should immediately stop paying for medicines, and remove the salaries from doctors and nurses to make sure that no one benefits from someone else's illness | |||
"Your opinion on whether it should be possible, or desirable, to turn a profit off people getting sick is what will determine your position on it. Quite right, it's disgusting to make a profit off sick people. We should immediately stop paying for medicines, and remove the salaries from doctors and nurses to make sure that no one benefits from someone else's illness " I agree that medicines should be free on the NHS. A lot of them are, for example when you're an inpatient. Also taking a salary in exchange for work is, even in the broadest sense, not remotely the same thing as making a profit. | |||
| |||
"Your opinion on whether it should be possible, or desirable, to turn a profit off people getting sick is what will determine your position on it." "Quite right, it's disgusting to make a profit off sick people. We should immediately stop paying for medicines, and remove the salaries from doctors and nurses to make sure that no one benefits from someone else's illness" "I agree that medicines should be free on the NHS. A lot of them are, for example when you're an inpatient." I meant that we should stop paying the pharmaceutical companies for future medicines. We don't want them making money of sick people. "Also taking a salary in exchange for work is, even in the broadest sense, not remotely the same thing as making a profit." Isn't it? I have a doctor friend who has a massive house and a collection of cars. He could still do his job if he had a small house and used public transport. Isn't he living a better life than he needs? Isn't he profiting from people being sick? | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric." Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric." Agree with the elective surgery but who will R&D, manufacture and supply equipment, consumables and medicines with hour profit ? Who will build hospitals without profit? Should the government own and mismanage the companies required for above ? | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Agree with the elective surgery but who will R&D, manufacture and supply equipment, consumables and medicines with hour profit ? Who will build hospitals without profit? Should the government own and mismanage the companies required for above ?" The govt/NHS does none of those things? The NHS are a healthcare provider not a product developer or supplier or builder! They buy products in but due to scale can negotiate lower rates (compare cost of medicines in USA vs UK via NHS). | |||
"I agree that medicines should be free on the NHS. A lot of them are, for example when you're an inpatient. I meant that we should stop paying the pharmaceutical companies for future medicines. We don't want them making money of sick people." So, typically our government negotiates with pharma companies to keep their prices low, and therefore their profits are indirectly regulated. There are countries where such negotiations don't take place and where diabetics are unable to afford insulin. Would it be ideal if all pharmas were non-profit? Sure. Profits are not a sine-qua-non of businesses operating successfully. "Also taking a salary in exchange for work is, even in the broadest sense, not remotely the same thing as making a profit. Isn't it? I have a doctor friend who has a massive house and a collection of cars. He could still do his job if he had a small house and used public transport. Isn't he living a better life than he needs? Isn't he profiting from people being sick?" That's a benefit, not a profit. And yes, he is living a better life than he needs, but I do wonder how much of his giant house and car collection was paid for by his salary, and not actual profits he made through other activities. It remains that the activities of a medical doctor vis-a-vis caring for the sick are not the same as the activities of your average private pharmaceutical. | |||
"So, typically our government negotiates with pharma companies to keep their prices low, and therefore their profits are indirectly regulated. " So does that mean that it's OK to make a profit off sick people, as long as that profit is regulated? | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Agree with the elective surgery but who will R&D, manufacture and supply equipment, consumables and medicines with hour profit ? Who will build hospitals without profit? Should the government own and mismanage the companies required for above ? The govt/NHS does none of those things? The NHS are a healthcare provider not a product developer or supplier or builder! They buy products in but due to scale can negotiate lower rates (compare cost of medicines in USA vs UK via NHS)." Precisely, the question was should they, not do they. (Hint no they shouldn't as it would end up much more expensive as they could run a sweetie shop) | |||
"So, typically our government negotiates with pharma companies to keep their prices low, and therefore their profits are indirectly regulated. So does that mean that it's OK to make a profit off sick people, as long as that profit is regulated?" No, not really. But realistically we won't soon achieve all medicine being handled by non-profit structures, so the best we can hope for is to prevent pharmaceuticals from making their treatments unaffordable to all but rich people. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service." If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Agree with the elective surgery but who will R&D, manufacture and supply equipment, consumables and medicines with hour profit ? Who will build hospitals without profit? Should the government own and mismanage the companies required for above ? The govt/NHS does none of those things? The NHS are a healthcare provider not a product developer or supplier or builder! They buy products in but due to scale can negotiate lower rates (compare cost of medicines in USA vs UK via NHS). Precisely, the question was should they, not do they. (Hint no they shouldn't as it would end up much more expensive as they could run a sweetie shop) " So you are making a non-argument then? What point are you even trying to make? The conversation was about privatisation of the NHS ergo healthcare not increasing the remit of the NHS? | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you?" And how much you had paid for Health Insurance (or your employer) over what period to ascertain total payments made and whether it was to treat a pre-existing (pre insurance cover starting) or hereditary condition. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you?" Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes." But: 1. Lucky for you that you had the funds to self-fund and pay for insurance. 2. Be interesting to see what total cost to you was over the entire period you have paid insurance. 3. And whether the treatment was for a pre-existing/hereditary condition and if the insurance agreed to cover that? | |||
" The goal can be whatever we want it to be. We could stay with the principle of 'free at the point of need', but open up the provision to private providers. Why not? What business did the government ever run well? Remember steel, mines, ports, cars .... all an unmitigated disaster, rather like the NHS. Why not? Because there will be a phase where the private healthcare providers gradually break their commitments to keep it within budget, costing the taxpayer billions more than projected. Meanwhile because they are for-profit businesses, they will provide the absolute minimum standard of care they can get away with to maximise profits. And they will apply pressure to government regulators to relax those standards. Meanwhile, the same businesses will compete with themselves by opening private healthcare businesses offering a much higher standard of care. Insurance companies (owned by the same people) will start to occupy the market so more people can "afford" these private options. Ultimately the semi-public system will fail altogether and the private providers/insurance companies will take over completely. It's all, I guess, down to whether you think the NHS should be a business or a public service. Your opinion on whether it should be possible, or desirable, to turn a profit off people getting sick is what will determine your position on it." This is absolutely correct, private healthcare providers already rely on the NHS to clean up their messes. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Agree with the elective surgery but who will R&D, manufacture and supply equipment, consumables and medicines with hour profit ? Who will build hospitals without profit? Should the government own and mismanage the companies required for above ? The govt/NHS does none of those things? The NHS are a healthcare provider not a product developer or supplier or builder! They buy products in but due to scale can negotiate lower rates (compare cost of medicines in USA vs UK via NHS). Precisely, the question was should they, not do they. (Hint no they shouldn't as it would end up much more expensive as they could run a sweetie shop) So you are making a non-argument then? What point are you even trying to make? The conversation was about privatisation of the NHS ergo healthcare not increasing the remit of the NHS?" Actually it wasa out investors making money from the NHS but don't worry | |||
