Protect the NHS, part 2. Reduce avoidable hospital admissions.

Status
Not open for further replies.

classic33

Legendary Member
I think there has to be a reasonable threshold of NHS use. If you fall off your bike and end up in hospital once in a blue moon, I don't see it as a problem. If you are doing the same thing two or three times a year, then I reckon there's a good argument for saying you should pay more into the NHS because you are costing it a lot of money to keep fixing you up. It's no difference to car insurance; people who keep crashing and claiming pay higher premiums than those who don't. People who make very little use of the NHS should get a rebate on their NI contributions, those who lead unhealthy lifestyles or who keep injuring themselves playing sports should pay extra for the workload they create.
£70 a night on booze isn't what I call a healthy lifestyle. And I doubt the private sector would be willing to take the workload.
 

Cymro74

Regular
Going back to the name of the thread, it is not my responsibility to 'protect the NHS' - surely the dumbest slogan of the year especially as the NHS gave up treating many treatable health conditions in March. I have no emotional attachment to any public body as they are simply methods of providing a service (even if we have given them a monopoly with the inevitable problems that then arise). I also have no respect for an organisation which can remove everyone's liberty and basic human contact without any cost-benefit evidence.

Why not protect DVLA, protect Anglesey County Council, or protect British Potato Council. Why deify one body which has a history of awful delivery and has proven it cannot be trusted to manage public money.
Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much. Abandon the NHS regime and health services will continue with new providers but without politicising the sector. The NHS has all the facets of a religion, which is dangerous as it prevents us moving on. The same thing happened with telexoms, electric, coal, steel, etc with fanatics preventing change in principle - tidy nobody cares less who delivers the service. Most people see that the dead hand of the public sector cannot deliver essential services, and their role should be limited to regulating better service providers.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much.
You should probably learn about the origins of the NHS in the mutual aid societies before criticising it from a base of ignorance.

Factchecking hospital ownership in other countries may surprise you: even in the supposedly-capitalist USA, the federal government still has to own about 200 hospitals to complete coverage, while even in very-much-not-Marxist Spain, government and charities own two-thirds of hospitals. In what countries does government provide no hospitals?
 

DCBassman

Going up hills, very slowly...
Going back to the name of the thread, it is not my responsibility to 'protect the NHS' - surely the dumbest slogan of the year especially as the NHS gave up treating many treatable health conditions in March. I have no emotional attachment to any public body as they are simply methods of providing a service (even if we have given them a monopoly with the inevitable problems that then arise). I also have no respect for an organisation which can remove everyone's liberty and basic human contact without any cost-benefit evidence.

Why not protect DVLA, protect Anglesey County Council, or protect British Potato Council. Why deify one body which has a history of awful delivery and has proven it cannot be trusted to manage public money.
Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much. Abandon the NHS regime and health services will continue with new providers but without politicising the sector. The NHS has all the facets of a religion, which is dangerous as it prevents us moving on. The same thing happened with telexoms, electric, coal, steel, etc with fanatics preventing change in principle - tidy nobody cares less who delivers the service. Most people see that the dead hand of the public sector cannot deliver essential services, and their role should be limited to regulating better service providers.
And you fondly imagine insurance-based, profit-seeking enterprise will cover what the NHS does? Fantasy. It will not. In fact, it cannot, the business model cannot work. So you end up with a large slice of the population with no medical cover, being bankrupted by illness.
Healthcare is a human right in the modern world.
 
Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much.
All EU countries have to provide a reasonable level of affordable healthcare for their citizens; they may not all have the same specific system but they all have one.
 

boydj

Guru
Location
Paisley
Going back to the name of the thread, it is not my responsibility to 'protect the NHS' - surely the dumbest slogan of the year especially as the NHS gave up treating many treatable health conditions in March. I have no emotional attachment to any public body as they are simply methods of providing a service (even if we have given them a monopoly with the inevitable problems that then arise). I also have no respect for an organisation which can remove everyone's liberty and basic human contact without any cost-benefit evidence.

Why not protect DVLA, protect Anglesey County Council, or protect British Potato Council. Why deify one body which has a history of awful delivery and has proven it cannot be trusted to manage public money.
Outside of Soviet/Marxist regimes most countries see no need to nationalise hospitals and medicine. And they existed in Britain too before our brief flirtation with Marx nationalised and destroyed so much. Abandon the NHS regime and health services will continue with new providers but without politicising the sector. The NHS has all the facets of a religion, which is dangerous as it prevents us moving on. The same thing happened with telexoms, electric, coal, steel, etc with fanatics preventing change in principle - tidy nobody cares less who delivers the service. Most people see that the dead hand of the public sector cannot deliver essential services, and their role should be limited to regulating better service providers.
So you would be happy to pay through insurance or other means as much as we already pay through tax for the NHS, then provide a considerable sum on top of that to provide profits to nameless conglomerates? In the UK we have a service where just about everybody gets the treatment they need, as and when they need it. Covid may have disrupted that somewhat, but my experience over the last two months refutes your argument totally - several hospital visits after a doctor visit, initial consultation, MRI scan, bone scan, CT scan, with a consultant visit to agree a treatment plan to come this week. I could not have asked for more and I've certainly had my money's worth. In your vision we end up like the states where the poor and disadvantaged have a much lower level of access to health services, and you had better not have an ongoing condition like diabetes unless you have a pile of money to pay for insulin and the testing equipment you need to stay healthy.
 

