Rethinking the NHS: An Examination of Systemic Challenges

Dee

You just know its a Zeus type topic as usual would cure insomnia for most .........

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

Rethinking the NHS: An Examination of Systemic Challenges

The National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom, established with the intent of providing universal healthcare, is often praised for its principle of delivering free healthcare at the point of use. However, beneath this façade, the NHS is struggle with systemic challenges that significantly impair its effectiveness and efficiency. This topic aims to scrutinize these challenges, shedding light on why the NHS, in its current state, struggles to be a robust healthcare system.

Underfunding and Resource Constraints: One of the most critical issues plaguing the NHS is chronic underfunding. Despite being funded through National Insurance and general taxation, the NHS consistently faces a deficit of resources. This shortfall manifests in inadequate medical facilities, a lack of state-of-the-art equipment, and insufficient staff numbers. The impact of this underfunding is profound, leading to compromised patient care and a healthcare system that struggles to keep pace with the evolving demands of a growing and aging population.

Long Waiting Times: The inefficiency of the NHS is often visibly noted by the long waiting times for treatments, and consultations. Patients often endure lengthy delays for surgeries and other medical procedures, adversely affecting their health outcomes. These protracted waiting times not only reflect the system's inability to manage patient load effectively but also contribute to public dissatisfaction and eroded trust in the healthcare system.

Staffing Crisis: The NHS is also facing a severe staffing crisis, characterized by a shortage of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare professionals. This shortage exacerbates the strain on existing staff, leading to burnout and further attrition. The repercussions are twofold: a decline in the quality of patient care and an increased burden on the healthcare system, which already struggles to meet demand.

Quality of Care and Bureaucracy: Questions regarding the quality of care in the NHS have been raised, citing instances of substandard care and negligence. Additionally, the NHS's bureaucratic structure contributes to inefficiencies, with complex administrative processes hindering swift decision-making and implementation of necessary healthcare initiatives.

Postcode Lottery and Political Influence The disparity in healthcare quality and availability across different regions, often referred to as the 'postcode lottery,' points to an uneven distribution of services. Furthermore, the NHS's susceptibility to political influence results in policy changes and funding decisions that may not always align with the long-term interests of patient care.

Recent Policy Changes: Appointment Scheduling - aA recent policy change in the NHS, limiting patients to making same-day appointments with their GPs, has added to the system's failures. This change, which eliminates the ability to schedule appointments in advance, has been particularly problematic for individuals with chronic conditions requiring regular monitoring and consultation. It epitomizes the system's struggle to adapt policies that cater to patient needs effectively!

In conclusion, while the NHS embodies the principle of universal healthcare access, its current operational challenges highlight significant shortcomings. The issues of underfunding, long waiting times, staffing crises, quality of care concerns, bureaucratic inefficiencies, regional disparities, and ill-conceived policy changes collectively undermine its effectiveness as a healthcare provider. These systemic issues necessitate a critical reevaluation and restructuring of the NHS to ensure it can deliver the high standard of healthcare that the UK population deserves!

Pay no attention to butt hurt trolls, who are mad that their fellow debaters have acknowledged their trolling excellence and awarded them troll of the year.  This is a great and important topic.

The Red cross declared Britain's healthcare a national humanitarian crisis.  Ambulances have not been available, and people have died after being on trolley's, waiting in hallways for multiple days for a hospital room.  The UK pays doctor's and nurses horribly.  The average salary of a doctor in the US is around $313,000 per year, which is significantly higher than the average salary of a doctor in the UK, which ranges from £80,000 to £150,000 per year.(roughly $101,000 - $190,000 US dollars).  Everything is done on the cheap.  In the UK, 93.4% of people are seen within four hours.  This is regarded as a huge failure — the standard the NHS is supposed to meet is 95% of patients in four hours.  In the US, an average of 95% of patients are seen within three hours, according to the CDC. 

Because the NHS is a crappy socialist system that is collapsing under its own weight, it is falling behind in researching for new medicines - see 

Plunge in clinical drug trials makes Britain an urgent case for treatment

NHS patients losing access to innovative treatments as UK industry clinical trials face collapse

The system can deny necessary procedures if you are a smoker or overweight.  Think about that for a moment, you have paid into a system for your healthcare, that can then turn around and deny you healthcare and you have no recourse.  

As the old saying goes when it comes to socialized medicine - fast, cheap, and good, you may pick only 2.  

