Forum menu
It's pretty crude but NHS budget is £110bn / 60 million = £1800 per person per year. That's shitloads cheaper than the US model not to mention the fact that the NHS is so much further reaching, including things like social care, subsidised prescriptions etc
Take 30% off the population who are either under 16, over 65 and not paying and the unemployed and you are down to about 40 million = £2750 per person per year or $4500 per person!!
molgrips - Member
Lol
Sycophant
LOL - what Mike D said! ^^^^^
so thats £3,500 per person or $5,670.
As stated, don't think that the healthcare is "free" in the UK.
So lets get the kids down the mines and work till you drop?
LHS - Member
LOL - what Mike D said! ^^^^^so thats £3,500 per person or $5,670.
As stated, don't think that the healthcare is "free" in the UK.
Free at the point of delivery
And where did you get your MRSA stat from earlier?
Free at the point of delivery? What has that got to do with it?
And where did you get your MRSA stat from earlier?
Google MRSA deaths UK
it's a bit over £3k for each of them
Small price to pay.
But it's bnot a very useful statistic because NHS is funded from general taxation and that is not all personal income tax.
Free at the point of delivery? What has that got to do with it?
Everything in the world! Do you need it spelling out or can you just perhaps read the thread?
It is irrelevant how many taxpayers - the cost per person is what counts - far less than an insurance based system. or do you really want to pay a lot more for your healthcare while others have no cover? Do you really want third world child mortality rates?
The NHS does more healthcare for less money than just about anything else. No one dies in the UK because they are too poor to afford healthcare
29 million people manage to avoid paying tax altogether in the uk? Wow....what about VAT, Fuel tax, council tax, etc?
Can you count the people over 65 that have retired? Surely they have contributed to the NHS at some point have they not? Do you pay tax on your pension? I thought you did, but may be wrong.
Everything in the world! Do you need it spelling out or can you just perhaps read the thread?
Seems you have got the blinkers on a bit there.
No one dies in the UK because they are too poor to afford healthcare
This is what separates us from the beasts
Please explain then.
No one dies in the UK because they are too poor to afford healthcare
No, but an unnecessary amount die due to lack of basic care whilst in hospital - dehydration, nutrition and superbugs. Is this due to the level of funding being too low?
LHS do you have anything material to back that sweeping statement up?
LHS - Member
Google MRSA deaths UK
No, tell me where you got the 'thousands' from and how that contradicts the official stats, instead of posting a completely unrelated story.
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Dehydration-kills-elderly-hospital-patients.6787851.jp
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13786420
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/ipswich_hospital_apology_after_death_of_mum_following_four_falls_1_929373
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-13620261
I could go on I'm sure.
LHS - like to back that up with something other than hyperbole? You have already been shown to be talking rowlocks about MRSA. Usually you have decent info. Whats your blind spot here?
I am certain the NHS would be better for more money. Spend the amount even as a % of GDP that the US does and you would nearly double the budget. Thats a politicial decision tho.
We get what we pay for - and even with the large increases in funding since 1997 we still pay less for our healthcare than most comparable nations
EDIT - so hyperbole then not decent data
You make the mistake of believing that Healthcare funding in the UK is covered by tax receipts... in case you hadn't noticed, we're spending more money than we take in, and a big chunk of this is on healthcare - we're paying for the NHS by putting it on the mortgage!
Per-capita health expenditure for the UK, 2010, was (US$) 3129
Now, how many of us pay that a year in [i]total[/i] taxes?
Factor in the young, the old, the unemployed, and the lazy not contributing to the pot - and see where your "free" healthcare is coming from!
LHS do you have anything material to back that sweeping statement up?
Probably read about it in the Daily Mail, so it must be true. 😉
Out sourcing of cleaning was a mistake, bring back the Matrons.
[img] 
[/img]
LHS, this isn't about picking holes in the NHS. This is about social versus private healthcare. So posting stories about MRSA is not useful, nor is posting about budget deficits.
Why do you think 'free at the point of delivery' is not important?
Probably read about it in the Daily Mail.
Wow, that wasn't predictable at all!! 🙄
Still no source though...
EDIT - sorry molgrips!
Stop bloody bickering! Talk objectively or not at all!
And again LHS, this doesn't happen in the US system then?
I dont think the argument is about whether medical treatment is free under the NHS, we all know its not. Its about whether an induvidual has the right to adequate health care, whether they can afford it or not.
The figure i read is quoted as 44'000 amercain people dying anually beacuse they don't have medical cover. They died because they didnt have the coin. That is shameful for a developed country.
Should add that figure come from wikipedia, so could be way off. Its under teh entry for "health care in the United States" under teh heading "death". 40% chance of dying because you can't afford to recieve timely health care. Nice.
Why do you think 'free at the point of delivery' is not important?
Because you can't separate the way a healthcare is funded, or certainly to the tune it is funded from the care you receive.
As per my first post, there are holes in both systems and having experienced both systems (and other nations) first hand I can quite happily say I have been both disappointed and delighted with elements of both). Neither is perfect by a long way.
However, to march around with the blinkers on thinking that the NHS is free is mis-guided, its simply not.
[url= http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/ ]Lack of insurance linked to 45,000 deaths a year[/url]
But I didn't accuse insurers of being greedy, I accused them and the hospitals of being profit-making companies. So they have a vested interest in doing MORE to you than might be strictly necessary, or at least making it cost more. This has advantages I imagine, but it also has disadvantages, especially when cover is limited.
