When people rush to the defence of the ailing NHS, they often cite the 2014 Commonwealth Fund Report. Which is legitimate, of course, after reading through it I'm confident in saying that it's a solid paper. However, especially when it comes to healthcare, academic papers still have to make presuppositions; the CF report, for instance, is incredibly biased towards the NHS since it puts so much weight on metrics involving centralised systems, out-of-pocket costs or insurer rejection in some manner; all disregarding actually access to treatment, or the fact that there are around 9,000 unnecessary deaths a year as a result of negligence or inefficiency.

The 2014 European Health Consumer Index spits out a totally opposite result, throwing the NHS to the bottom of the pile behind even Portugal. I find the EHCI report more valid, since it places much less emphasis on principles like who is controlling the deliverance of healthcare or whether somebody is making a profit, and focuses on things like waiting times.

When it comes down to it, however, I think the OECD's healthcare efficiency reports are the best studies into the real efficiency of healthcare, as the OECD even acknowledges: “there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to reforming health care systems. Policymakers should aim for coherence in policy settings by adopting best practices from the many different health care systems that exist in the OECD and tailor them to suit actual circumstances.” Meaning they also judge groups singularly according to the type of system they have.



The UK falls into Group 6, defined as: "Mostly public insurance. Health care is mainly provided by a heavily regulated public system, with strict gate-keeping, little decentralisation and a tight spending limit imposed via the budget process"

The OECD has noted before that the UK could make significant efficiency gains when it comes to cost--in fact, it was in the top three countries for potential efficiency gains alongside Greece and Ireland. And the OECD's ultimate analysis of the UK is that: “The quantity and quality of health care services (in the UK) remain lower than the OECD average while compensation levels are higher. Reinforcing competitive pressures on providers could help mitigate price pressures, e.g. by increasing user choice further and reforming compensation systems.”

The UK could look to be more like Norway in its deliverance of healthcare, which came out as the most efficient in group six, or it could seek to be more like Germany (where less than half of the hospitals are government owned), the Netherlands, Canada or Sweden which all have universal systems with varying methods of funding but with much less restriction, much more consumer choice and much more efficiency.

The NHS doesn't have enough funds to invest in more efficient strategies of prevention

And it never will. NHS funding requirements have consistently outpaced economic growth as a whole since it was created.

That's mostly because healthcare shouldn't be a profit making business

Then you're at a massive loss to explain the efficiency of SHI systems in Germany and the Netherlands and France, which routinely use subsidised and regulated private insurance, and are reliably ranked as the best of the best; or other countries which don't use such systems, like Canada and Sweden, and still allow much more consumer choice and much less restriction.

it is a money sink but it's one of those areas that repays it's costs by keeping the population healthy and thus working.

But it's not doing that, despite the fact we've historically met the rising funding needs. It's not that the NHS isn't being funded enough, it's that it's a ridiculously inefficient system.

I don't believe people should be making money off of healthcare.

Does it really matter if it works.

but I don't believe that the best way to achieve comprehensive universal healthcare (One of the few human rights I give a flying fuck about) is through the private sector.

Not what I asked. Let's assume that the most efficient way of delivering healthcare is totally through the private sector and with no government involvement (that's not true, but just assume), would you honestly still have a problem with it?

I find it odd that some homeopathy "treatments" are covered under the NHS...£4 Million's worth, in fact.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 01, 2015, 05:07:43 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on May 01, 2015, 05:05:30 PM

I don't believe people should be making money off of healthcare.

Does it really matter if it works.

There's a lot of things that work but are ultimately seen as pretty bad, hence why we shouldn't and don't do it.

What? If something works then you do it.

If people don't like it, then fuck them.

Health care is very expensive and unsatisfactory.

Hey, you should come to the US and see how the health care here is!

It's totally privatized

LOL

Then what the fuck is medicare, medicaid and the ACA?

medicaid and medicare are very barebones

So barebones they have a significant funding deficit despite repeated refunding efforts. Not to mention, Medicaid's limit is 113pc of the poverty line.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 03, 2015, 03:41:57 PM

medicaid and medicare are very barebones

So barebones they have a significant funding deficit despite repeated refunding efforts. Not to mention, Medicaid's limit is 113pc of the poverty line.

Good luck getting any functioning public programs passed with the Republicans in House. They want to privatize literally everything cause they're fucking greedy tards who just care about lining their pockets. I honestly shouldn't be blaming the US for the fact that there isn't any functioning public just about anything, since many people here refuse to trust the Government to the point of absurdity. And the Government still represents the people at the end of the day.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 03, 2015, 04:37:02 PM

Good luck getting any functioning public programs passed with the Republicans in House

Republicans are usually just as bad as Democrats in this regard.

So the Democrat's stated official policy is to block anything the other party proposes?

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 03, 2015, 05:27:57 PM

So the Democrat's stated official policy is to block anything the other party proposes?

No, but it's naive to think voting doesn't take place across party lines for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

And, not to mention, it was after all George Bush who increased Medicare by 131pc.

Well, yeah. Typically when a party is in power, it's by a fairly slight majority. Not to mention that there are divisions within the parties themselves. For example, there were many Democrats who voted against ACA even though that was pretty much Obama's signature act.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 03, 2015, 03:41:57 PM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on May 03, 2015, 03:39:30 PM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 02, 2015, 06:32:03 PM

Hey, you should come to the US and see how the health care here is!

It's totally privatized

LOL

Then what the fuck is medicare, medicaid and the ACA?

Fine. Totally privatized is an exaggeration that I didn't notice I made, but medicaid and medicare are very barebones and limited in scope. ACA is definitely a step in the right direction though and I hope it is the basis for making health care more of a Government service rather than a private service.

The ACA is corporatist shit.  It does nothing to make healthcare a public service.  You need to do more research.

>Step in the right direction.

Of course it's corporatist shit right now, it's the most public service that could be compromised on.

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 03, 2015, 03:41:57 PM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on May 03, 2015, 03:39:30 PM

Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 02, 2015, 06:32:03 PM

Hey, you should come to the US and see how the health care here is!

It's totally privatized

LOL

Then what the fuck is medicare, medicaid and the ACA?

ACA is definitely a step in the right direction

LOL you're fucking delusional

Aw, you're not gonna call me a Communist or a Europoor?