20 ms·

It is too bad that corrupt government officials keep systemically defunding Social Health programs with the objective of pushing private for-profit healthcare (

It is too bad that corrupt government officials keep systemically defunding Social Health programs with the objective of pushing private for-profit healthcare (which just doesn't make sense). Then they point to the deficient healthcare and blame the "socialized" aspect of it for the issues. Here in Mexico we've seen it all play out: We had an amazing social healthcare system (in the form of the IMSS) in the 70s and 80s. But the corrupt government officials kept dismantling it and allowing corruption to run rampant within the system. All to get a piece of the private for-profit health system including Health Insurance. Back in 2004 when I lived in the UK, the NHS was really good. And I remember hearing at that time that it was nothing compared to the NHS in the 80s and 90s. I seriously hope it doesn't have the same outcome as our system had in Mexico. For-profit health is inhumane.

oliwarner 4y ago
2004 was the peak of Blair-Brown Labour party investment. They didn't get it all right. They used PFI and outsourcing to fudge the sums on major investments, and I dare say they didn't invest in mental and social health care in the amount required. But nobody ever has. The job of fixing this is so expensive and requires so much political force. We're still worried French immigrants are going to eat our dingos, or something. I'm fairly certain now we're destined to limp into an American insurance model; eat the poor.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- origin_path 4y ago
  The Blair/Brown years left the country bankrupt. They literally left the coalition a note saying "there's no money left" https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/20... PFI was used because it was a way to get "free money" for the NHS by pushing the real costs into the future. The core problem for the socialized model is that nobody can assemble a voter coalition that agrees to raise taxes. The poorer Labour voters say no, the rich should pay, or alternatively, the money already exists it's just the evil Tories refusing to fund the system. The more affluent conservative voters say no, because either, the NHS is wasting money and should fix that first e.g. the massive spend on diversity officers, or, the NHS is always overloaded due to uncontrolled immigration, so fix that first. The NHS doesn't have enough admin support as a result. Then the woke middle classes say no, reducing immigration is awful and we will fight it all the way and of course we won't pay higher taxes because if we allowed unlimited immigration the new taxes from all the highly skilled doctor/engineer immigrants would fix the problems. In the UK there's also the issue that the social care workforce was one of the only professions forced to take vaccines. Lots quit and the rest learned that they have fewer human rights than other people. So having treated the social care workforce like shit, which was already overstretched, the system is now in total collapse for lack of workers. State run systems always have problems like this. It's one size fits all, so the different groups with their different priorities can never agree and the result is deadlock and collapse. The people who run it are too far removed from the front line and the "too big to fail" problem rears its ugly head. The NHS could never survive as is, it's just a pity that it had to end like this.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>with the objective of pushing private for-profit healthcare (which just doesn't make sense) Maybe it doesn't make sense for you, but it makes their buddies in the private sector a lot of money. And that's the game in capitalism, making a lot of money. The government competing with affordable options for everyone against the private sector is "bad for business".
- cjbgkagh 4y ago
  Let’s not pretend corruption is unique to capitalism.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    That's not what I said.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The game in socialism is also making a lot of money.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        Problem: Politicians are corrupt! Solution: Give more power to politicians! Lack of power corrupts, need to give them more until they stop being corrupt! Not sure why anyone thinks that would work.
        pydry 4y ago
        Because politicians are accountable to voters and unless the monopolies are nationalized the monopolies are accountable to no one.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        > politicians are accountable to voters And then what happens to minority interests? How about we have a national vote on what phone you get? Which car you get? Whether carrots or tomatoes get produced? What movies get produced? What clothes are produced? Which diseases get funding? What apartment you get? How many ounces of meat you get per week? What music you get to listen to? What could go wrong with that?
eikenberry 4y ago
When you put politicians in charge of healthcare they will play politics with it. Politicians playing politics doesn't make sense to you? Remember most don't really care that much about the healthcare itself, only how it can be used to further their agenda and be spun for their constituency. It's the tradeoff from private where the money rules.
jfk13 4y ago
> Back in 2004 when I lived in the UK, the NHS was really good. And I remember hearing at that time that it was nothing compared to the NHS in the 80s and 90s. That sounds like some seriously rose-tinted nostalgia to me. Yes, the NHS certainly has its problems. But within the past decade, my wife has been through several fairly major health issues, including cancer, and our overall experience of UK healthcare has been quite positive. She is from the US (and had "good" insurance there), but feels that the UK system has served her far better than the American ever did.
WhyIsItGlowing 4y ago
> Back in 2004 when I lived in the UK, the NHS was really good. And I remember hearing at that time that it was nothing compared to the NHS in the 80s and 90s. In a lot of respects, this isn't very accurate. It got pretty bad in the early '90s, anything that needed to go beyond the GP had really bad wait times, people stuck on trolleys in A&E, etc. By 2004 it was much better, so that anything which required a hospital visit would be dealt with much more quickly and effectively but the GPs were coming under more pressure from a growing and aging population so the first point of contact had a less personal touch.
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  I have to wonder how much of the current "crises" we are seeing right now are simply because of a massive aging population. Of course the medical system is going to have issues, no matter if it is public or private, if you suddenly increase the demand, as the older you get the more health care you need, while at the same time all your most capable and experienced doctors are retiring. Another is housing, right now we have one generation coming up right as the most populous generation is towards the end of their life, resulting in an increased demand and price, in 20 years as more and more the later generations start passing on they'll be leaving behind houses and properties, it's not like those disappear when the people do. I've noticed that the media seems very engaged in making everything the crises of the moment and the focus on looking at things over the course of years or decades is often ignored in favor of sensationalism.
  - spiralx 4y ago
    An aging population is a significant factor, another one is the increasing range of treatments available today - and of course they combine because most medical expenditure happens during the last part of a person's life.
throwaway049 4y ago
In 2004 when I worked in NHS emergency care we had such a problem with no space in ED to unload ambulances that the ambulance service threatened to put a mass casualty tent in the hospital car park.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

oliwarner 4y ago

2004 was the peak of Blair-Brown Labour party investment. They didn't get it all right. They used PFI and outsourcing to fudge the sums on major investments, and I dare say they didn't invest in mental and social health care in the amount required. But nobody ever has. The job of fixing this is so expensive and requires so much political force. We're still worried French immigrants are going to eat our dingos, or something. I'm fairly certain now we're destined to limp into an American insurance model; eat the poor.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
origin_path 4y ago
The Blair/Brown years left the country bankrupt. They literally left the coalition a note saying "there's no money left" https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/20... PFI was used because it was a way to get "free money" for the NHS by pushing the real costs into the future. The core problem for the socialized model is that nobody can assemble a voter coalition that agrees to raise taxes. The poorer Labour voters say no, the rich should pay, or alternatively, the money already exists it's just the evil Tories refusing to fund the system. The more affluent conservative voters say no, because either, the NHS is wasting money and should fix that first e.g. the massive spend on diversity officers, or, the NHS is always overloaded due to uncontrolled immigration, so fix that first. The NHS doesn't have enough admin support as a result. Then the woke middle classes say no, reducing immigration is awful and we will fight it all the way and of course we won't pay higher taxes because if we allowed unlimited immigration the new taxes from all the highly skilled doctor/engineer immigrants would fix the problems. In the UK there's also the issue that the social care workforce was one of the only professions forced to take vaccines. Lots quit and the rest learned that they have fewer human rights than other people. So having treated the social care workforce like shit, which was already overstretched, the system is now in total collapse for lack of workers. State run systems always have problems like this. It's one size fits all, so the different groups with their different priorities can never agree and the result is deadlock and collapse. The people who run it are too far removed from the front line and the "too big to fail" problem rears its ugly head. The NHS could never survive as is, it's just a pity that it had to end like this.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>with the objective of pushing private for-profit healthcare (which just doesn't make sense) Maybe it doesn't make sense for you, but it makes their buddies in the private sector a lot of money. And that's the game in capitalism, making a lot of money. The government competing with affordable options for everyone against the private sector is "bad for business".

cjbgkagh 4y ago
Let’s not pretend corruption is unique to capitalism.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  That's not what I said.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    The game in socialism is also making a lot of money.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      Problem: Politicians are corrupt! Solution: Give more power to politicians! Lack of power corrupts, need to give them more until they stop being corrupt! Not sure why anyone thinks that would work.
      - pydry 4y ago
        Because politicians are accountable to voters and unless the monopolies are nationalized the monopolies are accountable to no one.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        > politicians are accountable to voters And then what happens to minority interests? How about we have a national vote on what phone you get? Which car you get? Whether carrots or tomatoes get produced? What movies get produced? What clothes are produced? Which diseases get funding? What apartment you get? How many ounces of meat you get per week? What music you get to listen to? What could go wrong with that?

eikenberry 4y ago

When you put politicians in charge of healthcare they will play politics with it. Politicians playing politics doesn't make sense to you? Remember most don't really care that much about the healthcare itself, only how it can be used to further their agenda and be spun for their constituency. It's the tradeoff from private where the money rules.

jfk13 4y ago

> Back in 2004 when I lived in the UK, the NHS was really good. And I remember hearing at that time that it was nothing compared to the NHS in the 80s and 90s. That sounds like some seriously rose-tinted nostalgia to me. Yes, the NHS certainly has its problems. But within the past decade, my wife has been through several fairly major health issues, including cancer, and our overall experience of UK healthcare has been quite positive. She is from the US (and had "good" insurance there), but feels that the UK system has served her far better than the American ever did.

WhyIsItGlowing 4y ago

> Back in 2004 when I lived in the UK, the NHS was really good. And I remember hearing at that time that it was nothing compared to the NHS in the 80s and 90s. In a lot of respects, this isn't very accurate. It got pretty bad in the early '90s, anything that needed to go beyond the GP had really bad wait times, people stuck on trolleys in A&E, etc. By 2004 it was much better, so that anything which required a hospital visit would be dealt with much more quickly and effectively but the GPs were coming under more pressure from a growing and aging population so the first point of contact had a less personal touch.

buscoquadnary 4y ago
I have to wonder how much of the current "crises" we are seeing right now are simply because of a massive aging population. Of course the medical system is going to have issues, no matter if it is public or private, if you suddenly increase the demand, as the older you get the more health care you need, while at the same time all your most capable and experienced doctors are retiring. Another is housing, right now we have one generation coming up right as the most populous generation is towards the end of their life, resulting in an increased demand and price, in 20 years as more and more the later generations start passing on they'll be leaving behind houses and properties, it's not like those disappear when the people do. I've noticed that the media seems very engaged in making everything the crises of the moment and the focus on looking at things over the course of years or decades is often ignored in favor of sensationalism.
- spiralx 4y ago
  An aging population is a significant factor, another one is the increasing range of treatments available today - and of course they combine because most medical expenditure happens during the last part of a person's life.

throwaway049 4y ago

In 2004 when I worked in NHS emergency care we had such a problem with no space in ED to unload ambulances that the ambulance service threatened to put a mass casualty tent in the hospital car park.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]