NationStates Jolt Archive

So the British NHS currently pays for scams and quack treatments. Treatments like Homeopathy, where basically patients are treated with water or sugar pills. My question is this, if the NHS will waste money on treatments that have been proven ineffective and ridiculous, how the fuck does it have any money left for legitimate treatments?

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1781312,00.html

So the British NHS currently pays for scams and quack treatments. Treatments like Homeopathy, where basically patients are treated with water or sugar pills. My question is this, if the NHS will waste money on treatments that have been proven ineffective and ridiculous, how the fuck does it have any money left for legitimate treatments?

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1781312,00.html

Taxation. Proven to be effective.
Despite all the negative comments made about the NHS, somehow, the silted clepsydra goes on delivering 95% of the goods....

It gets rid of doctors and nurses.

I went on a course of homeopathy treatment once. Sadly, I took an overdose and nearly drowned.

Taxing the crap out of people...

It gets rid of doctors and nurses.

And patients-in-beds....

And patients-in-beds....
Yeah. I reckon they should just cut down on geriatric care. Two thirds of NHS spending is on the over-65s, the majority of which is simple pain-relief - which uses up beds. Get rid of some of them, it frees up beds and money that can be used for more important things.

Yeah. I reckon they should just cut down on geriatric care. Two thirds of NHS spending is on the over-65s, the majority of which is simple pain-relief - which uses up beds. Get rid of some of them, it frees up beds and money that can be used for more important things.

If bird-flu actually grows to be a 'problem', then it might be a total blessing for the NHS.

I agree that it's sad that the National Health Service pays for things for thing for which there is no evidence of effectiveness. You know there is this thing called science and you can use it to work stuff out. That seems to be lost on some people. However, having said that, most of what doctors so has no beneficial effect. One estimate is that doctors only do something that actually helps patients 30% of the time. I wouldn't be surprised if this figure is actually too high. So as long as the homeopath or acupuncturist or whatever charges 30% less than a doctor the NHS can save money if people go to see them instead. Of course there is a zero percent chance that these people will be helped, but that's only a problem if you think the NHS is there to help people.

Yeah. I reckon they should just cut down on geriatric care. Two thirds of NHS spending is on the over-65s, the majority of which is simple pain-relief - which uses up beds. Get rid of some of them, it frees up beds and money that can be used for more important things.

*shrug*
The NHS works 95% of the time.
I don't expect perfection out of any system with a human factor.

Most of the time, the machine works quite acceptable - despite the occurence of so-called alternative therapies.

Taxing the crap out of people...

Although the British health system isn't the best in the world, taxing the crap out of people and having a national health system can actually be cheaper and more effective than having a private health system as in the United States. British people are healthier than Americans and spend far less money in total including government spending on health care.

*shrug*
The NHS works 95% of the time.
I don't expect perfection out of any system with a human factor.

Most of the time, the machine works quite acceptable - despite the occurence of so-called alternative therapies.
But what precisely does working 95% of the time mean? Is this a figure derived from the abilities of hospitals to meet targets?

My own experience, and the experiences of my family, of the NHS have so far been good, although I don't use it that much. However, I know that there is massive inefficiency in many hospitals, to the extent that they have to close down.

Simple answer: Not a goddamn clue. Seriously. How the NHS continues to run with every cock-up it has is a mystery to me. British ingenuity I suppose.

But what precisely does working 95% of the time mean? Is this a figure derived from the abilities of hospitals to meet targets?

My own experience, and the experiences of my family, of the NHS have so far been good, although I don't use it that much. However, I know that there is massive inefficiency in many hospitals, to the extent that they have to close down.


Most people that get sick, or break a leg, do get the help they need in a more or less timely fashion. That's what I mean. Sorry if I have a hard time of thinking of the NHS as a jobs-program.

It's hardly perfect, and I wont do a Hewitt ( who seems to think the 2nd best year of the NHS must have been during the Blitz ) - but the system as a whole works reasonably.

