Britain's health service in a 'humanitarian crisis': Red Cross

[ifrtbttrflys]

Huh. All the glowing reviews from natives I've read here evidently are nothing but "fake news".


By Kate Holton - January 7, 2017

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's health service is engulfed in a "humanitarian crisis" that requires the support of the Red Cross to use Land Rovers to transport patients, the charity said on Saturday.

Founded in 1948, the National Health Service (NHS) is a source of huge pride for many Britons who are able to access free care from the cradle to the grave.

But tight budgets, an ageing population and increasingly complex medical needs have left many hospitals struggling during the winter season in recent years, prompting headlines about patients being left to wait on trolleys for hours or even days.

..."This is a national scandal," Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said in a statement.

"We should not have to rely on the Red Cross to provide the basic care the people of this country need. I am demanding that the prime minister comes to the House of Commons on Monday and sets out to the British people how she plans to fix her failure on the NHS."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/britains-health-humanitarian-crisis-red-cross-100221224.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

... a source of huge pride for many Britons...,



Yeah, you are going to be flooded with anecdotal assurances that that must be one isolated incident because their experience with the NHS has been superlative, timely and efficacious.

It is the same response every time. "We're superior to America even if we gave the occasional and unimportant glitch."

Everything form, "It's free," to an faulty examination of infant mortality rates.

Enjoy!

 

[water505]

I think they accept and cling to their shitty system because it's "free" and have nothing else to compare it with.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, like Cuba, they have a two-tier system for those whom can afford it.

 

[water505]

No, like Cuba, they have a two-tier system for those whom can afford it.

How do you say "one percenters" in Spanish?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

El Presidente...

 

[oggbashan]

The number of visits to Accident and Emergency units in England (ER in US terms) has increased dramatically over the last three months of December.

There are many reasons but one of the most significant is the decline in Social Care for patients at home. Local government (City Hall) funding of Social Care has been cut year on year because of central government policy on local government funding. The result is that many elderly or disabled people who used to have care providers visiting them at home no longer have any service at all or an inadequate service.

That has two major impacts:

1. Those people struggle to live reasonably and do not come to the attention of the NHS until there is a crisis that needs an emergency ambulance.

2. The people taken into hospital cannot (or rather SHOULD NOT) be discharged until there is adequate care provision for them in their on home or elsewhere. But that care doesn't exist or cannot be provided so the person remains in hospital (Bed Blocking) even when they are fit enough to be discharged. That means hospital beds are not available when the next person has a crisis.

The 'should not' in 2 above is often ignored. There are cases of elderly people being sent home in the middle of the night, or without reasonable clothing, or without the relations/carers being informed, or to an unheated home, or to a home with no food available and sometimes ALL of those. The Red Cross is indicating that they are being asked more frequently to pick of the pieces and they are stretched to breaking point by the unmet demand.

We know. The Prime Minister is due to make a statement tomorrow on this issue. The problem is not really the NHS or Emergency Care, but the absence of care at home that is causing the NHS to be used when it should not be necessary.

The UK, like many western countries, does not have the resources to cope with an increasing number of elderly and frail people. Admitting them to hospital as an emergency should be the last resort. Often it is the ONLY option when it shouldn't be.

All the things that are going wrong are well documented and discussed. What is missing is a solution.

 

[RedAllan]

I think they accept and cling to their shitty system because it's "free" and have nothing else to compare it with.

The reason the system has become shitty is due to serious and deliberate underfunding by successive governments so that privatization looks better.

British governments have used the same methods to pave the way in other industries,
the rail service being one, that is now failing in private hands.

 

[Greypowerful]

Typical - start a provocative thread to support an ideological counter argument.

I'm on record for the past fifteen years that a single pay system has its problems, but WE, The People in HUGE MAJORITY, support it.

And likewise in the U.K., who has its share of Rightwing xenophobes.

It AIN'T "Obamacare" you fucking Sophists, be honest and call it what it really is: a Republican Act gutted by Beaner, McConnell et al.