boydj

Guru
Location
Paisley
Whilst I certainly wouldn't hold up the US system as an example (as it's about twice as expensive on percentage of GDP than European models), the British NHS is a complete mess and it really doesn't work very well at all. It's massively bureaucratic, poorly run, and extremely wasteful.
One of the biggest problems is the system gives people no incentive to stay fit and healthy. It's regarded as a free service and as a result is misused by all sorts of timewasters who really need a kick up the arse, not health treatment.
The funding model should be through individually rated public health contributions, not a flat rate on general taxation. The people that don't smoke, don't end up in the casualty dept pissed out of their minds or drugged up on a Friday night, and who maintain a sensible weight, should get a discounted level of contributions. All the idiots who clog up the system due to their behaviour should pay extra. Give everyone an annual health check at the doctors, and set their contribution level for the following year based on how healthy they are. People would soon take the NHS more seriously if the ones who create the burden had to pay twice as much NI contributions than those who take better care of themselves.
But the bulk of the people who need the service most are those who can least afford it.
 

Kingfisher101

Active Member
So you would be happy to pay through insurance or other means as much as we already pay through tax for the NHS, then provide a considerable sum on top of that to provide profits to nameless conglomerates? In the UK we have a service where just about everybody gets the treatment they need, as and when they need it. Covid may have disrupted that somewhat, but my experience over the last two months refutes your argument totally - several hospital visits after a doctor visit, initial consultation, MRI scan, bone scan, CT scan, with a consultant visit to agree a treatment plan to come this week. I could not have asked for more and I've certainly had my money's worth. In your vision we end up like the states where the poor and disadvantaged have a much lower level of access to health services, and you had better not have an ongoing condition like diabetes unless you have a pile of money to pay for insulin and the testing equipment you need to stay healthy.
They dont at all, have you just made that up off the top of your head? Thousands of people here in the U.K die every year because they dont get the treatment on the NHS they need. The NHS pays out millions per year to families who have sued it due to medical negligence as well.
 

SkipdiverJohn

Veteran
Location
London
In your vision we end up like the states where the poor and disadvantaged have a much lower level of access to health services, and you had better not have an ongoing condition like diabetes unless you have a pile of money to pay for insulin and the testing equipment you need to stay healthy.
I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.
 

classic33

Legendary Member
I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.
You extend this viewpoint to those who go out drinking as well, I take it.

I"ve seen the results of alcohol in many A&E's over the years. Along with the abuse thrown, sometimes literally, in the direction of those trying to help them.

I also count the effects of long term use abuse in this question.

Type two can be hereditary
https://wa.kaiserpermanente.org/hea...lthAndWellness/conditions/diabetes/type2.html

I'm living with epilepsy, no other family member, going back as far grand parents and their families, on both sides have ever suffered/lived with it. Does that mean it's not hereditary by your definition?
 
Last edited:

Kingfisher101

Active Member
I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.
Plenty of people get type 2 diabetes who are not even overweight. It can have a genetic component as well. Its not all down to diet and lifestyle. My Grandfather had it and he was very slim and fit.
 

DRHysted

Veteran
Location
New Forest
I simply don't see it as the Taxpayer's responsibility to provide unlimited free services to people who have medical problems entirely due to their own lazy, unhealthy, or dangerous lifestyles. If you choose to live a certain way, and that drastically increases your need for medical treatment, then you should be stumping up the extra cash yourself, not everyone else giving you a free ride.
With regards to specific conditions, the way I look at it is simple; if it's hereditary (like Type 1 diabetes) then you should be covered 100%, but if you suffer a condition because you're grossly obese and abuse your body (i.e. Type 2 diabetes) then that's your problem to deal with, not my responsibility to subsidise.
Using this logic it isn’t my responsibility to pay for other people’s children’s education as I have chosen not to have any myself. This comes across as a very selfish viewpoint.
 

Landsurfer

Über Member
And as i write my wife is quietly sobbing in her sleep again.
Two essential operations due in February and March have disappeared .... along with the pain management clinic that helped her through each day.
Operations for spinal nerve block and a hip replacement have disappeared over the horizon ...
I'll make her a coffee and assemble her pile of pain killers and nerve relaxants and help her to the toilet before i go to work and she gets the children up and ready for school.
What NHS ............. And don't crack on about covid, empty hospital after empty hospital ... ward after ward .. empty .....been there seen it.
The nurse on the steps of Truro Cathedral summed it up well .....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom