I kinda like the late night soundbites…..

“I should have thought and we all hoped that the possibilities contained in the Act would have excited the medical profession, that they would have recognised that we were setting their feet on a new path entirely, that they ought to take pride in the fact that, despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilised thing in the world – put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration. I therefore deplore the fact that the best elements of the profession have been thrust to one side by medical politicians who are not really concerned with the welfare of the people or the people of their own profession, but are seeking to fish in these troubled waters. I hope the House will not hesitate to tell the BMA that we look forward to this Act starting on July 5, and we expect the medical profession to take their proper part in it because we are satisfied that there is nothing in it that any doctor should be otherwise than proud to acknowledge.”

Aneurin Bevan 9 Feb 1948, House of Commons

And how did he change their minds?

By, “stuffing their mouths with gold.” Bevan again.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on the position and motives of the BMA!! But hopefully In those days, Bevan was engaging in more than soundbites?

My understanding has always been that the BMA were opposed to the creation of the NHS but this had little if anything to do with money. At the heart of their objection was status, they did not as government employees want to be merely “civil servants”, which they considered to be an unfitting social status for doctors. That is why concessions were made and GPs were allowed to be self-employed practitioners and work under contract.

The other main basis of opposition would have been political. The creation of the NHS was very much seen as a socialist policy, which of course it was. As most medical students were invariably recruited from the ranks of the bourgeoisie doctors had a natural tendency to oppose what they saw as socialism. And to be fair a universal nationalised healthcare service was an untried experiment outside the Soviet Union.

I don’t know if they “stuffing their mouths with gold” was what eased their pain, I guess it’s plausible. But I do know that after seeing how successful the NHS was/has been, and the enormous benefits it brought ordinary people, the BMA changed their minds. Which as I said, is hardly peculiar.

decades of proving what a success the NHS has been, and the stunning benefits it has provided to the British people,

Any data to back up that assertion, rather than anecdote?

Here’s some evidence that we may not actually be very healthy at all…

UK 12th place out of 19 in Lancet Study

And from: In England, most people are overweight or obese

In England, most people are overweight or obese. This includes 61.3% of adults and 30% of children aged between 2 and 15. People who are overweight have a higher risk of getting type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers. Excess weight can also make it more difficult for people to find and keep work, and it can affect self-esteem and mental health.

Health problems associated with being overweight or obese cost the NHS more than £5 billion every year.

Surely we need a kick up our ever-increasing backsides rather than “do what you like to yourself and we’ll patch you up for free” approach currently offered… removing sentiment about private vs state provision I really can’t see how the current setup is providing better health outcomes if year on year, the data shows our health getting worse…

Here’s some evidence that we may not actually be very healthy at all…

🙂 Who said anything about the British people being “very healthy” ?

I said that the NHS has been a success and provided stunning benefits to the British people. Few people would disagree with that, although some, such as Dan Hannan, and presumably you, will.

Here’s an opposing point of view for you :

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgU6l_Y1T8Q[/video]

If we’re 12th out of 19 rich Western countries in health outcomes (years of healthy life), and more people are overweight and obese than of healthy weight, what are the ‘stunning benefits’?

I don’t care what ‘people’ would agree or disagree with, I’m interested in the metrics and scientific evidence that demonstrates the ‘success’ of the NHS.

IMO the NHS debate is riven with propaganda and sentiment, which isn’t actually terribly helpful when we’re talking about life and death… Without an evidence-based debate we’re massively at risk of making the wrong decision about necessary reform…

what are the ‘stunning benefits’?

Most people would agree that universal healthcare for everyone free at the point of delivery has provided stunning benefits for the British people, when compared to when Britain didn’t have universal healthcare for everyone which was free at the point of delivery.

On that basis they would consider it a success – not a failure.

You don’t agree, obviously. Well there you go.

Perhaps distinguishing between the delivery of heathcare at the point of need, and the society that engenders obesity and practices that promote poor health (readily available junk food & booze combined with a more sedentary lifestyle) should not be laid at the feet of the NHS. It is the NHS that picks up the pieces of this problem, and does so remarkably well.