 

[Greypowerful]

The reason the system has become shitty is due to serious and deliberate underfunding by successive governments so that privatization looks better.

British governments have used the same methods to pave the way in other industries,
the rail service being one, that is now failing in private hands.

Nicely put!

 

[butters]

The reason the system has become shitty is due to serious and deliberate underfunding by successive governments so that privatization looks better.

British governments have used the same methods to pave the way in other industries,
the rail service being one, that is now failing in private hands.

this is my belief - and it's working. instead of being inordinately proud of our NHS, people are now forced to wait way too long for gp appointments which compounds the issues ogg mentions above as people decide to visit the A&E instead. now it's not at all unusual to hear people i work with and customers alike talking about 'going private' rather than wait months for operations for painful and debilitating health issues.

the gov't has us just about on the crux of accepting an american-style private insurance as the norm instead of bolstering the very service we all pay into with every wage packet we earn. it's not 'free', only free at the point of service. pharmaceutical companies charge the earth for drugs; the hours worked and stresses involved means doctors are leaving british medicine to go abroad or change careers or simply take early retirement - if they've not died through heart attacks or suicide! i saw a programme the other week which showed how in australia working shifts were a normal 8 hours instead of 12, 5 days per week instead of 6 or more (made worse by back to back shift patterns), and about 20% better paid per annum despite the shorter hours.

and when they fanfare about the new hospitals built, they follow through with closing others so there're not more facilities, and the change of purpose for many hospitals means far fewer taking the brunt of A&E for an ever increasing number and aging population!

committed to the health of our NHS? my arse - they're committed to making most of the population believe private insurance can't be any worse and could even be better. *grrr*

 

[SaraBaras]

El Presidente...

OMG priceless. Well said.

 

[water505]

The reason the system has become shitty is due to serious and deliberate underfunding by successive governments so that privatization looks better.

I understand. How much more in taxes should be collected to make it "not shitty?"

 

[oggbashan]

One of the major flaws with the NHS from its inception was that 'free at the point of delivery' meant and means that people expect the NHS to deal with every minor health issue instead of self-medication or sensible lifestyle choices.

The demand for health care is unlimited if it is 'free'.

In practice it isn't free. Prescriptions have to be paid for unless you are in certain large categories - children and over 60. The charge is a fixed amount of £8.40 per item. Many times it is cheaper to buy direct e.g. Ibruprofen at 35 pence for 16 instead of paying £8.40.

NHS dental charges are high. The difference between NHS dental charges and paying privately isn't much unless you want cosmetic dentistry which is difficult to get on the NHS.

As I mentioned above social care is the real problem. Medical care is 'free'. Social care has to be paid for, either by the individual or by the local authority. What is medical? What is social? The dividing line between the two has shifted. More is classed as social care than used to be. Local authority funding has been cut so drastically that only the most severe needs are met and even then only in part. The result is that social care is NOT available and the NHS has to deal with patients who don't really need care in hospitals.

 

[oggbashan]

I understand. How much more in taxes should be collected to make it "not shitty?"

In the UK the total cost of health care, NHS and private, per 100,000 people is far less than in the US but it covers EVERY UK resident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

US dollars per person:

UK - 4003
US - 9451

 

[water505]

In the UK the total cost of health care, NHS and private, per 100,000 people is far less than in the US but it covers EVERY UK resident.

That's nice, but it didn't answer the question.

 

[water505]

Neither did your edit.

 

[oggbashan]

That's nice, but it didn't answer the question.

There is no answer. It depends on your political convictions.

More money for the NHS doesn't solve the lack of social care which is causing the major problems in the NHS.

Another factor is historic PPI - Private Payment Initiative - which funded new and improved hospitals leaving them with massive debts at crippling rates of interest.

Another is lack of training facilities for doctors and nurses and poor working conditions. The lack of employed staff costs millions for agency and locum staff. Until recently there used to be bursaries - grants - to people wanting to train to be nurses. Now they have stopped and potential nurses have to fund their own training. Doctors already do and are left with major debts when they qualify. Instead of encouraging people to train to be doctors and nurses government policy is deterring them. The result? The NHS imports trained medical staff from all over the world.

 

[oggbashan]

Instead of an edit...

PPI mentioned above is the elephant in the room no one talks about.

New and improved hospitals make politicians look good. They are very happy if they get a new hospital without having to pay for it - hence PPI. The builders and their financiers fund the new hospital in exchange for a yearly payment of capital and interest over decades. The problem is that the cost of those repayments are far higher than commercial rates. That's good for the financiers and disastrous for those running the hospitals. They have debts they can't afford to repay for facilities they sometimes can't afford to staff.

PPI over the years has provided many new hospitals and made many new millionaires. The NHS pays and pays and will continue to pay for politicians' prestige projects.

 

[Conager]

The number of visits to Accident and Emergency units in England (ER in US terms) has increased dramatically over the last three months of December.

There are many reasons but one of the most significant is the decline in Social Care for patients at home. Local government (City Hall) funding of Social Care has been cut year on year because of central government policy on local government funding. The result is that many elderly or disabled people who used to have care providers visiting them at home no longer have any service at all or an inadequate service.

That has two major impacts:

1. Those people struggle to live reasonably and do not come to the attention of the NHS until there is a crisis that needs an emergency ambulance.

2. The people taken into hospital cannot (or rather SHOULD NOT) be discharged until there is adequate care provision for them in their on home or elsewhere. But that care doesn't exist or cannot be provided so the person remains in hospital (Bed Blocking) even when they are fit enough to be discharged. That means hospital beds are not available when the next person has a crisis.

The 'should not' in 2 above is often ignored. There are cases of elderly people being sent home in the middle of the night, or without reasonable clothing, or without the relations/carers being informed, or to an unheated home, or to a home with no food available and sometimes ALL of those. The Red Cross is indicating that they are being asked more frequently to pick of the pieces and they are stretched to breaking point by the unmet demand.

We know. The Prime Minister is due to make a statement tomorrow on this issue. The problem is not really the NHS or Emergency Care, but the absence of care at home that is causing the NHS to be used when it should not be necessary.

The UK, like many western countries, does not have the resources to cope with an increasing number of elderly and frail people. Admitting them to hospital as an emergency should be the last resort. Often it is the ONLY option when it shouldn't be.

All the things that are going wrong are well documented and discussed. What is missing is another pile of other people's money.

FYP

It is a shame when that happens.

The good news is now you can spend more the other people's money at the local level and pretend that you're "saving money" in the long run just because to do otherwise would spend even more.

 

[oggbashan]

FYP - adding -

What is missing is another pile of other people's money.

It is a shame when that happens.

The good news is now you can spend more the other people's money at the local level and pretend that you're "saving money" in the long run just because to do otherwise would spend even more.

That's not what I'm advocating. I'm not a 'spend more on the NHS' supporter. We constantly spend more on the NHS whatever government is in power.

Money alone won't solve the problems. The issues that cause the lack of money need working through.

 

[Conager]

In the UK the total cost of health care, NHS and private, per 100,000 people is far less than in the US but it covers EVERY UK resident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

US dollars per person:

UK - 4003
US - 9451

The difference is we can get it on demand health care for anything you can think of today. You on the other hand, are using the VA model simply deny and or delay care until either the person gets better on their own because they really didn't need to see the doctor or they die in which case you save an awful lot on end-of-life care. End-of-life care is the most expensive time in anyone's life. Cut that by two or three months and you would save billions in the US.

The only savings that come in any health care system come through rationing. There is no other way there is no shortcut.

The other factor that is bandied about is about how much healthier the English are and how much less they spend. You people are not nearly as fat as we are we are fat because we are practically forced feeding our poor with ridiculously high-calorie unhealthy food all paid for with very generous SNAP benefits.

