NHS too bureaucratic?

[rocks 494]

Well, I think people naturally fear that which is only slightly revealed to them, and in strange and ominous tones.

Definitely, I used to try and educate people but what's the point? If they're going to believe something someone told them without doing any research then I say let them sink their own ship.

[evli1966 88]

why do people with no experience of the nhs think they know everything about it?

The same can be said for people of other countries that post opinionated views of our policies here in the USA.

I never onced was uk economy bashed or the NHS.

So please lay off the holier than thou and smarter than thou attitudes.

The idea that OBAMA care has for our healthcare industry is it should be govenrment run. At this time not as extensively as the NHS in the UK.

But with a little more kick he would like it to be so.

Now as you 3 have so unabashedly claim your NHS is so superior then why is it so Taxing on your government to have to make cuts? not bashing the NHS but a reasonable question.

The people here in the USA that have a say in whats going on want to know why a system which Obama made claims of success of the NHS to support his agenda is now making "Making budget Cuts".

It will raise more questions regarding the OBAMA health plan costs.

In regards to NHS the budget cuts will have more affect than just supposedly lowering costs; as I have read doctors may have more say in treatment than they had before.

I could be reading it wrong but I would think that a good thing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The same can be said for people of other countries that post opinionated views of our policies here in the USA.

I never onced was uk economy bashed or the NHS.

So please lay off the holier than thou and smarter than thou attitudes.

The idea that OBAMA care has for our healthcare industry is it should be govenrment run. At this time not as extensively as the NHS in the UK.

But with a little more kick he would like it to be so.

Now as you 3 have so unabashedly claim your NHS is so superior then why is it so Taxing on your government to have to make cuts? not bashing the NHS but a reasonable question.

The people here in the USA that have a say in whats going on want to know why a system which Obama made claims of success of the NHS to support his agenda is now making "Making budget Cuts".

It will raise more questions regarding the OBAMA health plan costs.

In regards to NHS the budget cuts will have more affect than just supposedly lowering costs; as I have read doctors may have more say in treatment than they had before.

I could be reading it wrong but I would think that a good thing.

Firstly, what noone seems to acknowledge is that most people who came from the UK have first hand experience of both the US and UK health systems. Like it or not, that gives some of us rather more perspective on which is preferable (in our experience) than USCs who can only muster a response that involves cliches about socialism and government inefficiency.

Secondly, Obama could not implement a national health service for the US. Leaving aside that it wouldn't really be feasible given that such plans would be administered at the State, not the Federal level, his administration simply does not have the power to push a change that radical through the senate and the house of representatives. The health reform policy that was pushed through was watered down heavily to get it into law, and even the original policy didn't try to nationalise the healthcare industry.

Thirdly, as I already stated - the reforms to the NHS are part of an overall plan of debt reduction being implemented by the new UK - government reversing previous economic policies in order to reduce the national debt built up the Blair/Brown government over 13 years. They're cutting the budgets of every government department, not simply the health service.

[Peikko 1,575]

The same can be said for people of other countries that post opinionated views of our policies here in the USA.

I never onced was uk economy bashed or the NHS.

So please lay off the holier than thou and smarter than thou attitudes.

The idea that OBAMA care has for our healthcare industry is it should be govenrment run. At this time not as extensively as the NHS in the UK.

But with a little more kick he would like it to be so.

Now as you 3 have so unabashedly claim your NHS is so superior then why is it so Taxing on your government to have to make cuts? not bashing the NHS but a reasonable question.

The people here in the USA that have a say in whats going on want to know why a system which Obama made claims of success of the NHS to support his agenda is now making "Making budget Cuts".

It will raise more questions regarding the OBAMA health plan costs.

In regards to NHS the budget cuts will have more affect than just supposedly lowering costs; as I have read doctors may have more say in treatment than they had before.

I could be reading it wrong but I would think that a good thing.

