The State of the NHS Follow

Ok Mr. ******** the NHS provides exactly the same care why is there private insurance in the UK?

This is a pointless question. It's on the order of "if the US army provides the same strength as the Ukrainian army, why are there private security firms in the US?"

1+1 <> 754.229

Then how do you enact your brilliant plan? Do you have a list of conditions that forfeit the rights of patients to prolong their own lives? When does it stop being economically responsible and start being state-sponsored homicide? And how does it jive with that whole Hippocratic Oath thing?

If we see someone bleeding to death at the site of a car accident, isn't it really more cost effective and therefore sensible to just drive by, leaving our cellphones holstered, or at very most call the coroner?

Edited, May 18th 2008 12:11pm by Barkingturtle

Increased investment was part of it, but mostly down to redesign of care pathways (especially in Diagnostics), better use of Informatics, and clear prioritisation of elective patients.

Boring, huh.

Not really - well sort of. In the same way that common sense is: sort of obvious and, well, common but refreshing to see. Though this then makes me wonder what this had to do with the previous government - was it just not a priority to revamp/improve, there was a mindset that it didn't need improvement, or just circumstantial that the recent govt got round to implementing the changes you mentioned?

To put it bluntly, it was the Labour party's election manifesto - one of the things they thought would get them into power. They said nobody should have to wait more than 18 months for elective surgery. At the time, there was no maximum wait - there were people who had been waiting over 2 years.

The current improvements are down to care pathways etc. but back in 1997, none of that existed. There was just the political imperative to bring in the long-waiters even if that meant people with greater clinical need weren't treated.

18 weeks darling. 18 weeks, not months,

You mean the one that was discredited years ago and is now used in basic "How not to manage Healthcare" courses the world over?

It has some relevance in epidemiology, but otherwise, it's a great example of how to take high quality data and turn it into ****-poor systems.

Are you studying 8th Grade healthcare management? If so. . . switch to arts and crafts.

Ok, so a political party made a promise (18 weeks) to get into office. That supposedly will be fully into play by Dec 08. Let's see what happens. From what I've read it doesn't look like a slam dunk.

Even if it does work, and it looks like it will be difficult especially with some speciality services like orthopaedics, it is still 18 weeks.

In the United States we currently, for the most part, ration by ability to pay while in canada and the UK it is rationed by need and cost-effectiveness (and yes, there are available treatments that are not covered by the NHS as they are not deemed cost effective. Perfectly reasonable in my opinion) Hence if you can pay in the US you will generally get treatment quickly without queues but if you can't pay you're effectively screwed.

I favor the socialized system but it will change the way health care is rationed in this country which will come as a shock to many people.

--DK

They are defined elsewhere on the oregon health plan homepage under the prioritized list.

It was based on this premise:


Sounds perfectly reasonable, right? Are you saying you *don't* like your plan and if so, why not? Because that's socialized medicine right there.

--DK

No it isn't

Edited, May 18th 2008 7:17pm by Nobby

No it isn't

Of course it is. It's designed to be an example of why socialized medicine would fail on a larger scale. Couple that with video footage of widows saying they lost their husbands because the NHS couldn't get them a kidney in time or whatever, and your $70 per pill ER Tylenol profit is safe for at least a decade.

Disagree. They want it to work. Is it not?

--DK