I can’t really see the NHS causing Obesity either.

I can see a clear argument for making sure alcohol and fatty foods are taxed sufficiently that the health consequences are paid for by the products causing them though.

I’m not saying the NHS ’caused’ obesity! That would be insane!

I’m saying that it’s hard to claim the NHS has brought great benefits when the data demonstrates the UK is in a very poor state of health on 2 key measures: years of healthy life and BMI…

And that this worsening of health, along with an ageing population is going to overload the NHS, and therefore reform is surely necessary.

The only place you could suggest any causality IMO, is that care provided free at the point of need removes any incentive for people to look after themselves as they don’t directly connect their self-abuse with the financial costs of treating it…

Aneurin Bevan 9 Feb 1948, House of Commons

And how did he change their minds?

By, “stuffing their mouths with gold.” Bevan again

He didn’t stuff their mouths with gold. My grandfather had his practice compulsorily purchased for less than his outstanding purchase loan on it. He died in his early 60s having worked himself to death to repay that loan from NHS earnings.

My father followed him as a GP and worked as an (almost) non earning partner with his father to help his father pay those debts. My father only started earning once he was past 40.

The only place you could suggest any causality IMO, is that care provided free at the point of need removes any incentive for people to look after themselves as they don’t directly connect their self-abuse with the financial costs of treating it…

Whilst, of course, in a country like the USA where people are directly incentivised by extremely expensive health provision individuals are the very model of health and wellbeing.

I don’t live in the UK.
I live in a country with no NHS.
My doctors surgery receptionist knows me by the sound of my voice over the telephone and calls me by my first name, my doctor calls me by first name and knows about my interests as well as my health. We have a discussion about the various benefits of biking and races.
I never have to wait for an appointment.
My youngest son has a disability that the doctors on the UK couldn’t identify, our local hospital had it sussed in a couple of visits.
My sons specialist calls me with updates, when he needed food allergy testing we saw someone within 2 weeks.
I’m not saying the NHS sucks but it could be better, a lot better!
Poorly managed and no consequences for poor performance.
As a balance a family member is an auditor within the NHS, you would not believe the **** ups and wastage.

And that this worsening of health, along with an ageing population is going to overload the NHS, and therefore reform large scale investment is surely necessary.

FTFY.

An example of wasting money:

I get free prescriptions for life due to a permanent health condition. Not only does this entitle me to free meds for this one condition (I buy my own, another story!) but any other meds I may need during my lifetime.

😐

The NHS isn’t perfect, and I don’t see anyone claiming it is.

It has flaws that can be worked on. It doesn’t need flattening just because it can be a bit inefficient. It’s like scrapping a car because the tyres are under–inflated.

America has a worse obesity problem than us and it doesn’t have public healthcare provision. If people stop living healthily, taking away their right to healthcare won’t help. Obesity is a symptom of something beyond the realm of healthcare, the NHS can treat that symptoms of it but the cause will exist whatever healthcare system we have in place.

If anybody would care to actually sit through the video, lots of what is being said in this thread is covered in quite eye opening detail.

I admire your love of the NHS. Just remember that not everybody shares it.

I admire your love of the NHS. Just remember that not everybody shares it.

Trust me, I’m very well aware of this.

What I find most depressing and frustrating is that those of us who do, on the whole, don’t seem to have the first clue just how likely you are to get your way.

Democracy requires an informed electorate. We have a willing opposite.

An example of wasting money:

I get free prescriptions for life due to a permanent health condition. Not only does this entitle me to free meds for this one condition (I buy my own, another story!) but any other meds I may need during my lifetime.

CG – the number of prescriptions that are paid for, compared to the number that are ‘free’ (that is, the dispensing charge of £7ish is paid), is SUCH a small minority, that I can see the system going the way of the Welsh i.e. all prescriptions are free.

When I go through the local pharmacy the teeny tiny stack of ‘paid for prescriptions’ is completely overshadowed by the ‘free’ stack! Someone has to be paid to sort through these prescriptions to ensure that the correct people are claiming, and I would be surprised if it (‘the NHS’) ‘made’ a significant sum by charging for scripts. If all scripts were free, then there wouldn’t be the need to check up on them….

