• [UK Conservative Propaganda] NHS Trusts Overspend £2.2 Billion
    64 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Source;49782236]Nah its just most of the money goes to the wrong people, the top line fuckers that do an absolutely shit job yet still get rewarded for it.[/QUOTE] Usually speaking - management funding tends to see very little bleed. And even if it did, it's usually a drop in the bucket. The biggest bleeds tend to be in contracts that large institutions have for everyday stuff. Which can at times happen due to the institution having understaffed departments which are unable to actually keep track of expenses or provide alternatives.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49781905]I'd just like to point out, that the two are not necessarily exclusive. You can be understaffed and overpay. Hell sometimes you overpay because you're understaffed.[/QUOTE] This is a very small aspect of the larger overall problem which tends to be the reliance on locum/agency workers which requires a much larger cash injection from trusts. The sad thing is... they just don't deliver as good a service... EVER. Yet we're paying more for them?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49781487]I'm not in favour of private healthcare like in the US. I'm mostly just critical of the NHS (which I think is highly overrated) and I think that a system such as the one in Germany ([URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany#Public_insurance[/URL]) would be more efficient (and also would not lead to poor people dying or people with serious illnesses being bankrupted), however I recognise that this is not going to happen.[/QUOTE] Germany's is awful and would cost everyone even more money on average. For basic healthcare (as in healthcare that only covers things like emergency care) it costs you 15.5% of your income, so if you're on an average £30k a year wage you'd be paying out £4,650 per year in healthcare. You wouldn't save any money on taxes and your prospective healthcare would be worse than what you get now on the NHS. Honestly I've noticed the only people who want the NHS are all self centred rich people who wouldn't be impacted by huge healthcare costs and are pretty much the only people who would actually save money under that system.
There is an argument for a Singaporean style system, but I frankly don't think it would work here. I like some parts of the tiered system and it is also very efficient, but it needs a very large amount of government control and only really works in Singapore's pretty unique state. It does put people with money above those who don't have it though, which I am against - I believe that in the ideal world people would be treated according to need all the time, rather than more money = more time with consultant. Conservatives love Singapore because of the high private involvement, but they tend to ignore that it is very highly regulated by the government. Still, it is an interesting idea. Personally I am all for the NHS and likely will be until I die. I have had a handful of patients who were complaining about the NHS to me, and most of them were because they didn't understand why things were being treated the way they are, and with a short conversation (the perks of being a student - more time with patients) I was able to help them understand. Far more who have declared their love of it. People [b]want[/b] to live in a society where everyone who needs help gets it, and it is, in my opinion, a marvel of modern society. Part of my issue with many of the cost saving measures is that they are short term - as that is all a 4 year government really wants, in terms of re-election. You can [b]invest[/b] an awful lot of money that will pay out in the future, but why do that when the opposition will claim "xyz gave out £x Bn despite the deficit". If we had actually worked for things like a countrywide IT system (that didn't work the one time they tried, but would be amazing from a patient care point of view), more scanners (again, early detection = cheaper and more effective treatment, high initial cost but it pays off), preventative healthcare measures, mental healthcare measures (what is more expensive, counselling or trying to help a person who the system failed and jumped and now requires counselling and treatment?) and so much more. There are, of course, effective cost saving measures that are being taken, but so much of it seems short term focused.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;49784043]Germany's is awful and would cost everyone even more money on average. For basic healthcare (as in healthcare that only covers things like emergency care) it costs you 15.5% of your income, so if you're on an average £30k a year wage you'd be paying out £4,650 per year in healthcare. You wouldn't save any money on taxes and your prospective healthcare would be worse than what you get now on the NHS. Honestly I've noticed the only people who want the NHS are all self centred rich people who wouldn't be impacted by huge healthcare costs and are pretty much the only people who would actually save money under that system.[/QUOTE] Mind you (as we have more or less the same system as Germany) most people don't actually see the amount of taxes you pay that much, since jobs are usually offered with post tax prices. People also generally speak about how much they make post taxes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.