The insurers don't want to pay for any more than is necessary. The insurers will have what's know as a Preferred Provider Network (PPO) where they have negotiated heavy discounts with the providers. Typically these savings will be around 40%. Even if a claim is incurred outside of the PPO, the insurer will push back on the provider. Typically these claims are passed to a 3rd party administrator who will push back on the doctor or hospital bill and demand a reduced price.
Because you can't separate the way a healthcare is funded, or certainly to the tune it is funded from the care you receive
Hmm.. so are you saying that socialised healthcare necessarily means lower standards?
Btw we don't think the NHS is free, we're not that dim. For me, the fact that you pay according to your means is vital. Unemployed - no problem. Fit and rich - you pay much more than you use, but you can afford it. This is very very important imo.
Hmm.. so are you saying that socialised healthcare necessarily means lower standards?
From my experiences, yes. But, for a lot of people it would be the complete opposite.
I'm not sure I have the energy to debate much further, as you can imagine with a large family containing British, Americans and the odd Canadian thrown in for good mix, this debate happens A LOT.
However, to march around with the blinkers on thinking that the NHS is free is mis-guided, its simply not.
Very true, although on average, compared to the cost of US insurance it is essentially free, as the amount per person spent on the NHS in total is less than the amount spent on the US healthcare system by the US government alone. The up front costs that you pay directly are essentially just extra money that they have to pay out. At least that is what it looks like according to those figures on the link I posted earlier. It isn't like we have: NHS - pay by tax, USA - pay direct, it actually appears to be USA - pay the same amount by tax, then pay direct on top of that.
From my experiences, yes
Surely you have to appreciate that going by your experience isn't going to give great answers? Unless you've been spending a lot of time in a lot of hospitals...
More developments like this will have an interesting impact on the funding of healthcare in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/05/questions-grow-over-circle-health
Surely you have to appreciate that going by your experience isn't going to give great answers? Unless you've been spending a lot of time in a lot of hospitals...
Not sure which tree you are barking up here.
If you quoted the whole statement it also ended with
for a lot of people it would be the complete opposite
If you want to start debating how many times I have been to hospital in different countries then I really don't have the energy.
If you want to start debating how many times I have been to hospital in different countries
Really not a matter for debate, is it?
for a lot of people it would be the complete opposite
Well since we are talking about health services for entire populations, your post was basically meaningless then.
Don't NHS GPs get paid per procedure?
Couldn't be further from the truth.
We are being highly incentivised to reduce the amount of secondary care activity.
Yes we are paid per item for certain things like flu jabs as these are overall cost saving measures.
The NHS uses gps as gate keepers to control access to expensive and over medicalised hospital based care. Because it is a much more cost effective way to do it.
Simples
You really want to debate over how many times i've been to a particular hospital? You've lost a bit of perspective there!
Cheerio 🙂
If you believe that the US has a superior health care system, you'd sort of expect to see a [relatively] high life expectancy rather than one that falls below most of the Western world and at a similar level to Albania
to march around with the blinkers on thinking that the NHS is free is mis-guided, its simply not.
if you have no money whatsoever you get treatment and no cost to yourself. If you do not pay tax you get free healthcare. Yes some of us pay tax but even if you do not and never have you will get healthcare. It is free for some and free for all at the point of delivery.
I am sure the quality of care will vary but if we spent more would get a better service. They pay more so [ I assume] get a better service for some and a much worse service for those who have no service.
Zulu-Eleven - MemberYou make the mistake of believing that Healthcare funding in the UK is covered by tax receipts... in case you hadn't noticed, we're spending more money than we take in, and a big chunk of this is on healthcare - we're paying for the NHS by putting it on the mortgage!
Per-capita health expenditure for the UK, 2010, was (US$) 3129
Now, how many of us pay that a year in total taxes?
😕 Eh ? .......... how many of us pays £2000 a year in total taxes ? Well most people who have a job I guess, plus a lot of people who don't even work such as retired people.
Thanks to your government Zulu-Eleven, everybody now pays 20% tax on most things they buy, except food. It takes the average person well over a month's wages every year just to pay their VAT.
Averaged out, every adult in the UK pays £11,000 in total taxes every year.
Why are you asking how many of us pay £2000 a year in total taxes? 😕
[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127464/ ]WHO Healthcare Analysis[/url]
Being here in the US, I don't think I will try to wade into the argument as I don't know a lot about the UK health system in general, but reading the thread brought up a question:
I hear antecdotal stories about how long it takes to get medical treatment in the UK, especially some of the more specialized and/or sophisticated tests, i.e. MRIs, etc and wondered if that is actually the case there or more myth than fact?
Despite my bleeding heart leftism, I still quite like the idea of having personal responsibility in what your life choices are likely to cost in terms of health care.
Why not tax the crap out of unhealthy life choices for a start? Ie drinking, smoking, road traffic collisions and drugs. Oh, that's right we already do on the first three.
Duty on alcohol, tobacco and fuel is already huge but most of it ends up nowhere near healthcare (or indeed the safety/quality of roads and policing their safe use). Wouldn't solve the defecit but would mean booze duty pays for the illness it caused etc. (I mentioned taxing drugs but that is a whole other debate!)
I guess getting things like an MRI are going to be longer here but it'll depend to some extent on why it's needed
I got one on my knee after waiting around 2 weeks
I guess in the US you'll get one next day?
Out of interest, if someone didn't have insurance there and required the scan for a knee injury, how long would the wait be to get it on Medicare [if that's what it's called]