Simple answer: Not a goddamn clue. Seriously. How the NHS continues to run with every cock-up it has is a mystery to me. British ingenuity I suppose.

The magic of human kindness, I imagine.

British ingenuity I suppose.

Yeh! Go us. :D

It doesn't go broke because it is still relatively cheap. The US citizen apparently spends about twice as much on health care as the average UK citizen with no discernible advantages.

Having said that, the NHS could be even cheaper if it got rid of the ever growing legions of administrators etc it has been saddled with since the 80s. All they seem to do is constantly expand their numbers (like a virus) and change things that don't need changed. Back in the 70s, we had a major hospital in each area (roughly) with one or two "cottage" hospitals in more local positions. Then the administrators told we could not afford it so spent millions shutting these places down and centralising in the big hospital. Now we are told (by these self same people) that it would be cheaper and more efficient if we de-centralised from the major centre to smaller "cottage" hospitals in more local situations. So millions more are being spent to get us back to what most of us knew worked in the first place :headbang: .

Ah well... that's not for no reason, though, as in the 80's a fair amount of people moved to the cities, and now people are moving out again.

Originally posted by Yootopia
[I]Ah well... that's not for no reason, though, as in the 80's a fair amount of people moved to the cities, and now people are moving out again.[/I
Not to any great degree. Some cities are growing (Edinburgh, Aberdeen, London) while others are shrinking (Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham).

So the British NHS currently pays for scams and quack treatments. Treatments like Homeopathy, where basically patients are treated with water or sugar pills. My question is this, if the NHS will waste money on treatments that have been proven ineffective and ridiculous, how the fuck does it have any money left for legitimate treatments?

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1781312,00.html

It doesn't - it spends all the money it's given by Joe tax-payer and then some

It doesn't - it spends all the money it's given by Joe tax-payer and then some


And the interesting thing is, of course, that no one will EVER propose a taxcut at the expense of the NHS.

;)
As safe as a system can be... it is like legalised abortion. Even half of its critics blanche when contemplating the alternative: teenage girls bleeding to death in an illegal abortion clinic. No serious domestic opposition is possible.

Not to any great degree. Some cities are growing (Edinburgh, Aberdeen, London) while others are shrinking (Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham).

Fine, the industrial cities are falling in numbers. And IIRC there are more people moving to the countryside than are moving into the cities.

I spent some time in hospital recently. Provisions were basic - my God, the 'food' - but the job got done and, more to the point, my social and economic status wasn't a factor in this. The quality of service across the UK varies quite widely, but I don't see that the NHS is the doomed crumbling monolith that many critics make it out to be. Most problems are - surprise, surprise! - in management.

I swear all we need to do to sort out society is murder all consultants and practitioners of modern management theory.

And to emphasise:

It doesn't go broke because it is still relatively cheap. The US citizen apparently spends about twice as much on health care as the average UK citizen with no discernible advantages.

Having said that, the NHS could be even cheaper if it got rid of the ever growing legions of administrators etc it has been saddled with since the 80s. All they seem to do is constantly expand their numbers (like a virus) and change things that don't need changed.

I swear all we need to do to sort out society is murder all consultants and practitioners of modern management theory.

thats not murder, its a duty to the public :D

I'll tell you all what does annoy me bout health care. Throught the local elections, just passed, the Labour party, the liberal Democrats and even the Greens had the same line.

"People don't want choice they just want a decent local hospital"

But I feel they are missing the point. As a Conservative I support choice in hospitals not because I seriously think Mrs. Cropper is going to move thirty miles to Halifax so when she has her hip replaced the hospital has Mouve curtains. No. That would just be silly. I support choice because the action of competition improves hospitals. It makes them "decent", cuts away inefficiency.

Privatising elements of the NHS hasn't worked not because privatiation is wrong but because it has not been done throughly enough. Why sack the overprised cleaning contracter? Its a matter of national importance their bills are payed, so the state will bail out the hospital in the case of last resort. I'm beginning to think the NHS should just become a regulatory body, (ofhealth, perhaps?) and distibute vouchers, or just settle up bills coordinate the payment of private companies by the government. If paitents are unnessarily treated, then the government could refuse to pay leaving the contracter out of pocket. So health is free at the point of delivery just not run as a state behmoth. That I believe would cut costs.