Dee

@just_sayin

ARGUMENT TOPIC : JUST SAYIN THE " CHRISTIAN," PEDO TELLS Z TO IGNORE ME YET CANNOT RESIST TROLLING FOR Z 

Actually I'm amused and find it hilarious that you a convicted pedo and your best buddy were so pissed off at getting constantly thrashed in debate  that your ,"best " and only option was to post up a topic to deliberately troll.me yet you're that st-pid Z uses you to do his trolling for him ........you being a big dumb pedo of course fall for it.

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

Hey, just a quick response as busy. Respond more later. But yeah, when it comes to healthcare I am now beginning to lean now more towards getting medical insurance. Kinda had enough with the NHS now. 

MayCaesar

Rather than talking about the NHS specifically, I would like to talk about the strong empirical anti-correlation between the degree to which the healthcare is nationalized, and the degree to which it is plagued with these issues. Usual suggestions in order to improve nationalized healthcare can be split into two categories: 1) increase/redesign of funding, and 2) reform particular mechanisms of the system. To me it is like talking about how to combat alcohol addiction and giving two suggestions: 1) buy more alcohol, or 2) change what alcoholic drinks to consume. The core of the issue - the alcohol consumption itself - is swept under the rug in these discussions.

People's actions are driven by incentives; this is something all economists, all psychologists, all social scientists accept almost as an axiom, and something that has been repeatedly found in scientific studies. The most popular school of thought in human history asserts, therefore, that the key to building a prosperous society is to change people's response to incentives: to mold them into "good citizens", either by religious or non-religious ideological conditioning. The Christian church wanted to make everyone into a selfless good Samaritan, the Islamic mosque sought to unify everyone before a common goal, various nationalistic groups aimed at embracing the old tribal ways and dissolution of the individual in them, and various collectivistic groups sought the same, only interpreting the entirety of humanity as the ultimate tribe. All of these attempts have failed miserably for they tried to change human biology through external coercion - this is pretty much how evolution works, but evolution works on the scale of millions of years, while these philosopher kings wanted it undertaken within several generations.

More practical philosophers instead sought to design a system with the "right incentives", a system in which individuals will want to act selflessly and collective-focused not because of their biology, but because of the systemic reward such behavior produces. Yet that is clearly self-contradictory: if one is not acting selflessly because of the reward they expect from it, then it is not a selfless action. Yet this still resulted in the most prosperous societies known to date, as even this clearly absurd approach turns out to be less illogical than the aforementioned ones. The Founding Fathers recognized that people respond to social and economical incentives, but thought that those incentives could be contained by a carefully designed political system that both encouraged people to follow incentives selfishly, but discouraged existence of those incentives. This self-contradiction, when talking about healthcare specifically, resulted in a horribly inefficient and overpriced system: as tends to happen, trying to chase two rabbits at the same time results in zero catches and a plethora of injuries. The NHS seems to be a product of the same kind of thinking.

It seems to me that, rather than trying to consume alcohol less destructively, it is better to chop at the root and recognize that alcohol is the poison you want to get rid of. Similarly, rather than trying to address particular inefficiencies of nationalized healthcare, it is better to privatize healthcare. In the context of the UK, this means abolishment of the NHS and a sale of its assets on the market to the highest bidder. Healthcare is no different from food, or clothes, or smartphones: it is just a product. And the way to have the abundance and high quality of that product is to subject its purchase and production to the same market forces that most other products are subjected to. This, of course, requires a very principled group of intellectuals and politicians to speak the truth regardless of the moral outrage the mob will react with to their words. "But what about those who cannot afford healthcare?! Do you want them to die?!" It takes guts for someone to say, "No, I do not want them to die, but some of them will die - and it is not the government's job to prevent that from happening".

I, however, do have those guts. I do not like it when people suffer, but I like it even less when people suffer because someone else having good intentions messed everything up. When someone starves to death, it is brutal and sad; when someone starves to death because the government's failed policies have led to a famine, it is absolutely unacceptable. Crocodiles who cannot find prey in time die; that is nature. Humans who cannot live a good life because of a goon with a badge monitoring their every move - that is not nature, that is human wickedness.

Dee

@MayCaesar

, however, do have those guts. I do not like it when people suffer, but I like it even less when people suffer because someone else having good intentions messed everything up. 


100 million Americans are suffering through medical costs they cannot afford , that's a sizable amount of Americans how would you address this?