That’s not to say there isn’t a fair amount of savings that could (need to..) be made within the NHS, but this really isn’t a big money spender…

The locality that I work in has the enviable task of ‘saving’ over 20 million squid this coming year. I struggle to see how patient care isn’t going to be compromised somehow…

I often raise at meetings the analogy of replacing car tyres – if four tyres are bald, they all need replacing. However, one could save 25% by only replacing three couldn’t they….

DrP

An example of wasting money:

I get free prescriptions for life due to a permanent health condition. Not only does this entitle me to free meds for this one condition (I buy my own, another story!) but any other meds I may need during my lifetime.

I agree. You should pay for all your medication at whatever level the manufacturer sets the price.

Why should I, as a taxpayer, fund your long term condition.

I admire your love of the NHS. Just remember that not everybody shares it.

Sorry to come back to this, but I feel I should also make it known that I don’t particularly ‘love’ the NHS. No argument is so black and white as to justify any such extreme.

My outlook is shaped more by a fear of the alternative, an alternative evidenced elsewhere, and the motivations behind it. I’m all for change and reform where necessary, but necessity is not what this is about.

The destruction of the NHS is just one factor of an ideological onslaught from an elite ruling class of inherited–wealth millionaires who got into power with a minority vote, who now with the help of their millionaire friends running the media, use divide and conquer tactics to push through socially catastrophic measures under a cloak of austerity with the intention of further increasing their own impossibly and unnecessarily abundant wealth while simultaneously ravaging the political landscape they’ll leave behind so as to render any future attempts to turn back their work all but impossible.

It’s a smash and grab, and they’re getting away with it because we’re distracted by immigrants, gay marriage, benefit scroungers, fat people and the cost of prescriptions.

IMHO.

I agree. You should pay for all your medication at whatever level the manufacturer sets the price.

Why should I, as a taxpayer, fund your long term condition.

Ah, the warmth and fluffiness of our fellow citizens.

Because it is a collective system, a dirty word in today’s selfish individualistic free market economy.

I admire your love of the NHS. Just remember that not everybody shares it.

They screwed up a back operation my Brother had, which means he hasn’t been able to work for the last eight years, but the care my mother received when she had a stroke recently was first class.

I find it disturbing that people want to change it because of their own experiences with it, The NHS does need to improve in a lot of areas but, I don’t see how the alternative been touted which is privatisation is going to do that.

You can be delivery efficient, I.e how you deliver those services or
Financially efficient, how much money you save for profit.

The latter has been taken for the majority of the former public services, such as utilities and look where we are now.

I agree. You should pay for all your medication at whatever level the manufacturer sets the price.

Why should I, as a taxpayer, fund your long term condition.

No need to get pissy mate as I pay for my own meds. OK?

CG – the number of prescriptions that are paid for, compared to the number that are ‘free’ (that is, the dispensing charge of £7ish is paid), is SUCH a small minority, that I can see the system going the way of the Welsh i.e. all prescriptions are free.

When I go through the local pharmacy the teeny tiny stack of ‘paid for prescriptions’ is completely overshadowed by the ‘free’ stack! Someone has to be paid to sort through these prescriptions to ensure that the correct people are claiming, and I would be surprised if it (‘the NHS’) ‘made’ a significant sum by charging for scripts. If all scripts were free, then there wouldn’t be the need to check up on them….

I hear what you’re saying Dr P but there’s thousands of people with my condition who source their own drugs from the internet. My GP knows what I do. So, in theory, my exemption card could be taken off me as I self-fund?

I really wouldn’t want to go the way of free prescriptions for all, far too expensive and patients would wait months for an appointment with their GP!

I agree. You should pay for all your medication at whatever level the manufacturer sets the price.

Oooooh another one for you – are you aware that Big Pharma can rip off the NHS big-time when supplying drugs?

Oooooh another one for you – are you aware that Big Pharma can rip off the NHS big-time when supplying drugs?

What does that tell us?