I spent some time in hospital recently. Provisions were basic - my God, the 'food' - but the job got done and, more to the point, my social and economic status wasn't a factor in this. The quality of service across the UK varies quite widely, but I don't see that the NHS is the doomed crumbling monolith that many critics make it out to be. Most problems are - surprise, surprise! - in management.

I swear all we need to do to sort out society is murder all consultants and practitioners of modern management theory.

And to emphasise:

Trust me I'm a UK Citizen living in the U.S and my mom was in the hospital for two months and she had nearly a $60,000 in medical bills. Fourntatly she's over 65 so medicare will pay for most. I would hate to think what that would do to me if I had to go to the hospital. I can't get insurance because i'm a diabetic. I pray nothing happens to me and that one day they will get a N.H.S in America.

So as long as the homeopath or acupuncturist or whatever charges 30% less than a doctor the NHS can save money if people go to see them instead. Of course there is a zero percent chance that these people will be helped, but that's only a problem if you think the NHS is there to help people.

Homeopathy is criticised quite a lot, but acupuncture is not. To suggest that there is a "zero percent chance that these people will be helped" seems very wrong. Many doctors, while having strong disagreements about the theory behind acupuncture, will admit that it is at least effective in pain relief, if not other areas.

I'll tell you all what does annoy me bout health care. Throught the local elections, just passed, the Labour party, the liberal Democrats and even the Greens had the same line.

"People don't want choice they just want a decent local hospital"

But I feel they are missing the point. As a Conservative I support choice in hospitals not because I seriously think Mrs. Cropper is going to move thirty miles to Halifax so when she has her hip replaced the hospital has Mouve curtains. No. That would just be silly. I support choice because the action of competition improves hospitals. It makes them "decent", cuts away inefficiency.

Privatising elements of the NHS hasn't worked not because privatiation is wrong but because it has not been done throughly enough. Why sack the overprised cleaning contracter? Its a matter of national importance their bills are payed, so the state will bail out the hospital in the case of last resort. I'm beginning to think the NHS should just become a regulatory body, (ofhealth, perhaps?) and distibute vouchers, or just settle up bills coordinate the payment of private companies by the government. If paitents are unnessarily treated, then the government could refuse to pay leaving the contracter out of pocket. So health is free at the point of delivery just not run as a state behmoth. That I believe would cut costs.

Unfournatly vouchers will olny increase the price of healthcare as healthcare companies will raise the cost of health care and demand even more from the government. It would be similar to the medicaid/medicare system in America. Unless you want to double or triple the cost I would say with a NHS but reduce the number of Admin staff and increase the number of doctors and especially nurses. Increase nurses=better care.

I'm all for alternative care such as Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Massage therapy and Herbolgy as an complimentive choice with traditional medicine. They do work for back aches and other illments that are better treated without a doctor.

600th Post!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Although the British health system isn't the best in the world, taxing the crap out of people and having a national health system can actually be cheaper and more effective than having a private health system as in the United States. British people are healthier than Americans and spend far less money in total including government spending on health care.
It doesn't go broke because it is still relatively cheap. The US citizen apparently spends about twice as much on health care as the average UK citizen with no discernible advantages.

Americans aren't as healthy because a) we're quite a bit fatter and b) we don't get any exercise AT ALL. Also consider that Americans, though they spend more on healthcare, pay far less in taxes, and if they keep themselves healthy then that's money in their pockets, rather than paying into an enormous bureaucracy.

I support choice in hospitals not because I seriously think Mrs. Cropper is going to move thirty miles to Halifax so when she has her hip replaced the hospital has Mouve curtains. No. That would just be silly. I support choice because the action of competition improves hospitals. It makes them "decent", cuts away inefficiency.

Amen to that. ('That' being efficient capitalist competition.)