| |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes." How much did it cost you. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you." How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all." Really???? | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever." £10 is affordable to almost everyone, £10,000 isn’t. If you earn £100,000 a year then paying £10k out of pocket, although not ideal, is at least a comfortable consideration. If you earn £20,000 a year it’s out of the question. I suppose we are relying on you contributing in good faith, rather than trying to win an argument. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. £10 is affordable to almost everyone, £10,000 isn’t. If you earn £100,000 a year then paying £10k out of pocket, although not ideal, is at least a comfortable consideration. If you earn £20,000 a year it’s out of the question. I suppose we are relying on you contributing in good faith, rather than trying to win an argument." Indeed, medicine is expensive, that's why a privately run NHS would require insurance - as indeed it does now. But why should we care if the NHS is privately run if we get guaranteed treatment? My hunch is because people dislike the notion of a company making a profit. But so what if they are efficient. Do we care that Amazon make a profit or Apple etc? | |||
"If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever." Was it £10? It wasn't, was it. It would be relevant if you gave me the information I'm asking for for the obvious reason I'm asking for it. I'm not aware of any privatised system that would treat you for a more than a routine or trivial medical issue while costing the kind of money an average person would have in their wallet. | |||
"If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. Was it £10? It wasn't, was it. It would be relevant if you gave me the information I'm asking for for the obvious reason I'm asking for it. I'm not aware of any privatised system that would treat you for a more than a routine or trivial medical issue while costing the kind of money an average person would have in their wallet." But are you qualified to make those judgements? Quite apart from medical knowledge, you'd need to know the year, the country, the exchange rates etc. It's completely irrelevant to the principle of whether privately run healthcare works. It does, and I've experienced it first hand. | |||
"Indeed, medicine is expensive, that's why a privately run NHS would require insurance - as indeed it does now. But why should we care if the NHS is privately run if we get guaranteed treatment? My hunch is because people dislike the notion of a company making a profit. But so what if they are efficient. Do we care that Amazon make a profit or Apple etc?" And immediately you run into the kind of issues people have with insurance, which is that a lot of people can't get it affordably, and that insurance companies make money by trying as hard as they can to not pay any money out. People in NHS hospitals don't currently have to wonder if they're actually eligible for their treatments. You have this weird idea that people are totally against businesses making money. We're not. What we're against is businesses seeing a critical service run well by the public sector, seeing an opportunity to make loads of money from it, fucking it up so they can claim it's not fit for purpose, and THEN making a profit on it. While delivering a lower standard of care to fewer people. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. £10 is affordable to almost everyone, £10,000 isn’t. If you earn £100,000 a year then paying £10k out of pocket, although not ideal, is at least a comfortable consideration. If you earn £20,000 a year it’s out of the question. I suppose we are relying on you contributing in good faith, rather than trying to win an argument. Indeed, medicine is expensive, that's why a privately run NHS would require insurance - as indeed it does now. But why should we care if the NHS is privately run if we get guaranteed treatment? My hunch is because people dislike the notion of a company making a profit. But so what if they are efficient. Do we care that Amazon make a profit or Apple etc?" Ah, so you're not here to contribute in good faith then. | |||
"If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. Was it £10? It wasn't, was it. It would be relevant if you gave me the information I'm asking for for the obvious reason I'm asking for it. I'm not aware of any privatised system that would treat you for a more than a routine or trivial medical issue while costing the kind of money an average person would have in their wallet. But are you qualified to make those judgements? Quite apart from medical knowledge, you'd need to know the year, the country, the exchange rates etc. It's completely irrelevant to the principle of whether privately run healthcare works. It does, and I've experienced it first hand." I'm qualified to know if I, for example, would have been able to pay out of pocket whatever you paid for whatever treatment. And I think I can figure out the exchange and inflation rates, cheers. But you don't want to say, because presumably it would immediately undercut your claim that privately run healthcare works. It only works if it works for everyone. Not just for you. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. £10 is affordable to almost everyone, £10,000 isn’t. If you earn £100,000 a year then paying £10k out of pocket, although not ideal, is at least a comfortable consideration. If you earn £20,000 a year it’s out of the question. I suppose we are relying on you contributing in good faith, rather than trying to win an argument. Indeed, medicine is expensive, that's why a privately run NHS would require insurance - as indeed it does now. But why should we care if the NHS is privately run if we get guaranteed treatment? My hunch is because people dislike the notion of a company making a profit. But so what if they are efficient. Do we care that Amazon make a profit or Apple etc? Ah, so you're not here to contribute in good faith then." I have no clue what 'contribute in good faith' means or even that it was a Forum requirement. What's an example of a good faith post then and I'll try and comply. | |||
"If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. Was it £10? It wasn't, was it. It would be relevant if you gave me the information I'm asking for for the obvious reason I'm asking for it. I'm not aware of any privatised system that would treat you for a more than a routine or trivial medical issue while costing the kind of money an average person would have in their wallet. But are you qualified to make those judgements? Quite apart from medical knowledge, you'd need to know the year, the country, the exchange rates etc. It's completely irrelevant to the principle of whether privately run healthcare works. It does, and I've experienced it first hand. I'm qualified to know if I, for example, would have been able to pay out of pocket whatever you paid for whatever treatment. And I think I can figure out the exchange and inflation rates, cheers. But you don't want to say, because presumably it would immediately undercut your claim that privately run healthcare works. It only works if it works for everyone. Not just for you." You are confusing paying for healthcare with the principle of how it's provided. I'm not advocating 'out of pocket' payment by individuals. I'm saying that private business is more efficient and less costly than state run organisations. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. £10 is affordable to almost everyone, £10,000 isn’t. If you earn £100,000 a year then paying £10k out of pocket, although not ideal, is at least a comfortable consideration. If you earn £20,000 a year it’s out of the question. I suppose we are relying on you contributing in good faith, rather than trying to win an argument. Indeed, medicine is expensive, that's why a privately run NHS would require insurance - as indeed it does now. But why should we care if the NHS is privately run if we get guaranteed treatment? My hunch is because people dislike the notion of a company making a profit. But so what if they are efficient. Do we care that Amazon make a profit or Apple etc? Ah, so you're not here to contribute in good faith then. I have no clue what 'contribute in good faith' means or even that it was a Forum requirement. What's an example of a good faith post then and I'll try and comply." I think you are being evasive and some may construe that as not being entirely honest. You completely avoided answering my points on your story twice. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. £10 is affordable to almost everyone, £10,000 isn’t. If you earn £100,000 a year then paying £10k out of pocket, although not ideal, is at least a comfortable consideration. If you earn £20,000 a year it’s out of the question. I suppose we are relying on you contributing in good faith, rather than trying to win an argument. Indeed, medicine is expensive, that's why a privately run NHS would require insurance - as indeed it does now. But why should we care if the NHS is privately run if we get guaranteed treatment? My hunch is because people dislike the notion of a company making a profit. But so what if they are efficient. Do we care that Amazon make a profit or Apple etc? Ah, so you're not here to contribute in good faith then. I have no clue what 'contribute in good faith' means or even that it was a Forum requirement. What's an example of a good faith post then and I'll try and comply." It’s not a requirement, you said that you experienced better, more efficient healthcare abroad than the NHS provides, people would like to be able to see if the amount of money you spent would be sustainable for people. Rather than tell people how much you paid you would rather play silly games. That’s ok, we all have different reasons for using the fora, just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. | |||
" You are confusing paying for healthcare with the principle of how it's provided. I'm not advocating 'out of pocket' payment by individuals. I'm saying that private business is more efficient and less costly than state run organisations." No I'm not. Your claim is this: "Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service." My question is, would the care you received, and were so impressed by, be affordable for the average person. If you can tell me what treatment you received, where, and for how much, we will all be able to see if any person walking in off the street with said ailment would be able to receive treatment, as they do under the NHS. It's a pretty simple test. I'm guessing your problem is, if the amount you paid out to receive that care was more than zero pounds and zero pence, then your claim is basically horseshit. | |||
