Did You Enjoy the Olympics Opening Ceremony?

It needs some change, but I do question the validity of some of what you said:

Firstly, are there actually increased herditary problems or just better detection of these problems?

Secondly, hasn't the NHS always needed to buy new (and often initially expensive) equipment and drugs? How is now any different to the last 64 years?

Thirdly, the rationing doesn't need reform, it needs money. The UK spends less than several western countries on its medical care and substantially less (as percentage of GDP) than the US. What evidence is there that reform will change the need for rationing instead of increasing health spending?

Fourthly, The euthanising elderly and seriously ill (from what I can see) was a story released by the Daily Mail based upon the claims on one single Doctor. As far as I'm aware, other than the testimony of this one individual, there is no actual 'evidence' to back up this scare story.

Fifthly, if the NHS cannot afford certain cancer costs, then this shows it needs extra funding in line with other countries rather than reform.

Sixthly, France and Switzerland also have their issues as every system does. The reason they have fewer systems is linked to funding rather than organisation. As a percentage of GDP, both receieve more funding than our UK health services. Can you prove that a reform along the French or Swiss models would give the improvements as opposed to increased spending in line with those two countries?

There are increased hereditary problems because people with hereditary problems are reproducing rather than dying. The NHS has needed to buy an increased amount of equipment since the 1990's due to the technological revolution, in a similar timeline as the NHS going downhill. It can't afford all of the equipment it needs, so is now outdated. If we can reform it by increasing spending, making hospitals more efficient and competitive, and give them more money if they ration less, then rationing will be decreased, like in most European countries. There have been several cases, one of a young man who was being cared for, who was purposefully dehydrated to euthanise him because the NHS hospital wanted to make cutbacks and he was expensive to treat. The NHS cannot afford cancer costs because NICE tells it not to - it isn't cost efficient enough. France and Switzerland's systems work very well, France's system has 1/3 more funding and 25% comes from patients directly. The Swiss system is almost completely patient funded through compulsory insurance and they are both some of the best systems in the world. And yes - we give hospitals budgets. They are allowed to do what we like with these budgets, and only have to adhere to a few targets. Hospitals actively keep care just above the minimum and extend waiting times as long as they can to make people go to different hospitals, so they can give the management more of the budget in their salaries. If we increase spending, they will spend more on the higher ups and claim inefficiency and lack of money. However, if we give hospitals money based on how many patients they treat, and how well they treat them, the hospitals will compete for patients by drastically improving cleanliness, quality of care, the staff will be much friendlier, the waiting times will be shortened, the hospitals will be extended and more beds and facilities will be available, and most of the bureaucracy and inefficiency will be scrapped, as all of a sudden the management get more money by getting more patients, rather than less. However, to prevent people from being taken in by the hospitals trying to get them to take more care, the patients must carry part of the cost of the treatment, and that's where the French system comes in - if you need more treatment, the government will pay it all, if you need less, you pay part of it.

"If we can reform it by increasing spending, making hospitals more efficient and competitive, and give them more money if they ration less"

This isn't a reform, this is giving them more money and telling them to be more efficient. It's what the Labour government did for years. Hardly a reform, just more spending.

"There have been several cases, one of a young man who was being cared for, who was purposefully dehydrated to euthanise him because the NHS hospital wanted to make cutbacks and he was expensive to treat".

Evidence please. I find it hard to believe that a hospital basically murdered a man through dehydration and it wasn't one of the biggest loudest scandals in British history. Without actualy evidence this happened, this is just another scare story.

"France and Switzerland's systems work very well, France's system has 1/3 more funding"

So again I ask why you are so certain a complete radical reform is needed rather than increased funding and minor changes? Can you prove that reforming along the French model without providing the extra funding will make a difference? Or that keeping the current model but providing funding in line with France won't significantly raise care to an equal level?


"The Swiss system is almost completely patient funded through compulsory insurance and they are both some of the best systems in the world"

But again, can you prove that this is because of the health system itself and not because of the high levels of funding it receives? You look at the data and the correlation is between levels of care and funding as % of GDP, not between nationalised/privatised/antyhing in between.


"However, if we give hospitals money based on how many patients they treat, and how well they treat them, the hospitals will compete for patients by drastically improving cleanliness, quality of care, the staff will be much friendlier, the waiting times will be shortened, the hospitals will be extended and more beds and facilities will be available, and most of the bureaucracy and inefficiency will be scrapped"

This all sounds good in theory, but the main argument for not doing it is that a hopsital that is struggling will then recieve less money, meaning it has to cut services, meaning it does even less well, so it receieves even less money etc. It would mean that once a hospital falls into trouble, it will be extremely difficult to pull themselves out of a very rapid downward spiral.