I'll tell you all what does annoy me bout health care. Throught the local elections, just passed, the Labour party, the liberal Democrats and even the Greens had the same line.

"People don't want choice they just want a decent local hospital"

Which is true. Why should I have to shop around for X, Y or Z amount of hospitals or schools, and the 'choose' which one is availiable. Worse, the good hospitals and schools will end up with higher house prices around them, leaving ordinary, working class Brits out the reach of the best healthcare.

And the Conservative campaign, and the Labour campaign, both seem to support this idea of choice.

But I feel they are missing the point. As a Conservative I support choice in hospitals not because I seriously think Mrs. Cropper is going to move thirty miles to Halifax so when she has her hip replaced the hospital has Mouve curtains. No. That would just be silly. I support choice because the action of competition improves hospitals. It makes them "decent", cuts away inefficiency.

Like it's improved Railways, the Post, BT and everything Thatcher and neo-thatcher (Blair) sold off. As much as it might improve 'efficiency', making hospitals move into marketing, advertising and profiteering leads to another costly set of expenses. Worse still, mass marketing always leads to misleading the public, which should be avoided with health.

What the NHS needs is power taken out the hands of trusts and put into the hands of voters. Perhaps we could have them replaced by elected boards, or as committees of local government, as Local Education Authorities are.

Privatising elements of the NHS hasn't worked not because privatiation is wrong but because it has not been done throughly enough. Why sack the overprised cleaning contracter? Its a matter of national importance their bills are payed, so the state will bail out the hospital in the case of last resort. I'm beginning to think the NHS should just become a regulatory body, (ofhealth, perhaps?) and distibute vouchers, or just settle up bills coordinate the payment of private companies by the government. If paitents are unnessarily treated, then the government could refuse to pay leaving the contracter out of pocket. So health is free at the point of delivery just not run as a state behmoth. That I believe would cut costs.

And what would happen when these companies increase costs (as they rightly could), pocket the cash, at the expense of the taxpayer? Companies already walk out of lucrative contracts with Billions of my and your money, why sould I trust them with even more resposibility?

Better NHS = less Privatisation. My mum (an ex-nurse) told me that the day her hospital was forced to use private cleaners, the frequency and throughness of cleaners went throught the floor, and nurses had to do parts instead. But still, at least someone walks away with our money for that.

Originally posted by AlanBstard
But I feel they are missing the point. As a Conservative I support choice in hospitals not because I seriously think Mrs. Cropper is going to move thirty miles to Halifax so when she has her hip replaced the hospital has Mouve curtains. No. That would just be silly. I support choice because the action of competition improves hospitals. It makes them "decent", cuts away inefficiency
This is non-sense. You can only get competition if at least two major hospitals are nearby. Which is inefficient in itself. Areas with only one major hospital would have no choice unless some-one ineficiently built another one nearby. All the internal market within the NHS under the Tories did was increase administration exponentially and lead to unnecessary expenditure on services being duplicated locally, thus pushing up costs even more.

The cheapest and most efficient model is to have a major hospital in each area tending to its needs and working with neighbouring districts hospitals to ensure there is no unnecessary duplication of services which are expensive.

By the way, privatisation under the Tories did have one other major impact on the NHS. Contracting cleaning services out to the private sector led to a fall in the standards of cleanliness in hospitals (as companies strove to increase profits by doing the bare minimum ... sometimes not even that) which then led to the spread of MRSA. Hooray for privatisation :rolleyes: !

Maybe because they aren't as sick as Americans, who still spend a shitload more on healthcare and have a higher rate of disease nevertheless.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480635

It keeps going with a mass of government funding, which they get from taxes. Sure the whole bizzare unproven natural remedies idea isn't a brilliant thing to be spending money on, but if it makes people feel better then it's not all bad is it? From personal experience, no matter about all the bad press the NHS gets, when you need it it'll be there. There's a lot to be said for the British welfare system... not just in relation to the health service.