" You are confusing paying for healthcare with the principle of how it's provided. I'm not advocating 'out of pocket' payment by individuals. I'm saying that private business is more efficient and less costly than state run organisations. No I'm not. Your claim is this: "Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service." My question is, would the care you received, and were so impressed by, be affordable for the average person. If you can tell me what treatment you received, where, and for how much, we will all be able to see if any person walking in off the street with said ailment would be able to receive treatment, as they do under the NHS. It's a pretty simple test. I'm guessing your problem is, if the amount you paid out to receive that care was more than zero pounds and zero pence, then your claim is basically horseshit." To be fair the NHS isn’t actually free if you are a taxpayer as the cost of providing it wrapped up in our taxes and NI. So for me the point is how much health insurance has he (or his employer) paid over what period. We can then offset that against how much tax and NI would have been used (proportionately) to fund the NHS. But in addition, we also need to know if it was a pre-existing or hereditary condition and if so whether the insurance was prepared to cover the cost of that in part or in entirety. Because the NHS will no questions asked (so that surely applies some level of value for us all as some “insurance” for the future!) In addition, what about aftercare, rehabilitation, post operative drugs and ongoing medication costs? Are they met on an unlimited basis by his insurance? Does that affect the premium? Can he move to a new insurer if it becomes too expensive? Will they accept the cost of this pre-existing condition? | |||
" You are confusing paying for healthcare with the principle of how it's provided. I'm not advocating 'out of pocket' payment by individuals. I'm saying that private business is more efficient and less costly than state run organisations. No I'm not. Your claim is this: "Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service." My question is, would the care you received, and were so impressed by, be affordable for the average person. If you can tell me what treatment you received, where, and for how much, we will all be able to see if any person walking in off the street with said ailment would be able to receive treatment, as they do under the NHS. It's a pretty simple test. I'm guessing your problem is, if the amount you paid out to receive that care was more than zero pounds and zero pence, then your claim is basically horseshit." "Tell you what treatment" LOL like you did 6 years at med school right? Anyway, you're clearly even unable to grasp the difference between payment and provision , so the argument is lost on you. | |||
" "Tell you what treatment" LOL like you did 6 years at med school right? Anyway, you're clearly even unable to grasp the difference between payment and provision , so the argument is lost on you." I'm not offering a diagnosis, am I. I want to get an idea of the extensiveness of the treatment to see if it was remotely affordable. And I know the difference, obviously. Firstly that's not what you and I are discussing, and secondly it's irrelevant how cheap private healthcare is to the taxpayer if the taxpayer then can't afford the health care when he needs it. But again, the fact you're not willing to come up with the information tells me that whatever it was and wherever you were, it cost you more than the average person would be able to just swipe a card on. And that's the whole problem with private healthcare. It excludes poor people. | |||
" You are confusing paying for healthcare with the principle of how it's provided. I'm not advocating 'out of pocket' payment by individuals. I'm saying that private business is more efficient and less costly than state run organisations. No I'm not. Your claim is this: "Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service." My question is, would the care you received, and were so impressed by, be affordable for the average person. If you can tell me what treatment you received, where, and for how much, we will all be able to see if any person walking in off the street with said ailment would be able to receive treatment, as they do under the NHS. It's a pretty simple test. I'm guessing your problem is, if the amount you paid out to receive that care was more than zero pounds and zero pence, then your claim is basically horseshit. "Tell you what treatment" LOL like you did 6 years at med school right? Anyway, you're clearly even unable to grasp the difference between payment and provision , so the argument is lost on you." Why are you avoiding answering the questions? Did you make it all up? Or have you figured it actually probably cost you more than it would have to be treated by the NHS! | |||
" To be fair the NHS isn’t actually free if you are a taxpayer as the cost of providing it wrapped up in our taxes and NI. So for me the point is how much health insurance has he (or his employer) paid over what period. We can then offset that against how much tax and NI would have been used (proportionately) to fund the NHS. But in addition, we also need to know if it was a pre-existing or hereditary condition and if so whether the insurance was prepared to cover the cost of that in part or in entirety. Because the NHS will no questions asked (so that surely applies some level of value for us all as some “insurance” for the future!) In addition, what about aftercare, rehabilitation, post operative drugs and ongoing medication costs? Are they met on an unlimited basis by his insurance? Does that affect the premium? Can he move to a new insurer if it becomes too expensive? Will they accept the cost of this pre-existing condition? " I'm aware the NHS costs money. The point is, not only is it free at the point of delivery, but it also doesn't get more expensive depending on how sick you get. And they don't care if the condition was pre-existing. They just treat you. For example I've had things wrong with me that in certain countries would have bankrupted my family and then killed me anyway when the cash ran out. I literally can't get medical insurance for any of the things that are most likely to make me sick and/or kill me in the future. It's extremely meaningful to me that under two public healthcare systems I've had the opportunity to be treated - by amazing people who did an exceptional job, might I add - without once having to worry how I was going to pay for it. This is why I'm asking this dude what I'm asking. A healthcare system that doesn't burden the taxpayer is totally useless in my book if it doesn't guarantee that every single citizen can have as much care as they need. | |||
" To be fair the NHS isn’t actually free if you are a taxpayer as the cost of providing it wrapped up in our taxes and NI. So for me the point is how much health insurance has he (or his employer) paid over what period. We can then offset that against how much tax and NI would have been used (proportionately) to fund the NHS. But in addition, we also need to know if it was a pre-existing or hereditary condition and if so whether the insurance was prepared to cover the cost of that in part or in entirety. Because the NHS will no questions asked (so that surely applies some level of value for us all as some “insurance” for the future!) In addition, what about aftercare, rehabilitation, post operative drugs and ongoing medication costs? Are they met on an unlimited basis by his insurance? Does that affect the premium? Can he move to a new insurer if it becomes too expensive? Will they accept the cost of this pre-existing condition? I'm aware the NHS costs money. The point is, not only is it free at the point of delivery, but it also doesn't get more expensive depending on how sick you get. And they don't care if the condition was pre-existing. They just treat you. For example I've had things wrong with me that in certain countries would have bankrupted my family and then killed me anyway when the cash ran out. I literally can't get medical insurance for any of the things that are most likely to make me sick and/or kill me in the future. It's extremely meaningful to me that under two public healthcare systems I've had the opportunity to be treated - by amazing people who did an exceptional job, might I add - without once having to worry how I was going to pay for it. This is why I'm asking this dude what I'm asking. A healthcare system that doesn't burden the taxpayer is totally useless in my book if it doesn't guarantee that every single citizen can have as much care as they need." We are in agreement. I was heading off one of the smart arses saying “well actually the NHS isn’t free” | |||
" We are in agreement. I was heading off one of the smart arses saying “well actually the NHS isn’t free”" Ah yes yes yes. I was just reiterating that cos this dude's trying to wiggle out of ponying up some evidence by alleging that I'm too stupid to make the distinction between the tax burden and what people pay at the till. | |||
" You are confusing paying for healthcare with the principle of how it's provided. I'm not advocating 'out of pocket' payment by individuals. I'm saying that private business is more efficient and less costly than state run organisations. No I'm not. Your claim is this: "Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service." My question is, would the care you received, and were so impressed by, be affordable for the average person. If you can tell me what treatment you received, where, and for how much, we will all be able to see if any person walking in off the street with said ailment would be able to receive treatment, as they do under the NHS. It's a pretty simple test. I'm guessing your problem is, if the amount you paid out to receive that care was more than zero pounds and zero pence, then your claim is basically horseshit. "Tell you what treatment" LOL like you did 6 years at med school right? Anyway, you're clearly even unable to grasp the difference between payment and provision , so the argument is lost on you. Why are you avoiding answering the questions? Did you make it all up? Or have you figured it actually probably cost you more than it would have to be treated by the NHS!" Because it's just asking for information you have no clue how to interpret nor draw conclusions. If you don't believe the claim about overseas healthcare fair enough. But just a passing knowledge of NHS service hardly supports your case does it? | |||
| |||
" Because it's just asking for information you have no clue how to interpret nor draw conclusions. If you don't believe the claim about overseas healthcare fair enough. But just a passing knowledge of NHS service hardly supports your case does it? " LOL. This guy caught a dose of clap in Manila and he reckons 50,000 pesos was a steal for a blister-pack of penicillin and a tube of rash cream, and that's enough for him to write off socialised medicine. I mean, I don't know that for sure but he won't back his own claims with actual information so I'm just gonna fill in the blanks. | |||
" Because it's just asking for information you have no clue how to interpret nor draw conclusions. If you don't believe the claim about overseas healthcare fair enough. But just a passing knowledge of NHS service hardly supports your case does it? LOL. This guy caught a dose of clap in Manila and he reckons 50,000 pesos was a steal for a blister-pack of penicillin and a tube of rash cream, and that's enough for him to write off socialised medicine. I mean, I don't know that for sure but he won't back his own claims with actual information so I'm just gonna fill in the blanks." Wow you seem knowledgeable on this topic. First hand experience? I can see why you prefer 'free' NHS treatment now LOL | |||
" Because it's just asking for information you have no clue how to interpret nor draw conclusions. If you don't believe the claim about overseas healthcare fair enough. But just a passing knowledge of NHS service hardly supports your case does it? LOL. This guy caught a dose of clap in Manila and he reckons 50,000 pesos was a steal for a blister-pack of penicillin and a tube of rash cream, and that's enough for him to write off socialised medicine. I mean, I don't know that for sure but he won't back his own claims with actual information so I'm just gonna fill in the blanks. Wow you seem knowledgeable on this topic. First hand experience? I can see why you prefer 'free' NHS treatment now LOL" Really? "No YOU" is all you've got? Dude, for all I know you've never left the Midlands and you just want the NHS privatised because of some conspiracy you read on Facebook. I mean, if you won't give details to back up what is objectively an outrageous claim, I'm gonna call bullshit and make fun of you for it. Your call. | |||
" You are confusing paying for healthcare with the principle of how it's provided. I'm not advocating 'out of pocket' payment by individuals. I'm saying that private business is more efficient and less costly than state run organisations. No I'm not. Your claim is this: "Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service." My question is, would the care you received, and were so impressed by, be affordable for the average person. If you can tell me what treatment you received, where, and for how much, we will all be able to see if any person walking in off the street with said ailment would be able to receive treatment, as they do under the NHS. It's a pretty simple test. I'm guessing your problem is, if the amount you paid out to receive that care was more than zero pounds and zero pence, then your claim is basically horseshit. "Tell you what treatment" LOL like you did 6 years at med school right? Anyway, you're clearly even unable to grasp the difference between payment and provision , so the argument is lost on you. Why are you avoiding answering the questions? Did you make it all up? Or have you figured it actually probably cost you more than it would have to be treated by the NHS! Because it's just asking for information you have no clue how to interpret nor draw conclusions. If you don't believe the claim about overseas healthcare fair enough. But just a passing knowledge of NHS service hardly supports your case does it? " So you made it up to try and prove your argument! It’s fine. Embarrassing. But fine  | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. " Agreed | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed" The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding." How can you prove that? | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that?" Facts, probably. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that?" It's impossible to prove that. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that?" The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010." What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch?" I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch?" Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries?" They look at the 7 leading countries. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now." I don't know anything about them but they did rank the UK 7th in 'patient centred care'. The NHS was the best in the world though. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries." Who decides they're 'leading'? | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries." They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! | |||
" I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now." You totally called it. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now. I don't know anything about them but they did rank the UK 7th in 'patient centred care'. The NHS was the best in the world though. " Most efficient, the second best overall. | |||
" I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now. You totally called it." They’re far too predictable. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data!" They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you  | |||
"Wasn’t it labour and Blair who started the privatisation of the NHS? No, no, no. That was "New Labour". Not related to the current Labour party at all. That's how business operates - a service is provided, and if the enterprise is efficient, a profit is made. Investors in the business take a risk with their capital, and again, in a good year receive a dividend in return. The business pays corporation tax, employee NI, VAT and tax on dividends. So where is the problem if a business can provide a service more efficiently and cost effectively than the state-run NHS? The problem is speculators and their government stooges have defunded the NHS to breaking point to make it look like privatisation is a more efficient system. It isn't. The problem is the ulyimate goal is a US-style HMO system where businesses get rich while people not wealthy enough to afford either coverage or treatment can be bankrupted by serious illness or just die because they can't afford care. There are some on here who will challenge that by pointing to places like Germany and say it won’t go the USA route. But that conveniently ignores who is behind the lobbying and neo-liberal “think tanks” that advocate wholesale privatisation of the NHS. You agree the ultimate goal is a US style system? The goal can be whatever we want it to be. We could stay with the principle of 'free at the point of need', but open up the provision to private providers. Why not? What business did the government ever run well? Remember steel, mines, ports, cars .... all an unmitigated disaster, rather like the NHS." Like the successful Hinchingbrooke Hospital?  | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you "Which sources? | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?"The WHO for one. | |||
"National Health SERVICE the clue is in the name. Not a business. Profit motive has no place in saving lives because the individual at risk has no choice other than live/die. All elective treatments etc, absolutely private only. Prevention of life threatening illness or treatment is for the benefit of society as well as the individual. So a service as part of our social fabric. Transactional medicine works perfectly well all over the world. Often far better than the NHS. As an ex-pat I've used insurance/fee based medicine many times. It's prompt, efficient and way above NHS levels of service. If you don't mind, without being too specific, could you tell us where, what it was for and how much it cost you? Without being specific, it was mostly in APAC region, at various times self-funded and through insurance, minor treatment and surgery. The point is, first-rate healthcare can be delivered by privately run organisations providing better medical treatment at lower cost than the NHS. The NHS is outdated, inefficient, bureaucratic and hugely expensive. It is squandering our taxes. How much did it cost you. How would that be relevant if you don't know the treatment, the aftercare, the follow-up etc? I could say £10 or £100,000, you couldn't draw any conclusions whatsoever. £10 is affordable to almost everyone, £10,000 isn’t. If you earn £100,000 a year then paying £10k out of pocket, although not ideal, is at least a comfortable consideration. If you earn £20,000 a year it’s out of the question. I suppose we are relying on you contributing in good faith, rather than trying to win an argument. Indeed, medicine is expensive, that's why a privately run NHS would require insurance - as indeed it does now. But why should we care if the NHS is privately run if we get guaranteed treatment? My hunch is because people dislike the notion of a company making a profit. But so what if they are efficient. Do we care that Amazon make a profit or Apple etc?" Like Hinchingbrooke Hospital? ECHO ECho echo | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one. "Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010? | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?"I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data. I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?' | |||