MayCaesar

@Dee

My solution for the American healthcare system does not differ from that for the UK healthcare system: full privatization. Historically, the US was widely recognized as having the best healthcare in the world up until the recent few decades, when the government started taking it under control, causing the prices to blow up. It can never be any other way: you put a goon with a gun at the marketplace - things will go sideways. You can mask the inefficiencies by forcing the taxpayers to pay for them, but, as the OP's summary shows, those inefficiencies boomerang back in a different way.

Milton Friedman back in the 80-s did a comprehensive research into public initiatives in the US, and out of the hundreds and hundreds of programs he had looked at, he only found one that produced results that were not drastically inferior to those the free market produces. As far as I know, human biology has not changed significantly since then, despite how many new genders and sexualities were allegedly found in the meantime. And I am not aware of significant differences in biology between people from the US and the UK. There is one buddy around here who claims that the differences are significant, but his ground is... a shaky one, as you certainly will agree.

Dee

@MayCaesar


My solution for the American healthcare system does not differ from that for the UK healthcare system: full privatization. 

Interesting, how would you price it as regards the cost yearly to each individual?

In my country you can pay private or go public. My wife always paid into a private healthcare scheme I don't nor ever would as I felt I paid enough tax in my lifetime to more than cover me.

I was diagnosed with an incurable condition 2 years ago after a routine check up, I was immediately put on medication and  after 6 months showed no improvement in my condition so was told I'd have to see a specialist as soon as possible,  being a public patient I  was told there was a waiting list of several months so what I did was pay a specialist privately to fast track and put me on the necessary required medication.

When I was put on the medication I told the hospital I wanted to go back to public status so no monetary  charges would be required of me, this is perfectly acceptable and allowed .

I'm on the new medication now and absolutely fine , the specialist who fast tracked me charged me euro 150 that's the only bill  I've had to pay , the medication I'm on costs 16 , 000 euro a month the cost to me is zero.

I'm in a support  group with people from around the world with the same condition,  my American friends I've got to know who share this condition all pay through the nose for private healthcare yet tell me even though  they are on the same meds as me still have to pay out of pocket expenses of between 2, 500 to 3,000 dollars a year for the same drug.


The huge misunderstanding of non europeans about our health system is the fact you can use public or if needed pay private if time is of the essence as I'm my case.

The system here for public is changing all the time for the better because its a legal requirement under European law which is what we signed up for.




As far as I know, human biology has not changed significantly since then, despite how many new genders and sexualities were allegedly found in the meantime. And I am not aware of significant differences in biology between people from the US and the UK 

Don't get me going on genders , I listened the other night to a heated debate about genders and a guy with a beard and mini skirt  claiming he was a woman and how dare anyone dare define what it means to be a woman , what's worse is one can be "outed " , "sacked" , "cancelled" "ghosted" etc ,etc for correcting in word or print this guys nonsnsical contentions.

MayCaesar

@Dee

By the very nature of it being fully private, the pricing is in the hands of the owners, influenced by the market forces. Much like the government does not do any explicit pricing when it comes to apples at grocery stores, and the apples cost whatever the seller sets and whatever customers are willing to pay. If a store overcharges for apples, then an opening for a better store occurs and the former store incurs losses.

I am aware that in many countries public provider coexists with private ones; it was the same in the country I grew up in. Yet that creates its own issues: in addition to the public provider already charging everyone including non-customers (since its services are funded via mandatory taxation), people willing to use the services of the private provider effectively pay twice, once for the public services (which they chose not to use), and once more for the private. And the private services cost more than they would otherwise since it is extremely hard for a private company subjected to harsh competition and regulation to compete with a public company having virtually unlimited income. This is precisely what happened to the US healthcare system where, with the government intervention initiated in 1974 into a mostly private system, the crony insurance industry took over and the prices shot through the roof. Again, in the UK or in Ireland this price inflation is less obvious since it is hidden behind the wall of bureaucracy and taxation - but it comes back in the form of higher costs of living overall, higher tax rates, and all kinds of both public and private healthcare inefficiencies. In your case, as you mentioned, there was a long waiting list, and having to use private services instead, you had to pay the double, essentially.
In any case, happy to hear that your condition has been stabilized!

