Can anyone tell me....?

[BobG]

How come Germany, and France, amongst other European countries, spend around 1.5 times as much on health care as we do? In the case of France, they also maintain an independent (!!) nuclear deterrent, build a sodding huge and awesome brand spanking new high speed train network and have a motorway network that makes ours look like cart tracks. In the case of Germany they have also swallowed the biggest financial challenge of the late 20th and early 21st centuries in taking on the successful reconstruction of East Germany.

And in the case of both, they aren't broke?

How can that be? We are one of the richest countries in the world - allegedly. We have the most cost effective health service in the world. Yet it's falling apart because, apparently, we can't afford any more money. How come the sodding French and Germans can afford more then?

We are going to end up with a health service of last resort - just like our dental service has become. We are going to end up with the least cost effective and most regressive health service in the world - just like the Yanks have.

And finally, why, why, WHY does not one single newspaper, tv programme or political person ever bloody well mention any of this? What does the Labour Party think its playing at???????????

BobG

[IDM]

Do they have higher taxes? I don't know, just asking...

[BobG]

I imagine they do IDM - though I don't know that for a fact. If they do, what would that say about us???

BobG

[The Red Baron]

Aren't the German and French health systems partially funded by insurance? I know that the French one has been suggested as a possible model for reform of the NHS.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

They are. But I really don't understand why we should be looking round for other models to use for our health service.

We have excellent health outcomes compared to the amount of money that we spend on health. Our outcomes per pound spent are on a par with the French and German systems. The reason that our absolute outcomes are worse is that we don't spend as much as they do, not that they spend it more wisely than us.

There's a simple answer for us. Put 1-2p on income tax and spend that on the NHS. Voila!

But we won't. Because we are in an era where the political culture says that this sort of socialised provision cannot work. So, even if it DOES work, and works very well, it will still be undermined and chipped away at.

Pick up a copy of The Times any day of the week. There will be some story in it decrying the NHS. It is a relentless onslaught. It is either ideologically based or some big private medical interests are greasing some arseholes.  And of course, the Health Secretary is best buddies with the Murdochs.

It is going to take a lot of effort to protect the NHS from the coming attack. Not least because the attack will be gradual erosion and undermining, rather than an obvious frontal assault.

[tommy toes]

I work as  a psychi nurse in the NHS. Not for much longer thank God as retiring in a few months.
The workload is ridiculous. We're expected to do more and more with less and less staff.
If any of your kids want to go into this profession, put em off.

[Dutch Uncle]

Some views on higher tax in NL and its use in this old thread:

http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=243997.msg405544#msg405544

[The Red Baron]

TRB

They are. But I really don't understand why we should be looking round for other models to use for our health service.

We have excellent health outcomes compared to the amount of money that we spend on health. Our outcomes per pound spent are on a par with the French and German systems. The reason that our absolute outcomes are worse is that we don't spend as much as they do, not that they spend it more wisely than us.

There's a simple answer for us. Put 1-2p on income tax and spend that on the NHS. Voila!

But we won't. Because we are in an era where the political culture says that this sort of socialised provision cannot work. So, even if it DOES work, and works very well, it will still be undermined and chipped away at.

Pick up a copy of The Times any day of the week. There will be some story in it decrying the NHS. It is a relentless onslaught. It is either ideologically based or some big private medical interests are greasing some arseholes.  And of course, the Health Secretary is best buddies with the Murdochs.

It is going to take a lot of effort to protect the NHS from the coming attack. Not least because the attack will be gradual erosion and undermining, rather than an obvious frontal assault.

I wasn't particularly putting forward the French model as an alternative. For one thing, I don't really know how it works. Although a French national I knew, who lived here, swore that health care in France was superior to that over here.

I would be happy to pay another 1-2% tax per year for the NHS and I think a majority of people would be. The trouble is, it would only solve the problems for a year or two, and we'd be back to square one. Ultimately demand is infinite, and with a population that is both aging and rising, that demand will continue.

I worked for a time on "cost improvement" projects for a NHS trust. It was not a particularly happy experience, because most of the low hanging fruit had been plucked already. We were just about at the stage of looking down the back of the sofa for spare coins! There were some ideas, of course, but most would have worsened patient experiences and/or outcomes.

So yes, we should spend more, but it won't solve the fundamentals. It will just keep the wolf from the door a bit longer.

[glosterred]

Anyone know why the Labour Party never initiated these projects when they were mis-managing the country for so long? It's not just the Tory party that are incompetent at running this country!

[i_ateallthepies]

TRB

They are. But I really don't understand why we should be looking round for other models to use for our health service.

We have excellent health outcomes compared to the amount of money that we spend on health. Our outcomes per pound spent are on a par with the French and German systems. The reason that our absolute outcomes are worse is that we don't spend as much as they do, not that they spend it more wisely than us.

There's a simple answer for us. Put 1-2p on income tax and spend that on the NHS. Voila!

But we won't. Because we are in an era where the political culture says that this sort of socialised provision cannot work. So, even if it DOES work, and works very well, it will still be undermined and chipped away at.

Pick up a copy of The Times any day of the week. There will be some story in it decrying the NHS. It is a relentless onslaught. It is either ideologically based or some big private medical interests are greasing some arseholes.  And of course, the Health Secretary is best buddies with the Murdochs.

It is going to take a lot of effort to protect the NHS from the coming attack. Not least because the attack will be gradual erosion and undermining, rather than an obvious frontal assault.

It's already started BST, the media are all too ready to report every NHS trust racking up debts in the millions.  Trusts that are forced to use agency staff at exorbitant cost because they're prevented from recruiting their own staff at affordable rates.  The tories must be loving it, force the service into an ever downward spiral, blame it on the NHS and the gullible masses in this country will believe every f**king word of it.

Total disgrace.

[i_ateallthepies]

Don't agree glosterred, the tories aren't incompetent, in fact I'm convinced they're proving amazingly effective at achieving their cynical aims whilst keeping the majority blissfully ignorant of what it is all leading to.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

Apologies. I wasn't suggesting that you were suggesting...etc etc.

And I don't doubt that France's health system is far superior to ours. But it should be. They spend 10.9% of GDP on health. We spend 8.5%.

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/OECD-Health-Statistics-2015-Frequently-Requested-Data.xls