| |||
"Out of idle interest, who was the top ranked country that beat the NHS into second place" The Netherlands. | |||
"Out of idle interest, who was the top ranked country that beat the NHS into second place The Netherlands. " Thank you. I wonder if their is any change to the current system then their system could be adopted as opposed to the U.S. system that often gets mentioned | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
"So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago? Hold the front page! | |||
"Out of idle interest, who was the top ranked country that beat the NHS into second place The Netherlands. Thank you. I wonder if their is any change to the current system then their system could be adopted as opposed to the U.S. system that often gets mentioned" That isn’t what the people behind the people lobbying and advocating for privatisation want. Follow the money. Always follow the money. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!"No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'? The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report. It is also 14 year old data. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data. "Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient. You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth. I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual. Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of? | |||
" I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now. You totally called it. They’re far too predictable." I asked how this statement "the NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding" could be proved, not as a challenge but for more context. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?"Now it was just 'one of, if not' rather than 'the most'. You tell me to learn more but continue to quote the wrong dates etc. We could've actually avoided all of this if you hadn't been disingenuous in the first place. | |||
" I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now. You totally called it. They’re far too predictable. I asked how this statement "the NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding" could be proved, not as a challenge but for more context. " But based on your posting history NotMe it comes across as a challenge! | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?"What qualifies your understanding of the NHS to make it 100% correct? For example the claim that the NHS has been underfunded for 10 years, what factors are causing the underfunding, is it demand on resources rising or other elements? The underfunding is something I would like explore more. The position of best in the world for efficiency, how was that measured considering we have such a unique health service model? | |||
" I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now. You totally called it. They’re far too predictable. I asked how this statement "the NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding" could be proved, not as a challenge but for more context. But based on your posting history NotMe it comes across as a challenge!" That's the problem with people thinking they know context so rather than clarify go on either attack or defence. | |||
" I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now. You totally called it. They’re far too predictable. I asked how this statement "the NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding" could be proved, not as a challenge but for more context. But based on your posting history NotMe it comes across as a challenge!" If it came across as a challenge, does it warrant a them and us approach? Would it be easier to answer the question or to turn on those asking the question? | |||
| |||
"Shocked to see a couple of the users above trying to discredit a report, one trying to point of the data is old when the report was cited as indicating the NHS was more efficient in 2010. Are you guys trying to suggest that the NHS hasn't got worse in the last 14 years or just it might not have been the most efficient in the world? " No one is trying to discredit the report. I'm trying to ascertain who decided those 7 countries were the top 7. And pointing out the data was 2007, not 2010. BTw, the 2014 report is even better than the 2010 one. Furthermore, at no point have I said the NHS hasn't got worse in the last 10 years (you only choose 14 because that helps bash the Tories since day 1). I maintain its impossible to determine the worlds most efficient service for any given date. | |||
| |||
"The report was 2010." Yes it was, using 2007 data. I don't think trying to be factual = trying to discredit. | |||
"From care homes to cancer treatment, millions are being siphoned out of the system every year. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/13/uk-healthcare-private-equity-cancer-treatment-services" So if you need an MRI, would you turn it down if it was a machine the NHS was leasing and did not own. As the lease company is making money on the machines. Siphoning of money ?? | |||
"The report was 2010. Yes it was, using 2007 data. I don't think trying to be factual = trying to discredit. " The report was 2010, that's why I used 2010. Also I didn't choose the date a user above did, so why imply I did? | |||
| |||
| |||
"“Yeah but” is the modus operandi around here and increasingly so. AFAIK none of the regular posters here are experts in healthcare or polling/research studies. Yet everything is questioned or challenged if it doesn’t fit some aspect of their narrative. It is always prove it prove it prove it. Followed by tangential rabbit hole arguments about semantics, or the meaning of words, or methodology yadda yadda. Or else it is a barbed statement or provocative aside followed by, how do you know what I mean? Then despite this seemingly being the constantly repeated posting style, it is followed by a bit of butt hurt when called out or people react by thinking it is a gotcha or attack." A more eloquent way of what I was trying to point out.  | |||
| |||
"Shocked to see a couple of the users above trying to discredit a report, one trying to point of the data is old when the report was cited as indicating the NHS was more efficient in 2010. Are you guys trying to suggest that the NHS hasn't got worse in the last 14 years or just it might not have been the most efficient in the world? " I'm wondering how it is the most efficient, now or then. Looking at the figures for 2006 as this came up during my search, following the comment the NHS was the most efficient in the world. Back then seems no different to today in the fact that the NHS was not performing. I read the budget was doubled and there was still an overspend of over £500 million, that accounted for 15,000 job losses. There is a quote here that seems to indicate problems: "former deputy chief medical officer and now director of clinical governance for the NHS, Aidan Halligan, has embarrassed ministers by publicly criticising the leadership of those in charge. He branded the system “rudderless” and told the British Journal of Health Care Management that the NHS was suffering from a very serious “leadership void which has caused it to lose its way”. He accused the government of “deceit” by failing to see through any real reform while ploughing billions of pounds into the system. “We have learnt that throwing money at the problem only allows us to do more of what we have always done” I think this would warrant the question of how it was seen to be the most efficient in the world. It might be and other countries are falling down even bigger cracks, who knows? | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?"Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change. "And make up stories to try to prove a point hey? | |||
"Shocked to see a couple of the users above trying to discredit a report, one trying to point of the data is old when the report was cited as indicating the NHS was more efficient in 2010. Are you guys trying to suggest that the NHS hasn't got worse in the last 14 years or just it might not have been the most efficient in the world? I'm wondering how it is the most efficient, now or then. Looking at the figures for 2006 as this came up during my search, following the comment the NHS was the most efficient in the world. Back then seems no different to today in the fact that the NHS was not performing. I read the budget was doubled and there was still an overspend of over £500 million, that accounted for 15,000 job losses. There is a quote here that seems to indicate problems: "former deputy chief medical officer and now director of clinical governance for the NHS, Aidan Halligan, has embarrassed ministers by publicly criticising the leadership of those in charge. He branded the system “rudderless” and told the British Journal of Health Care Management that the NHS was suffering from a very serious “leadership void which has caused it to lose its way”. He accused the government of “deceit” by failing to see through any real reform while ploughing billions of pounds into the system. “We have learnt that throwing money at the problem only allows us to do more of what we have always done” I think this would warrant the question of how it was seen to be the most efficient in the world. It might be and other countries are falling down even bigger cracks, who knows?" Maybe look at the methodology from the original report? Are you seriously suggesting the NHS was in a similar state in 2006 or 2010 to now based on quotes? | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change.
And make up stories to try to prove a point hey?"LOL the ploy of denying inconvenient truths eh? Putin would be proud of you comrade | |||
"“Yeah but” is the modus operandi around here and increasingly so. AFAIK none of the regular posters here are experts in healthcare or polling/research studies. Yet everything is questioned or challenged if it doesn’t fit some aspect of their narrative. It is always prove it prove it prove it. Followed by tangential rabbit hole arguments about semantics, or the meaning of words, or methodology yadda yadda. Or else it is a barbed statement or provocative aside followed by, how do you know what I mean? Then despite this seemingly being the constantly repeated posting style, it is followed by a bit of butt hurt when called out or people react by thinking it is a gotcha or attack." Again why do posters have to be experts then? Are you? can you provide proof in triplicate LOL We are healthcare customers, that's enough to have an opinion. People are entitled to opinions that don't necessarily accord with yours. | |||
"Shocked to see a couple of the users above trying to discredit a report, one trying to point of the data is old when the report was cited as indicating the NHS was more efficient in 2010. Are you guys trying to suggest that the NHS hasn't got worse in the last 14 years or just it might not have been the most efficient in the world? I'm wondering how it is the most efficient, now or then. Looking at the figures for 2006 as this came up during my search, following the comment the NHS was the most efficient in the world. Back then seems no different to today in the fact that the NHS was not performing. I read the budget was doubled and there was still an overspend of over £500 million, that accounted for 15,000 job losses. There is a quote here that seems to indicate problems: "former deputy chief medical officer and now director of clinical governance for the NHS, Aidan Halligan, has embarrassed ministers by publicly criticising the leadership of those in charge. He branded the system “rudderless” and told the British Journal of Health Care Management that the NHS was suffering from a very serious “leadership void which has caused it to lose its way”. He accused the government of “deceit” by failing to see through any real reform while ploughing billions of pounds into the system. “We have learnt that throwing money at the problem only allows us to do more of what we have always done” I think this would warrant the question of how it was seen to be the most efficient in the world. It might be and other countries are falling down even bigger cracks, who knows? Maybe look at the methodology from the original report? Are you seriously suggesting the NHS was in a similar state in 2006 or 2010 to now based on quotes? " I did provide some figures too, that paint a picture of high wastage / inefficiencies. I have also said more than once I'm questioning the NHS being the most efficient healthcare service in the world in 2010, how was it? For clarity, not comparing it to then and now. On the methodology of the original report, a lot of weighting seems to be towards superior IT systems in the UK, which as we know cost billions but didn't deliver, again more questions than answers on that one. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change.
And make up stories to try to prove a point hey?
LOL the ploy of denying inconvenient truths eh? Putin would be proud of you comrade "Nice try but you lost all credibility when you made up a story about overseas treatment and failed to provide answers to questions. It’s ok though, we all make ourselves look silly at times | |||
"“Yeah but” is the modus operandi around here and increasingly so. AFAIK none of the regular posters here are experts in healthcare or polling/research studies. Yet everything is questioned or challenged if it doesn’t fit some aspect of their narrative. It is always prove it prove it prove it. Followed by tangential rabbit hole arguments about semantics, or the meaning of words, or methodology yadda yadda. Or else it is a barbed statement or provocative aside followed by, how do you know what I mean? Then despite this seemingly being the constantly repeated posting style, it is followed by a bit of butt hurt when called out or people react by thinking it is a gotcha or attack. Again why do posters have to be experts then? Are you? can you provide proof in triplicate LOL We are healthcare customers, that's enough to have an opinion. People are entitled to opinions that don't necessarily accord with yours." Nothing wrong with opinions but re-read what I actually wrote. Comprehension skills are another area of failing public services via schools clearly! | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change.
And make up stories to try to prove a point hey?
LOL the ploy of denying inconvenient truths eh? Putin would be proud of you comrade
Nice try but you lost all credibility when you made up a story about overseas treatment and failed to provide answers to questions. It’s ok though, we all make ourselves look silly at times "No made-up story, but I'm not falling for the endless 'supply more proof' ploy. But you're dead right about pompous, self-righteous post that make you look silly. Oh dear! | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change.
And make up stories to try to prove a point hey?
LOL the ploy of denying inconvenient truths eh? Putin would be proud of you comrade
Nice try but you lost all credibility when you made up a story about overseas treatment and failed to provide answers to questions. It’s ok though, we all make ourselves look silly at times
No made-up story, but I'm not falling for the endless 'supply more proof' ploy. But you're dead right about pompous, self-righteous post that make you look silly. Oh dear!"Triggered much lol! Poster A - I have had medical treatment overseas paid for by insurance and myself and it was better than NHS Poster B - How much did it cost you? Poster A - no answer Poster B - Was this all covered by insurance? Pre-existing condition? How much has the insurance cost you up to that point? Does tje insurance cover any ongoing rehabilitation or medicines etc? Poster A - no answer LMAO | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change.
And make up stories to try to prove a point hey?