Doctors have always been able to recommend any treatments they felt appropriate and that were available. What the NHS has never offered is cutting edge treatment if the cost of that treatment could not be justified within the overall NHS budget. Where does that leave the 'people'? Well, in the UK people who do not have extra disposable incomes get the best treatment that is available on the NHS and those who have more money can either buy private treatment in the UK, if the treatment is available (which it often is) or if it is very specialized, travel to wherever that cutting edge treatment is available.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[evli1966 88]

Thirdly, as I already stated - the reforms to the NHS are part of an overall plan of debt reduction being implemented by the new UK - government reversing previous economic policies in order to reduce the national debt built up the Blair/Brown government over 13 years. They're cutting the budgets of every government department, not simply the health service.

That is the point I am making; by having to make cuts in the budget shows there is pork that needs trimming (unless these cuts will negatively affect the citizens of the UK)

If what Obama healthcare costs now (isnt it already over the intial prjected costs) leads to such debt increase then when do we finally say enough is enough and have to make cuts and will those cuts that are made after the policy has been inplace for years affect the citizens of the USA negatively?

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Needing to trim the budget does not mean that there is necessarily pork to be cut -- it just isn't logical. If you lost your job, but were already on a tight budget, you would need to make cuts, even to essentials like housing and food.

[Peikko 1,575]

That is the point I am making; by having to make cuts in the budget shows there is pork that needs trimming (unless these cuts will negatively affect the citizens of the UK)

If what Obama healthcare costs now (isnt it already over the intial prjected costs) leads to such debt increase then when do we finally say enough is enough and have to make cuts and will those cuts that are made after the policy has been inplace for years affect the citizens of the USA negatively?

In any large organization there is always the possibility of inefficiency - it is incredibly difficult to maintain maximum efficiency. Where the rub is is to assume that a government run institution is necessarily more wasteful and bureaucratic than a privately run organization. If that were true then the spend on health care as a % of GDP would be far greater than the US spend, but you know what? It isn't. Concentrate on this fallacy while over looking the bigger picture, that a government run system provides the most efficient mechanism for providing cost effective health care to all citizens results in a misunderstanding of what the NHS has achieved in the 60+ years of its existence.

Needing to trim the budget does not mean that there is necessarily pork to be cut -- it just isn't logical. If you lost your job, but were already on a tight budget, you would need to make cuts, even to essentials like housing and food.

That is true too

[Mags 112]

I am not arguing if you are happy with NHS.

Mad asked why would it matter to Obama or why should he care; I am pointing out he through his appointee are in love with NHS a flawed system which is about to be changed.

The question that will now be posed is why should we convert our health care system and pay billions to be similar to a health care system that is flawed so much that i needs to be changed like it is.

Not bashing your NHS because nothing is ever perfect but if everyone there is so happy then why the changes to decentralize it?

The NHS goes through changes every few years. The last one was only 4 years ago, so this is nothing new (and I used to work for the NHS). Everything needs to be updated now and again, it's just the way of the world.

The fundamental basics of the NHS will remain the same.

This thread seems like it is really just another excuse to bash Obama.

Boring.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Mags

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That is the point I am making; by having to make cuts in the budget shows there is pork that needs trimming (unless these cuts will negatively affect the citizens of the UK)

If what Obama healthcare costs now (isnt it already over the intial prjected costs) leads to such debt increase then when do we finally say enough is enough and have to make cuts and will those cuts that are made after the policy has been inplace for years affect the citizens of the USA negatively?

How long is a piece of string?

These NHS reforms are extremely controversial - noone knows exactly what the impacts will be.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Needing to trim the budget does not mean that there is necessarily pork to be cut -- it just isn't logical. If you lost your job, but were already on a tight budget, you would need to make cuts, even to essentials like housing and food.

That's as I understand it. It's not that there is pork (although, of course there is) it's that the country has been living beyond its means for far too long.

They're talking about 25% cut to every government department. The police service, for example, have already indicated that those kind of cuts cannot be made without affecting frontline policing.