It keeps going with a mass of government funding, which they get from taxes. Sure the whole bizzare unproven natural remedies idea isn't a brilliant thing to be spending money on, but if it makes people feel better then it's not all bad is it? From personal experience, no matter about all the bad press the NHS gets, when you need it it'll be there. There's a lot to be said for the British welfare system... not just in relation to the health service.


Besides, it's not like placebos are all that uncommon in the US. They have also shown to be about as effective as actual medication in many cases.

By the way, privatisation under the Tories did have one other major impact on the NHS. Contracting cleaning services out to the private sector led to a fall in the standards of cleanliness in hospitals (as companies strove to increase profits by doing the bare minimum ... sometimes not even that) which then led to the spread of MRSA. Hooray for privatisation :rolleyes: !

You missed out on why it was done

Take an early 80's cleaning crew for a hospital, consisting of 12 cleaners, they know their routine, which wards to do per day, the purchasing staff know to buy 6 barrels of cleaning fluid a week, etc etc etc

BING BONG time for privatisation

Lets cut costs so there goes 3 of the cleaners the other nine being hired by private cleaning co with a cut in wages.... however..... you need a manager of the private cleaning co at X thousand a year, he needs a lawyer and an accountant, the hospital however needs to keep a check on its cleaning contracts and costs, and so hires a lawyer and an accountant, oh and it needs an contract manager, and a secretary for him to make sure the contracts are being carried out

so for a loss of 3 working class jobs you get a net gain of 7 middle class jobs who are way more likely to vote tory than the 3 cleaners you sacked.

You missed out on why it was done

Take an early 80's cleaning crew for a hospital, consisting of 12 cleaners, they know their routine, which wards to do per day, the purchasing staff know to buy 6 barrels of cleaning fluid a week, etc etc etc

BING BONG time for privatisation

Lets cut costs so there goes 3 of the cleaners the other nine being hired by private cleaning co with a cut in wages.... however..... you need a manager of the private cleaning co at X thousand a year, he needs a lawyer and an accountant, the hospital however needs to keep a check on its cleaning contracts and costs, and so hires a lawyer and an accountant, oh and it needs an contract manager, and a secretary for him to make sure the contracts are being carried out

so for a loss of 3 working class jobs you get a net gain of 7 middle class jobs who are way more likely to vote tory than the 3 cleaners you sacked.

Good one - I like your style!

You missed out on why it was done

Take an early 80's cleaning crew for a hospital, consisting of 12 cleaners, they know their routine, which wards to do per day, the purchasing staff know to buy 6 barrels of cleaning fluid a week, etc etc etc

BING BONG time for privatisation

Lets cut costs so there goes 3 of the cleaners the other nine being hired by private cleaning co with a cut in wages.... however..... you need a manager of the private cleaning co at X thousand a year, he needs a lawyer and an accountant, the hospital however needs to keep a check on its cleaning contracts and costs, and so hires a lawyer and an accountant, oh and it needs an contract manager, and a secretary for him to make sure the contracts are being carried out

so for a loss of 3 working class jobs you get a net gain of 7 middle class jobs who are way more likely to vote tory than the 3 cleaners you sacked.


Plus the added expense. Adjusted for inflation, of course....

Personally I'd defend Hewitts comments a bit. Simply by asking when was it better. People have been moaning about the NHS for as long as I can remember, and yet it apparently hits this 95% success rate and personally I've had almost totally good experiences with it. Opposition politicians always sell this idyllic perfect vision of what things were like before the current government mucked things up, when if things were that good clearly the government of the time wouldn't have been voted out.

though I'm not as old as some of the *cough*more life experienced users*cough*

In short, NHS moaned about too much, be happy. :)

Who know why it isnt broke... OK, it is slightly in debt at the moment (1% of total costs, which is far better than many businesses debts), but the real current funding problem is the way the government insists that they pay it all back in one year, and they wont allow funds from different areas to pay for it (One trust has a hospital £20 million in debt, where they are having to make cuts, yet just a few miles away they are building a new £500 million hospital, of course through the entirely wasteful PFI system. They are not allowed to transfer funds from their building fund to the running costs, so they are in the stupid position of having the money to spend on an extremely expensive hospital, yet not enough to run an already built hospital).