LOL the ploy of denying inconvenient truths eh? Putin would be proud of you comrade
Nice try but you lost all credibility when you made up a story about overseas treatment and failed to provide answers to questions. It’s ok though, we all make ourselves look silly at times
No made-up story, but I'm not falling for the endless 'supply more proof' ploy. But you're dead right about pompous, self-righteous post that make you look silly. Oh dear!
Triggered much lol!
Poster A - I have had medical treatment overseas paid for by insurance and myself and it was better than NHS
Poster B - How much did it cost you?
Poster A - no answer
Poster B - Was this all covered by insurance? Pre-existing condition? How much has the insurance cost you up to that point? Does tje insurance cover any ongoing rehabilitation or medicines etc?
Poster A - no answer
LMAO "Look only a fool would share personal medical and financial information with random people on a Swingers Forum. It's kinda creepy to ask and persist imho. But there you go, takes all sorts I guess | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change.
And make up stories to try to prove a point hey?
LOL the ploy of denying inconvenient truths eh? Putin would be proud of you comrade
Nice try but you lost all credibility when you made up a story about overseas treatment and failed to provide answers to questions. It’s ok though, we all make ourselves look silly at times
No made-up story, but I'm not falling for the endless 'supply more proof' ploy. But you're dead right about pompous, self-righteous post that make you look silly. Oh dear!
Triggered much lol!
Poster A - I have had medical treatment overseas paid for by insurance and myself and it was better than NHS
Poster B - How much did it cost you?
Poster A - no answer
Poster B - Was this all covered by insurance? Pre-existing condition? How much has the insurance cost you up to that point? Does tje insurance cover any ongoing rehabilitation or medicines etc?
Poster A - no answer
LMAO
Look only a fool would share personal medical and financial information with random people on a Swingers Forum. It's kinda creepy to ask and persist imho. But there you go, takes all sorts I guess"You made it up didn’t you!!! Lol I have had medical treatment on the NHS and abroad. The NHS was better. Now is that statement any more true than yours? It’s like you saying “I bought a car and it was better than the other car” and asked “what car and how much did you pay” and you refusing to answer because the reality is you bought an Aston Martin and are comparing it to a Ford but cannot say that as it completely torpedoes your point! | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
What qualifies your understanding of the NHS to make it 100% correct?
For example the claim that the NHS has been underfunded for 10 years, what factors are causing the underfunding, is it demand on resources rising or other elements?
The underfunding is something I would like explore more.
The position of best in the world for efficiency, how was that measured considering we have such a unique health service model?"Unique, are you sure? | |||
" I fully expect to be told the Commonwealth Fund aren’t credible any moment now. You totally called it. They’re far too predictable. I asked how this statement "the NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding" could be proved, not as a challenge but for more context. But based on your posting history NotMe it comes across as a challenge! That's the problem with people thinking they know context so rather than clarify go on either attack or defence. " Or ramble? | |||
"“Yeah but” is the modus operandi around here and increasingly so. AFAIK none of the regular posters here are experts in healthcare or polling/research studies. Yet everything is questioned or challenged if it doesn’t fit some aspect of their narrative. It is always prove it prove it prove it. Followed by tangential rabbit hole arguments about semantics, or the meaning of words, or methodology yadda yadda. Or else it is a barbed statement or provocative aside followed by, how do you know what I mean? Then despite this seemingly being the constantly repeated posting style, it is followed by a bit of butt hurt when called out or people react by thinking it is a gotcha or attack." Who says there are no experts?  | |||
"Shocked to see a couple of the users above trying to discredit a report, one trying to point of the data is old when the report was cited as indicating the NHS was more efficient in 2010. Are you guys trying to suggest that the NHS hasn't got worse in the last 14 years or just it might not have been the most efficient in the world? I'm wondering how it is the most efficient, now or then. Looking at the figures for 2006 as this came up during my search, following the comment the NHS was the most efficient in the world. Back then seems no different to today in the fact that the NHS was not performing. I read the budget was doubled and there was still an overspend of over £500 million, that accounted for 15,000 job losses. There is a quote here that seems to indicate problems: "former deputy chief medical officer and now director of clinical governance for the NHS, Aidan Halligan, has embarrassed ministers by publicly criticising the leadership of those in charge. He branded the system “rudderless” and told the British Journal of Health Care Management that the NHS was suffering from a very serious “leadership void which has caused it to lose its way”. He accused the government of “deceit” by failing to see through any real reform while ploughing billions of pounds into the system. “We have learnt that throwing money at the problem only allows us to do more of what we have always done” I think this would warrant the question of how it was seen to be the most efficient in the world. It might be and other countries are falling down even bigger cracks, who knows? Maybe look at the methodology from the original report? Are you seriously suggesting the NHS was in a similar state in 2006 or 2010 to now based on quotes? I did provide some figures too, that paint a picture of high wastage / inefficiencies. I have also said more than once I'm questioning the NHS being the most efficient healthcare service in the world in 2010, how was it? For clarity, not comparing it to then and now. On the methodology of the original report, a lot of weighting seems to be towards superior IT systems in the UK, which as we know cost billions but didn't deliver, again more questions than answers on that one. " You didn't answer the question though, Do you think the NHS is in a similar state today compared to 2006 or 2010? | |||
"Shocked to see a couple of the users above trying to discredit a report, one trying to point of the data is old when the report was cited as indicating the NHS was more efficient in 2010. Are you guys trying to suggest that the NHS hasn't got worse in the last 14 years or just it might not have been the most efficient in the world? I'm wondering how it is the most efficient, now or then. Looking at the figures for 2006 as this came up during my search, following the comment the NHS was the most efficient in the world. Back then seems no different to today in the fact that the NHS was not performing. I read the budget was doubled and there was still an overspend of over £500 million, that accounted for 15,000 job losses. There is a quote here that seems to indicate problems: "former deputy chief medical officer and now director of clinical governance for the NHS, Aidan Halligan, has embarrassed ministers by publicly criticising the leadership of those in charge. He branded the system “rudderless” and told the British Journal of Health Care Management that the NHS was suffering from a very serious “leadership void which has caused it to lose its way”. He accused the government of “deceit” by failing to see through any real reform while ploughing billions of pounds into the system. “We have learnt that throwing money at the problem only allows us to do more of what we have always done” I think this would warrant the question of how it was seen to be the most efficient in the world. It might be and other countries are falling down even bigger cracks, who knows? Maybe look at the methodology from the original report? Are you seriously suggesting the NHS was in a similar state in 2006 or 2010 to now based on quotes? I did provide some figures too, that paint a picture of high wastage / inefficiencies. I have also said more than once I'm questioning the NHS being the most efficient healthcare service in the world in 2010, how was it? For clarity, not comparing it to then and now. On the methodology of the original report, a lot of weighting seems to be towards superior IT systems in the UK, which as we know cost billions but didn't deliver, again more questions than answers on that one. " Hester! | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
What qualifies your understanding of the NHS to make it 100% correct?
For example the claim that the NHS has been underfunded for 10 years, what factors are causing the underfunding, is it demand on resources rising or other elements?
