Money is clearly the big issue. It’s been underfunded for a long time, so will need more to catch up.
Anything else is almost just fiddling round the edges, or worse, an excuse to sell it to Tory’s funders. Other European more private systems are just a bait and switch because it’s US companies who’ll come in.
Other European more private systems are just a bait and switch because it’s US companies who’ll come in.
I don’t have anything against US companies on principle. I think it’s sad that the bogeyman argument is used when talking about the NHS like this. As in, “if we allow US healthcare companies to participate then the NHS will die”.
Whilst we’re talking about principles, free at the point of use is the NHS principle. So as long as it’s free at the point of use I don’t actually mind if it’s US, UK, European, Japanese, Indian, South African, or any other country’s company providing the care. I also don’t mind if our funding model changes to address this like European countries.
The NHS is built on strong principles and regulations, but that’s doesn’t mean it can never change or be flexible. That’s kinda the point of principles… they’re robust enough to apply to many situations.
Free at the point of use.
Strong regulations on export of data whilst utilising vast amounts of anonymous data to increase healthcare outcomes.
Strong regulations on healthcare standards.
Strong regulations on overall costs leveraging large economies of scale.
Can we do that and move towards a more French German model? That’s what I’d love to hear a debate on without people being shouted down as US healthcare apologists. Nobody wants the US healthcare system, not even the Yanks.
All of this won’t fix things (and may well make it worse). What is needed more that anything else is more money. And because it been starved for a decade, a lot more money.
The NHS is not the only thing that was false-economy cut. Lots of services got cut and the result where people ended up, in a worse state, falling into the NHS.
One thing that would help the NHS is to restore those other services, and deal with people before things get so bad it’s their health failing when the state helps them. Spent money on mental health and other care services to take load off the NHS.
Wealthy people and corporations are the subset of the population that are most able to hide their income. You’ll end up pissing off middle and low income earners and businesses this way.
Again, how do France and Germany have better health outcomes by their systems? I’m genuinely curious.
I’m not disagreeing. What I’m saying is why can’t the NHS be funded using a similar model as France or Germany? You know, in order to get more money into it. I want to hear ideas about that.
Both countries have a better equality score than us. If we were more equal, tax vs insurance might be more a academic. We are the most unequal in Europe and the rich see a insurance health system as an way to pay less. No, no and no.
Money is clearly the big issue. It’s been underfunded for a long time, so will need more to catch up.
Anything else is almost just fiddling round the edges, or worse, an excuse to sell it to Tory’s funders. Other European more private systems are just a bait and switch because it’s US companies who’ll come in.
I don’t have anything against US companies on principle. I think it’s sad that the bogeyman argument is used when talking about the NHS like this. As in, “if we allow US healthcare companies to participate then the NHS will die”.
Whilst we’re talking about principles, free at the point of use is the NHS principle. So as long as it’s free at the point of use I don’t actually mind if it’s US, UK, European, Japanese, Indian, South African, or any other country’s company providing the care. I also don’t mind if our funding model changes to address this like European countries.
The NHS is built on strong principles and regulations, but that’s doesn’t mean it can never change or be flexible. That’s kinda the point of principles… they’re robust enough to apply to many situations.
Can we do that and move towards a more French German model? That’s what I’d love to hear a debate on without people being shouted down as US healthcare apologists. Nobody wants the US healthcare system, not even the Yanks.
All of this won’t fix things (and may well make it worse). What is needed more that anything else is more money. And because it been starved for a decade, a lot more money.
The NHS is not the only thing that was false-economy cut. Lots of services got cut and the result where people ended up, in a worse state, falling into the NHS.
One thing that would help the NHS is to restore those other services, and deal with people before things get so bad it’s their health failing when the state helps them. Spent money on mental health and other care services to take load off the NHS.
I hear you. It needs more money. Great. But how? Maybe it’s time to rethink how we raise funds for the NHS?
Tax wealthy people and corporations more. There is a lot of wealth untapped and obscene levels of wealth.
Wealthy people and corporations are the subset of the population that are most able to hide their income. You’ll end up pissing off middle and low income earners and businesses this way.
Again, how do France and Germany have better health outcomes by their systems? I’m genuinely curious.
We have established this already. More money for a long time.
I’m not disagreeing. What I’m saying is why can’t the NHS be funded using a similar model as France or Germany? You know, in order to get more money into it. I want to hear ideas about that.
Both countries have a better equality score than us. If we were more equal, tax vs insurance might be more a academic. We are the most unequal in Europe and the rich see a insurance health system as an way to pay less. No, no and no.