You also do not have our demographics. You do not have our specific genotypes. You have no Native Americans and you have not nearly as many mixed African European bloodlines. Both of which have very high incidence of very expensive care for such things as diabetes, renal failure, and heart disease. Both groups hit that expensive end-of-life care 10 years earlier then European counterparts.

 

[Conager]

That's not what I'm advocating. I'm not a 'spend more on the NHS' supporter. We constantly spend more on the NHS whatever government is in power.

Money alone won't solve the problems. The issues that cause the lack of money need working through.

There is only one solution to lack of money- more money. The only place you can get more money is to take other people's money; that's where government gets money. All of it. None of it grows on trees.

The more generous the social state gets the more dependent its citizens get and the less they strive to produce. Why bother when you are going to be taken care of, even if you don't?

This is been true everywhere anyone has had the state provide anything for anyone. Socialism by degrees is still socialism. It deincentivizes production which is the death knell for any civilization. Doing socialism light just means that it takes longer for it to catch up with you.

No one argues that the concept is not about being compassionate. When you do that through charity based organizations there is first of all a level of local screening where people are known to those that provide the charity. They know who needs the help, for how long and who does not. Who shirking responsibility, who is being enabled and there are judgment calls being made. There's also an element of the recipient having to have hat in hand which which has the opposite effect of government-provided benefits.

We are only a couple steps of socialism light behind you and will be where you are in 10 or 15 years. We already provide tye majority of our end-of-life for our now very aging population with Medicare. Funds have just about run out in our pay as you go ponzi schemes of social security, medicare, medicaid, prescription drugs, and social security disability. We get by by borrowing other peoples money from future generations. We lowered our unemployment numbers by reducing standards for permanent ss disability claims. 1 in 10 Americans are now receiving SSI for disability.

 

[oggbashan]

The difference is we can get it on demand health care for anything you can think of today. You on the other hand, are using the VA model simply deny and or delay care until either the person gets better on their own because they really didn't need to see the doctor or they die in which case you save an awful lot on end-of-life care. End-of-life care is the most expensive time in anyone's life. Cut that by two or three months and you would save billions in the US.

The only savings that come in any health care system come through rationing. There is no other way there is no shortcut.

The other factor that I'm sick and tired of hearing from you English about how much healthier you are and how much less they spend. You people are not nearly as fat as we are we are fat because we are practically forced feeding our poor with ridiculously high-calorie unhealthy food all paid for with very generous SNAP benefits.

You also do not have our demographics. You do not have our specific genotypes. You have no Native Americans and you have not nearly as many mixed African European bloodlines. Both of which have very high incidence of very expensive care for such things as diabetes, renal failure, and heart disease. Both groups hit that expensive end-of-life care 10 years earlier then European counterparts.

No. We are not using the VA model alone. Anyone can go to an NHS doctor or Emergency unit with whatever health problem they have at any time. Cold surgery has waiting lists. Emergency surgery is dealt with as fast as is feasible.

We can and do have private health care and private insurance in addition to the NHS. If you have some money you can opt for private health care or have insurance for that private care. The range of options goes from just a simple cash payment or high co-pay to almost no co-pay. For example when I needed an x-ray I was offered one on the NHS in a week at an inconvenient time, or in two weeks at a time that suited me. I telephoned our local private hospital and had the x-ray within ten minutes of arrival. I paid by debit card on the spot. I could have claimed on my private health insurance but it wasn't worth the hassle of making a claim.

I haven't said we are healthier. Our demographic has changed dramatically over recent decades with mass immigration bringing different health problems. We have many immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa as well as from Europe.

We also have an increasing obesity problem for similar reasons to those in the US. Our welfare state provides unemployment and other benefits that pay for big M go large food and chinese takeaways (and crap lager).

End of life care is typically provided by hospices. They are NOT part of the National Health Service but are charitable foundations. They may be paid contractors to the NHS but they raise funds directly from the public.

The major problem for the NHS is the survival of people to older and older ages. Many of them are fitter than their grandparents were even at ages a decade younger but the 80+ people are becoming more numerous.

