16 2 mins 9 yrs

Any wonder that the ONLY world the NHS is the envy of is Pluto?

The picture Sarah Fleming took of her husband Stewart is one that will haunt her for ever. Taken on her mobile phone, it shows him sitting in a hospital cubicle, a hand clutching his stomach, his face a vivid reflection of the agony he was in, as he waited to be seen by doctors. Tragically, that picture is a heartrending reminder of the circumstances leading up to the railway signalman’s death. It is also a vivid illustration of the turmoil unfolding in overstretched hospital emergency departments.

For the father-of-two, 37, from Rainham, in Kent, had to endure a six–hour wait to see a doctor in A&E at Gillingham’s Medway Maritime Hospital. He had a letter from his GP asking him to be admitted immediately.

Sadly, the universal inefficiency that pervades the NHS  led to the premature death of the poor man, just one more victim of socialised medicine where no matter HOW much money we throw at it,  it’s NEVER enough!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

16 thoughts on “NHS KILLING FIELDS…

  1. David, EP

    Which country’s system would you see as a better model than the UK / NHS model?

  2. no matter HOW much money we throw at it, it’s NEVER enough!

    You’re not spending too much on healthcare. You’re hardly spending anything.

    The other countries spend appropriately and they have better services for it. Except for the US, which really does have a cost problem.

    Per Capita total private and public spending on health care

    France $4021
    Germany $4332
    United Kingdom $3480
    Canada $4404
    Switzerland $5394
    USA $8362

    You spend 20% less than the Germans spend and then you wonder why the system has problems. Though nothing justifies some of the bad NHS performance from these articles.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

  3. Phantom,

    There are stats and then there are statistics. We may well only spend a measly $3480 per head of population, simply because only a substantially smaller number than the actual population actually contribute to the ‘cost’, thereby reducing the actual income total ‘per capita’.

    It is not for nothing that we are called the ‘world health service’, and we have a very substantial number of ‘health migrants’, who rarely, if ever contribute to the cost of care, all a part of the welfare migrant scenario.

    One of the original promises made when the NHS was formed was that ‘all would contribute’, and ‘treatment would be free at the point of delivery’. All gibberish of course. How can you expect the unemployed to contribute anything, – but that is a topic for another discussion.

    That the NHS has been so poorly managed since its inception is more down to political dogma and infighting between political factions than any lack of competence and vocation among those on the front line.

    Abuse and misuse, as well as gross mismanagement of facilities for all manner of reasons has reduced what was once a truly wonderful humanitarian experment to a level where complete failure seems inevitable.

    If any proof were needed that ‘one size does not fit all’ the NHS is it. It is a service, where truly life-saving decisions are made on an individual hourly basis, not a conveyor belt where ‘cost per item’ are the governing ehos.

  4. //We may well only spend a measly $3480 per head of population, simply because only a substantially smaller number than the actual population actually contribute //

    Ernest, I think Phantom’s figures include all payments into health care – in Britain’s case contributions to private HC, contributions to NHS and government spending.

    It seems not so much is being spent on HC in the UK, irrespective of who is doing the paying.

    A related stat shows the UK govt spending 7.9 pc of GDP on HC, the same as the US govt; the German pays 8.6 pc and the French 9.0 pc. Seems to tie in with Phantom’s figures.

  5. If the private / public system in the UK is starved for revenue ( regardless of the reason- I would not have knowledge on the fairness of who pays now into it. ) then that’s a part of your problem. I only point this out since David made a comment about ” throwing money at ” the NHS. But that’s -not- what has been doing – its more that resources have been withheld from it.

    So what other country’s system would come closest to your idea of what the UK should move towards?

    From what I’ve heard,the Swiss system is very good, and the Americans I know who have lived in France or Switzerland have no complaints

  6. The NHS budget has tripled since 1990, from £46billion to £122billion today.

    That’s having money thrown at it, and there’s no way the NHS is three times the better service today. Probably it’s no better at all.

  7. In all the months and years of complaints about the NHS here, has anyone produced mortality comparisons etc between the UK / other countries or NHS / other systems?

    Wouldn’t you need to have data like this in order to speak to this issue?

  8. Wouldn’t you need to have data like this in order to speak to this issue?

    You must be new here.

  9. 🙂

    It’s being mad at the guy who sold you the $12,000 car because it doesn’t perform as well as the $40,000 car.

  10. More like complaining when a 12K motor doesn’t perform like a 14K motor, even though it should.

    In the meantime, Singaporeans are riding around in the best motor and it cost them 5K.

  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore

    Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls. Singapore’s system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalized health insurance plan known as Medisave.

  12. Ever since the Tories put the GP’s in charge of the cash the service has got worse. Surgeries open only for 5 days a week, 4 or 5 days to get an appointment to see a doctor who may or may not know your name, let alone speak the same language, no ‘out-of-hours’ service and this is the kind of service they provide for £100,000 p.a. plus per GP. Meanwhile temp doctors receive in excess of £1,000 per shift to fill the gaps – so it really cannot just be about the amount spent on the service that is the problem

    As for that amount spent on it – much of the spend on infrastructure is what is known colloquially as ‘off the books’, – a system inaugerated by Blair to give the impression that the NHS was being managed competently, while ensuring that future goverments faced mounting debts for lease-backs and the like.

    Given the amount of cash spent of prescriptions alone would suggest that the ‘stats’ on spending are erroneous.

    I would point out that if we didn’t have such an expensive ‘defence’ commitment to the UN and NATO, we might not need to make so many excuses for any supposed ‘lack of spending on health’, a commitment that those other countries you mention don’t share to quite the same extent as the UK.

    Meanwhile I stand by my earlier diagnosis of poor performance – bad management, abuse of usage by patients and political interference, – which includes the ‘burnt village’ style of retreat by ‘nu-liebor’ when they knew they would lose power.

    A system closer to and more befitting a refugee camp and closer to complete failure than any politician will admit,

  13. Most of us are very open to the type of approaches taken by Singapore and Switzerland.

    But -every- advanced country with a good system has compulsory, regulated coverage. Because there’s no other way to have a decent system.

Comments are closed.