As far as pricing in the US goes, while I by no means want to defend the (utterly crony) healthcare system here, the context is important. It is true that many healthcare services here are much more expensive than in Europe, if we are to talk about private providers (again, comparison with public providers is tricky due to the differences in funding structures). However, people in the US with serious qualification also make a LOT more money than in Europe. When talking about the quant position which I am transitioning to, in Ireland a senior quant earns on average 109,000 euros, while in the UK this number is roughly $85,000 (converted from pounds). In the US, when we talk about senior quants, I am not aware of the average (it is hard to calculate as it strongly varies from company to company), but even the entry positions mostly feature $100k+ salaries, and quants with 5+ years of experience commonly make $300-400k in large cities. When you make 4 times the amount of money in New York City that you would in London doing the same work, you can afford paying some extra for the healthcare - and in practice you do not have to as quant companies almost always provide their employees with incredible insurance covering virtually everything.

It seems to me that the US healthcare system hits the poor hard, while the rest of the population has it fine. This is pretty unfortunate, given that the governmental healthcare policies for the past several decades have been explicitly aimed at making the healthcare more affordable to the poor people - exactly the opposite happened. This is just another example of how good intentions practiced by actors embedded in a bad system lead to the opposite of the intended result.

As far as the genders go, I have recently been telling people that I identify as someone who is always right. They have a very hard time arguing with that...

Dee

By the very nature of it being fully private, the pricing is in the hands of the owners, influenced by the market forces. Much like the government does not do any explicit pricing when it comes to apples at grocery stores, and the apples cost whatever the seller sets and whatever customers are willing to pay. If a store overcharges for apples, then an opening for a better store occurs and the former store incurs losses.

The problem over here is that the companies that provide private healthcare all pretty much align regards pricing with very little difference between them , it seems it the same regarding other products like electricity or gas supplies.

Price rises are the norm and one is always told the rise is taking place to improve the service which is very annoying as its a blatant lie 

I am aware that in many countries public provider coexists with private ones; it was the same in the country I grew up in. Yet that creates its own issues: in addition to the public provider already charging everyone including non-customers (since its services are funded via mandatory taxation), people willing to use the services of the private provider effectively pay twice, once for the public services (which they chose not to use), and once more for the private. And the private services cost more than they would otherwise since it is extremely hard for a private company subjected to harsh competition and regulation to compete with a public company having virtually unlimited income. This is precisely what happened to the US healthcare system where, with the government intervention initiated in 1974 into a mostly private system, the crony insurance industry took over and the prices shot through the roof. Again, in the UK or in Ireland this price inflation is less obvious since it is hidden behind the wall of bureaucracy and taxation - but it comes back in the form of higher costs of living overall, higher tax rates, and all kinds of both public and private healthcare inefficiencies. In your case, as you mentioned, there was a long waiting list, and having to use private services instead, you had to pay the double, essentially.

In any case, happy to hear that your condition has been stabilized!

Thanks a lot May for your kind thoughts its much appreciated

In my country even if you have private healthcare you're advised at times to go public as the service operates better in certain  cases.

The only real advantage over here when private is that the turnover time is quicker ,another thing is that you're entitled to a private room if rushed into hospital the reality is that it is rarely given straight away as the hospitals are nearly always full.

My mother had top of the range health cover yet was in a warm corridor in a bed when she was very ill  she got her room after 3 days but wanted to be put on a ward for the company of others,  I've known several people who felt the same way as humans mostly detest isolation when in hospital long term. I on the other hand love isolation up to a point.

As far as pricing in the US goes, while I by no means want to defend the (utterly crony) healthcare system here, the context is important. It is true that many healthcare services here are much more expensive than in Europe, if we are to talk about private providers (again, comparison with public providers is tricky due to the differences in funding structures). However, people in the US with serious qualification also make a LOT more money than in Europe. When talking about the quant position which I am transitioning to, in Ireland a senior quant earns on average 109,000 euros, while in the UK this number is roughly $85,000 (converted from pounds). In the US, when we talk about senior quants, I am not aware of the average (it is hard to calculate as it strongly varies from company to company), but even the entry positions mostly feature $100k+ salaries, and quants with 5+ years of experience commonly make $300-400k in large cities. When you make 4 times the amount of money in New York City that you would in London doing the same work, you can afford paying some extra for the healthcare - and in practice you do not have to as quant companies almost always provide their employees with incredible insurance covering virtually everything.

It's interesting regards earnings and living costs , I remember talking to a waitress from the US several years ago who told me she had to make 1,400 dollars a week to make rent , college fees , healthcare etc , etc.

Over here it's pretty expensive to live also more so in the capital as is always the case in most countries.  People give out about healthhcare costs but the pricing is not nearly as high as in the US. Its pretty affordable in the US  I guess if one is on an excellent salary but I think still a bit of worry if one is on what could be termed a middle class salary.