My father lived to 96 but didn't need NHS care until the last 6 weeks of his life. He did however need social care for the last six years because his short term memory had gone. He could and did walk twenty miles or more every day but he couldn't always remember where he was going or where he had come from. He also couldn't remember whether he had had breakfast. He funded his social care himself. That was feasible then. It wouldn't be now because social care costs have increased faster than inflation. But he was not typical. Many people in their late 80s and 90s require significant health and social care that private medical insurance won't cover.

The best health care in the US is the best in the world. It is also the most expensive. With a few exceptions we do not have that level of medical excellence.

What we do not have is the prevalance of medical negligence lawyers that exist in the US. Their activities increase the cost of simple procedures because the medical professionals are constantly aware that a mistake, even an honest mistake, can be expensive. They have to factor in the cost of insurance to cover themselves against legal suits. That exists in the UK but not to the same extent. Insurance is cheaper because claims are fewer and less likely to succeed. Even if the plantiff wins, the payouts are much lower.

The cost per head of health care in the US is inflated by the threat of law suits.

The NHS's problems are not as dramatic as the Red Cross claims but they are known. Whether there is political will to fix those problems? I don't know.

 

[Conager]

No. We are not using the VA model alone. Anyone can go to an NHS doctor or Emergency unit with whatever health problem they have at any time. Cold surgery has waiting lists. Emergency surgery is dealt with as fast as is feasible.

We can and do have private health care and private insurance in addition to the NHS. If you have some money you can opt for private health care or have insurance for that private care. The range of options goes from just a simple cash payment or high co-pay to almost no co-pay. For example when I needed an x-ray I was offered one on the NHS in a week at an inconvenient time, or in two weeks at a time that suited me. I telephoned our local private hospital and had the x-ray within ten minutes of arrival. I paid by debit card on the spot. I could have claimed on my private health insurance but it wasn't worth the hassle of making a claim.

I haven't said we are healthier. Our demographic has changed dramatically over recent decades with mass immigration bringing different health problems. We have many immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa as well as from Europe.

We also have an increasing obesity problem for similar reasons to those in the US. Our welfare state provides unemployment and other benefits that pay for big M go large food and chinese takeaways (and crap lager).

End of life care is typically provided by hospices. They are NOT part of the National Health Service but are charitable foundations. They may be paid contractors to the NHS but they raise funds directly from the public.

The major problem for the NHS is the survival of people to older and older ages. Many of them are fitter than their grandparents were even at ages a decade younger but the 80+ people are becoming more numerous.

My father lived to 96 but didn't need NHS care until the last 6 weeks of his life. He did however need social care for the last six years because his short term memory had gone. He could and did walk twenty miles or more every day but he couldn't always remember where he was going or where he had come from. He also couldn't remember whether he had had breakfast. He funded his social care himself. That was feasible then. It wouldn't be now because social care costs have increased faster than inflation. But he was not typical. Many people in their late 80s and 90s require significant health and social care that private medical insurance won't cover.

The best health care in the US is the best in the world. It is also the most expensive. With a few exceptions we do not have that level of medical excellence.

What we do not have is the prevalance of medical negligence lawyers that exist in the US. Their activities increase the cost of simple procedures because the medical professionals are constantly aware that a mistake, even an honest mistake, can be expensive. They have to factor in the cost of insurance to cover themselves against legal suits. That exists in the UK but not to the same extent. Insurance is cheaper because claims are fewer and less likely to succeed. Even if the plantiff wins, the payouts are much lower.

The cost per head of health care in the US is inflated by the threat of law suits.

The NHS's problems are not as dramatic as the Red Cross claims but they are known. Whether there is political will to fix those problems? I don't know.

You're definitely right about lawyers being a large part of the problem in the United States. The vast majority of our politicians are poor lawyers. Who then get rich as politicians.

Pharmaceutical salesman also have very cozy relationships with our doctors. The rules and ethics are very loose and there needs to be a complete Wall of Separation there.