9 ms·

That's different. Yes, everyone complains about the state of the NHS but the "religion" is that the NHS may not be criticised itself. So it is in a bad state be

That's different. Yes, everyone complains about the state of the NHS but the "religion" is that the NHS may not be criticised itself. So it is in a bad state because it does not receive enough money, that's it, nothing else. Any suggestion that the organisation itself might be improved or, god forbid, that patients might pay is indeed usually seen as "blasphemy".

jampekka 1y ago
> god forbid, that patients might pay is indeed usually seen as "blasphemy". There are policies that are wildly popular. Free public healthcare is one of such policies in many countries, and perhaps for a good reason.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
riv991 1y ago
> So it is in a bad state because it does not receive enough money, that's it In real terms the budget is the largest it's ever been, it's a relic of the time when people worked and died shortly (a decade) after retiring, not when they live for 30+ years longer.
- vidarh 1y ago
  It's still one of the cheapest healthcare systems among similarly wealthy countries per capita - it's seriously underfunded. To bring it to a comparable level to similarly wealthy countries would take an increase in funding of 20%-30%.
- nicoburns 1y ago
  > In real terms the budget is the largest it's ever been Which it needs to be given the demographic changes you note. It's about 15% smaller per capita than comparable countries spend. That would suggest that we need to increase the budget if we want comparable service.
  - graemep 1y ago
    That has changed in recent years. Now greater than in France in absolute spend per capita, would need a 7.5% increase to match in terms of GDP. It would still require a 15% increase to match Germany in absolute per capita, but only 8.5% in percentage of GDP. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?locations=FR-DE-GB https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?locat... https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2023&locations=FR-DE-GB&start=2000&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2...
TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
The UK spends about 18% less per capita on the NHS than the EU14 countries do on their health systems. A lot of that money has gone on stealth privatisation through inefficient outsourcing of contract staff and PFI of infrastructure. So the actual standard of care is far lower than the funding suggests. And it has been deliberately run down so a US-style system can be implemented. So yes, the organisation should be improved, but in the exact opposite direction to the one you're suggesting. The UK's real problem is that it's run by an out-of-touch inbred aristocracy with vast inherited wealth, working through a political system which prioritises stealth corruption over public service. They don't see why they should contribute anything to the welfare of the peasants. The obligation is all one way - from the peasants to the gentry. And there's a layer of middle class professionals who have convinced themselves they're the gentry, even though they can't afford to pay their school fees, never mind maintain a huge estate. So - private ownership good, public spending bad. More sensible countries don't have this attitude problem, and are proud their public services actually benefit the public.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  If you go to, say, France, you'll find that healthcare isn't free at the point of use and that the system is much more private than in the UK. I believe this is so in many other European countries, too. So public/NHS vs private/US system is a false dichotomy, and "free at the point of use" is a red herring. Looking at the reactions, this whole threads does exemplifies what the OP said about the NHS being a "religion".
  - dmix 1y ago
    Same with Canada, they have public health insurance run by provinces which private hospitals bill to. While the UK has a giant national public hospital system run across an entire country (NHS England, NHS Scotland etc).
    - vidarh 1y ago
      The UK has NHS trusts that run hospitals etc. For a limited period of time - just a few years -, the trusts in England were reporting to NHS England. NHS England is being abolished. These ca. 200 trusts operate with a great degree of operational independence, though they are public entties. The distinction is important because they are what makes the scale manageable, and it also provides resilience.

jampekka 1y ago

> god forbid, that patients might pay is indeed usually seen as "blasphemy". There are policies that are wildly popular. Free public healthcare is one of such policies in many countries, and perhaps for a good reason.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

riv991 1y ago

> So it is in a bad state because it does not receive enough money, that's it In real terms the budget is the largest it's ever been, it's a relic of the time when people worked and died shortly (a decade) after retiring, not when they live for 30+ years longer.

vidarh 1y ago
It's still one of the cheapest healthcare systems among similarly wealthy countries per capita - it's seriously underfunded. To bring it to a comparable level to similarly wealthy countries would take an increase in funding of 20%-30%.
nicoburns 1y ago
> In real terms the budget is the largest it's ever been Which it needs to be given the demographic changes you note. It's about 15% smaller per capita than comparable countries spend. That would suggest that we need to increase the budget if we want comparable service.
- graemep 1y ago
  That has changed in recent years. Now greater than in France in absolute spend per capita, would need a 7.5% increase to match in terms of GDP. It would still require a 15% increase to match Germany in absolute per capita, but only 8.5% in percentage of GDP. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?locations=FR-DE-GB https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?locat... https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2023&locations=FR-DE-GB&start=2000&view=chart https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2...

TheOtherHobbes 1y ago

The UK spends about 18% less per capita on the NHS than the EU14 countries do on their health systems. A lot of that money has gone on stealth privatisation through inefficient outsourcing of contract staff and PFI of infrastructure. So the actual standard of care is far lower than the funding suggests. And it has been deliberately run down so a US-style system can be implemented. So yes, the organisation should be improved, but in the exact opposite direction to the one you're suggesting. The UK's real problem is that it's run by an out-of-touch inbred aristocracy with vast inherited wealth, working through a political system which prioritises stealth corruption over public service. They don't see why they should contribute anything to the welfare of the peasants. The obligation is all one way - from the peasants to the gentry. And there's a layer of middle class professionals who have convinced themselves they're the gentry, even though they can't afford to pay their school fees, never mind maintain a huge estate. So - private ownership good, public spending bad. More sensible countries don't have this attitude problem, and are proud their public services actually benefit the public.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
If you go to, say, France, you'll find that healthcare isn't free at the point of use and that the system is much more private than in the UK. I believe this is so in many other European countries, too. So public/NHS vs private/US system is a false dichotomy, and "free at the point of use" is a red herring. Looking at the reactions, this whole threads does exemplifies what the OP said about the NHS being a "religion".
- dmix 1y ago
  Same with Canada, they have public health insurance run by provinces which private hospitals bill to. While the UK has a giant national public hospital system run across an entire country (NHS England, NHS Scotland etc).
  - vidarh 1y ago
    The UK has NHS trusts that run hospitals etc. For a limited period of time - just a few years -, the trusts in England were reporting to NHS England. NHS England is being abolished. These ca. 200 trusts operate with a great degree of operational independence, though they are public entties. The distinction is important because they are what makes the scale manageable, and it also provides resilience.