Most of the current debt is in fact been in obtaining items that will in fact save them money in the long run. With the underfunding they had for 15-20 odd years, there is a lot that needs to be done to bring it back to where it should be, which will cost money, more than after they have done so, where replacement and updating should be possible in a more gradual manner.

There are still problems, like the collosal waste of money that is PFI, and the extending of privatisation into further support areas (Health Minister "It did such a great job of cleaning services, lets extend it into everything! Way!" *bang* "Why did you shoot me in the head?" "Well, with such wonderfully moronic thinking I knew you had no brain to destroy, so it didnt matter").

And to those that suggest competition (or its more politically acceptable name "choice") is the answer, please stop talking rubbish. 1) as said, for competition means duplication of services to work, which is a total waste of money. 2) Again, someone else's point, it will lead to spending on things such as advertising marketing etc, which is not what public funding should be going towards. 3) Competition means losers. A losing hospital is one that shuts down, or doesnt have the money it need to do everything it should be able, leaving the local population who dont have the money or time to go to the next closest hospital with no, or substandard, care. 4) Bringing in private firms means adding their profit to our tax bills. They are designed to make profit, so they will either prove to be more expensive than public provision, or spend less on the services, almost certainly leading to a lower standard of care. I dont want my health care provider's principal goal to be to make money out of me, but to make me, or the ones I care about, better.

I had other reasons, but I forgot them.

Here's a true story of NHS administration gone mad.

1992
Centrally funded regional board administrates all health care in region.
(Medical, technical and ancillary staff get on with jobs.)

1992
Tories win election. The health service is split into six separate Trusts, three acute care and three primary care. Board still exists but needs more administration staff to deal with plethora of new organisations. Each new Trust also needs to recruit loads more administration staff to run the organisation. We are told it is worth it to create an internal market. Costs go through the roof.
(Medical, technical and ancillary staff get on with jobs.)

1997
New Labour wins election. The three primary care Trusts and three acute care Trusts are merged into two Trusts. No admin jobs are lost but more are recruited to "manage the change" The managers from the Trusts and Board are shuffled into new positions. Costs go through roof.
(Medical, technical and ancillary staff get on with jobs.)

2001
Both Trusts are merged into one organisation under the Board. No admin staff are lost. Managers are reshuffled into new positions. Costs go through roof.
(Medical, technical and ancillary staff get on with jobs.)

2004
Primary care is split into three separate organisations under board while acute division stays intact. managers are reshuffled into new positions. Costs go through roof.
(Medical, technical and ancillary staff get on with jobs.)

2005
Just as new Primary care organisations are to go live, it is announced that management have set up a committe to decide what will replace them in a couple of years.
(Medical, technical and ancillary staff get on with jobs.)

2006
Committee disbands as management have decided to go down another root. Health care is atomised into many different bodies under a Single Operating Division (SOD), which is under the Board. SOD is quickly renamed Single Delivery Unit. It is declared that its first few meetings will be to decide what its function will be :headbang: .
(Medical, technical and ancillary staff get on with jobs.)

I don't know about you but this is just nuts. It can all be laid at the door of two 80s myths; (1) management is there to change things not just manage them :( (2) "the status quo is not an option" :( .

So the British NHS currently pays for scams and quack treatments. Treatments like Homeopathy, where basically patients are treated with water or sugar pills. My question is this, if the NHS will waste money on treatments that have been proven ineffective and ridiculous, how the fuck does it have any money left for legitimate treatments?

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1781312,00.html

When I was there this spring, they were talking about the innovative accounting methods used by the NHS.

One was pretty funny - all that mattered is that the books balanced out to zero on a daily basis. So, they would "borrow" from a future day to balance the books for today, hoping to make it up by the end of the year, when someone might notice.

Meh. It's easier to raise taxes than it is to make the bureaucracy work more effectively. So they'll raise taxes.

1992
Tories win election.
Yeah, isn't it just terrible that John Major took over from John Major?