I meet many Americans every weekend over here when I'm selling my Art and most say that the healthcare in the US is of a high standard but the cost of having decent cover is over the top.

Medical bankruptcy seems to be a thing in the US  which I find scary. I used to live in California  ( Santa Monica) and loved it the people were fun and I loved most everything about it,   if I still lived there and had no paid cover I  would be truly screwed it seems ,I feel for individuals in the US who cannot afford decent  medical cover for them and their families.

I get it though why the costs are so high in the US but I think they could be improved I'm sure you'd agree but how is the question.

Our system of course has faults and costs for private will keep rising. We have subsidised meds over here where no matter how much prescribed medicine you and your family are on you never pay more than 80 euro a month for it , my meds are totally free as I'm classified as " vulnerable ".
I can find a lot wrong over here but I'm truly hapoy that illness has not cleaned me out financially,  if I lived in the US I would indeed pay into a scheme as I wouldn't feel safe without.

Tell me please is it a legal requirement in the US for an employer to cover part the cost of health insurance in the US?




It seems to me that the US healthcare system hits the poor hard, while the rest of the population has it fine. This is pretty unfortunate, given that the governmental healthcare policies for the past several decades have been explicitly aimed at making the healthcare more affordable to the poor people - exactly the opposite happened. This is just another example of how good intentions practiced by actors embedded in a bad system lead to the opposite of the intended result.

That is pretty bad alright , I was reading only last week about Americans who are really struggling regarding healthcare costs its seems 100 million working Americans find the costings problematic to say the least.

What do you think could be done to remedy such?

As far as the genders go, I have recently been telling people that I identify as someone who is always right. They have a very hard time arguing with that...@MayCaesar

I like that and how dare anyone argue otherwise its a form of " misgendering " to disagree ha , ha

Bogan

Underfunding and Resource Constraints: One of the most critical issues plaguing the NHS is chronic underfunding. Despite being funded through National Insurance and general taxation, the NHS consistently faces a deficit of resources. This shortfall manifests in inadequate medical facilities, a lack of state-of-the-art equipment, and insufficient staff numbers. The impact of this underfunding is profound, leading to compromised patient care and a healthcare system that struggles to keep pace with the evolving demands of a growing and aging population.

If you vote to elect left wing politicians who are in bed with the big end of town, and who the ones who welcome high levels of immigration, then you get what you voted for.     Importing millions of foreigners who arrive at your door with their hands out looking for directions to the nearest dole office means that sooner or later, your critical social programs will be underfunded.      The mayor of New York has already discovered that truism.   After declaring New York a "sanctuary city" he is now inundated with endless columns of illegal immigrants from third world sheetholes.    He is now saying that he has to cut all services paid for by New York taxpayers to fund the "refugees" he once welcomed, but is now swamped by.      it is just amazing how neo Marxists always think that money falls from the sky like manna and there are never any consequesnces for their endless spending and virtue signaling.

To all of the British who were too lazy or stu-pid to vote for governments who would prevent unassimilatble people who are always going to be a burden on the productive, you got what you voted for.    It is a bit too late now to have regrets.    Everything we are now seeing about the catastrophic effects on white, western society from "multiculturalism" was predictable and foreseeable 40 years ago.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

Do you think this privatization would combat benefit fraud? Another pet hate of mine is how it's so easy in the UK to claim disability benefits when there is f*ck all wrong with you. And the rest of us are paying for them!!! 

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Do you think this privatization would combat benefit fraud? Another pet hate of mine is how it's so easy in the UK to claim disability benefits when there is f*ck all wrong with you. And the rest of us are paying for them


That annoys me also , benefit fraud over here costs the government a fortune.

jack

ZeusAres42 said:

Rethinking the NHS: An Examination of Systemic Challenges

The National Health Service (NHS) of the United Kingdom, established with the intent of providing universal healthcare, is often praised for its principle of delivering free healthcare at the point of use. However, beneath this façade, the NHS is struggle with systemic challenges that significantly impair its effectiveness and efficiency. This topic aims to scrutinize these challenges, shedding light on why the NHS, in its current state, struggles to be a robust healthcare system.

Hello Z:

In a debate here about the shortage of education, my solution was to build more schools and get out of the way.  My rational was, that it would be better for society to have an educated public? 

I see nothing different here..  Build more medical facilities, and get out of the way..  My rational is, it would be better for society to have a healthy public.

Therefore, I conclude, that an educated and healthy society will MORE than pay for itself.  

excon