[evli1966 88]

In any large organization there is always the possibility of inefficiency - it is incredibly difficult to maintain maximum efficiency. Where the rub is is to assume that a government run institution is necessarily more wasteful and bureaucratic than a privately run organization. If that were true then the spend on health care as a % of GDP would be far greater than the US spend, but you know what? It isn't. Concentrate on this fallacy while over looking the bigger picture, that a government run system provides the most efficient mechanism for providing cost effective health care to all citizens results in a misunderstanding of what the NHS has achieved in the 60+ years of its existence.

I agree to some extent their is issue in the words and application of the red text. What is deemed cost effective to keeping you or your child alive? I personally o not like reading about someone denied meds because it isnt cost effective to keep them alive or then dropped becasue they pay out of pocket.

This thread seems like it is really just another excuse to bash Obama.

Boring.

Boring to you = complacentcy and acceptance of what you can get and the expectation that if you do not have it others will pay for it.

I am not bashing Obama but I am asking legitmate questions regarding the cost of OBAMA care which is grossly expensive and already over projected costs.

How long is a piece of string?

These NHS reforms are extremely controversial - noone knows exactly what the impacts will be.

I agree mad which is why I tried to disclaimer if it doesnt affect the citizens negatively.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

What is deemed cost effective to keeping you or your child alive? I personally o not like reading about someone denied meds because it isnt cost effective to keep them alive or then dropped becasue they pay out of pocket.

But this is what is happening here in America every single day, under the current system, and for very common ailments. The treatments that are rationed by NICE are almost exclusively for uncommon ailments, or for procedures that have not been proved definitively more effective (and better value for money) than others. More people are dying proportionately in the US from effective rationed care than in the UK, I would bet.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree to some extent their is issue in the words and application of the red text. What is deemed cost effective to keeping you or your child alive? I personally o not like reading about someone denied meds because it isnt cost effective to keep them alive or then dropped becasue they pay out of pocket.

Boring to you = complacentcy and acceptance of what you can get and the expectation that if you do not have it others will pay for it.

I am not bashing Obama but I am asking legitmate questions regarding the cost of OBAMA care which is grossly expensive and already over projected costs.

I agree mad which is why I tried to disclaimer if it doesnt affect the citizens negatively.

Put bluntly, It happens in both systems - the difference is that in the UK less people are put into that position than in the US - and furthermore, less people in the US have access to routine health care than in the UK (no one is denied access to health care services), People in the US frequently suffer devastating financial costs after recieving treatment (never happens in the UK) and more people in the US suffer from complications and early death as a result of chronic conditions than occurs in the UK (If a UK citizen does not manage a chronic condition properly it is never because they do not have access to medication or health care).

[evli1966 88]

But this is what is happening here in America every single day, under the current system, and for very common ailments. The treatments that are rationed by NICE are almost exclusively for uncommon ailments, or for procedures that have not been proved definitively more effective (and better value for money) than others. More people are dying proportionately in the US from effective rationed care than in the UK, I would bet.

There is/was a system in place for those whose income could not afford health insurance or afford meical care.

This system needed to be expanded to those who where workign but could not afford the health insurance costs not a mandatory health program that has been instituted which will undoubtedly drive out private insurance becasue of the cost.

If under medicare people were to be denied health care both preventive and emergency then this should have been addressed as well again not what we will now have in place.

The costsof expanding the less fortunate until they could afford their own is much better than the systm we will have and less cost.

I understand it is a choice for public care but when our private insurance goes way up due to the lossof subscribers what choice will others have?

[Peikko 1,575]

But this is what is happening here in America every single day, under the current system, and for very common ailments. The treatments that are rationed by NICE are almost exclusively for uncommon ailments, or for procedures that have not been proved definitively more effective (and better value for money) than others. More people are dying proportionately in the US from effective rationed care than in the UK, I would bet.

Right.