The underfunding is something I would like explore more.
The position of best in the world for efficiency, how was that measured considering we have such a unique health service model?"I worked in both private healthcare and the NHS for over 20 years, operationally and strategically. The factors causing the underfunding are numerous but the basics are that the population is getting older, demand is increasing, new treatments are more expensive, and general inflation. People are living longer but they are not living in good health for longer, so we are spending a lot more money keeping people alive in ill health than we used to. Funding has not kept up with the cost of providing the service. There is a school of thought that this makes the NHS unsustainable, when actually the current amount of funding shouldn’t be too far away from what it needs to be. However, due to a decade or more of underfunding the NHS is playing catch up. You cannot make up for the decade of underfunding AND provide an efficient, effective service it the same time. Research shows that for every £1 extra spent on primary and community care it results in an extra £14 economic activity in that area. For every extra £1 spent on acute services it is £10. The healthier people are the more economically active they are. | |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
Why does anybody need to learn more about the NHS? We are all customers and can judge service levels for ourselves. If healthcare provision is piss-poor it needs calling out or nothing will change.
And make up stories to try to prove a point hey?
LOL the ploy of denying inconvenient truths eh? Putin would be proud of you comrade
Nice try but you lost all credibility when you made up a story about overseas treatment and failed to provide answers to questions. It’s ok though, we all make ourselves look silly at times
No made-up story, but I'm not falling for the endless 'supply more proof' ploy. But you're dead right about pompous, self-righteous post that make you look silly. Oh dear!
Triggered much lol!
Poster A - I have had medical treatment overseas paid for by insurance and myself and it was better than NHS
Poster B - How much did it cost you?
Poster A - no answer
Poster B - Was this all covered by insurance? Pre-existing condition? How much has the insurance cost you up to that point? Does tje insurance cover any ongoing rehabilitation or medicines etc?
Poster A - no answer
LMAO "In 2019 I was extremely ill. Had foreign care which saved my life. E111 "paid" for the care and a plethora of investigations. Repatriated by my cheap holiday insurance at a cost of around £3000. Local hospital: no MRI, no LP, irrelevant blood tests, university hospital neurology consultants from foreign country ignored, treated for something already ruled out, - sent home alone, when I couldn't walk, talk, see properly and had no capacity. Until that day I was an ardent NHS advocate. I'll do a Hester. Some of the decision makers in my case (doctors) should be shot. | |||
"The report was 2010. Yes it was, using 2007 data. I don't think trying to be factual = trying to discredit. " Some of it was 2007 data, that’s how analysing data works when comparing with other systems. You have to use the last available data available for all the systems. So some was from 2007, some 2008 etc. | |||
"Out of idle interest, who was the top ranked country that beat the NHS into second place The Netherlands. Thank you. I wonder if their is any change to the current system then their system could be adopted as opposed to the U.S. system that often gets mentioned That isn’t what the people behind the people lobbying and advocating for privatisation want. Follow the money. Always follow the money. " My question was from just being inquisitive as to which was the top ranked. Clearly not all private or part private health care systems are bad as the Netherlands was better than the NHS when the NHS was reportedly at its best. I get people don't want an American system and get that there are certain people in power that do want it, but are people here in favour of a Netherlands style system or is it a case of no insurance based system at all regardless | |||
| |||
"What we all do know is the NHS certainly isn't efficient. A removal of all elective services and back to basics is the only way to fix it. Throwing money isn't going to help. Agreed The NHS was the most efficient health service in the world before more than a decade of underfunding. How can you prove that? The Commonwealth Fund ranked it as the most efficient in 2010. What! No but wait, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove it! Can't be done, they said! Are you a witch? Did the commonwealth fund look at every country in the world? Or just 7 countries? They look at the 7 leading countries. They didn't include Burkina-Faso? Throw out the data! They didn't include 8 of the top 10 according to other sources. Didn't you moan about someone exaggerating? Not very good at following your own rules are you
Which sources?
The WHO for one.
Who were the WHO’s top 10 healthcare systems in 2010?
I should've been clearer, according to sources today. BTW, that 2010 report was using 3 year old data.
I'm still waiting for 'who decides those countries are the 'leaders'?'
So what you’re saying is that the top 10 today is different to the top 10 14 years ago?
Hold the front page!
No. I'm saying 'who says they were the top 7'?
The commonwealth fund only say the study is between 7 industrialised nations. It makes no mention of them being the top 7. It also interesting that the commonwealth fund now seperate "administrative efficiency" and "timeliness of care". Things which they didn't do in there 2010 report.
It is also 14 year old data.
Yes, that was the point I was making. In 2010 the NHS was one of, if not the most efficient health service in the world. Now, after over a decade of underfunding, it isn’t very efficient.
You can split hairs all you like about the Commonwealth Fund’s methodology but you just make yourself look woefully out of your depth.
I’m not sure why you seem to think having administrative efficiency and timeliness of care as criteria now, when they weren’t 14 years ago is some kind of gotcha, methodologies develop over time, it’s not unusual.
Perhaps you should either learn more about the NHS, or stick to talking about things you have knowledge of?
What qualifies your understanding of the NHS to make it 100% correct?
For example the claim that the NHS has been underfunded for 10 years, what factors are causing the underfunding, is it demand on resources rising or other elements?
The underfunding is something I would like explore more.
The position of best in the world for efficiency, how was that measured considering we have such a unique health service model?
I worked in both private healthcare and the NHS for over 20 years, operationally and strategically. The factors causing the underfunding are numerous but the basics are that the population is getting older, demand is increasing, new treatments are more expensive, and general inflation.
People are living longer but they are not living in good health for longer, so we are spending a lot more money keeping people alive in ill health than we used to. Funding has not kept up with the cost of providing the service. There is a school of thought that this makes the NHS unsustainable, when actually the current amount of funding shouldn’t be too far away from what it needs to be. However, due to a decade or more of underfunding the NHS is playing catch up. You cannot make up for the decade of underfunding AND provide an efficient, effective service it the same time.
Research shows that for every £1 extra spent on primary and community care it results in an extra £14 economic activity in that area. For every extra £1 spent on acute services it is £10.
The healthier people are the more economically active they are."That makes a lot more sense
What you are saying is what I thought the situation was and why I believe tax incentives to encourage those who can afford private healthcare are needed to lessen the usage on the over subscribed NHS.
| |||
"From care homes to cancer treatment, millions are being siphoned out of the system every year. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/13/uk-healthcare-private-equity-cancer-treatment-services Ah the old "anti big pharma" again. Without shareholders there would be no "big pharma" Without "big pharma" there would be no cancer treatments If you have a private pension then you benefit directly from these "profits" If you get any sort of welfare benefits you gain from these profits through taxation. "Syphoned" lol " Nobody said that leftist ideogology and economic literacy have to go hand-in-hand. If it did, the NHS wouldn’t be a religious belief to some. | |||
