A jobbing doctors assessment of the Bill.
There was no electoral mandate for the Bill.
It is being implemented at a time of cost cutting.
It involves top-down reorganisation that is bigger than any other.
Most Nurses are against it
Most Doctors are against it
Most managers are against it.
The Scots are against it.
The Welsh are against it.
The Northern Irish are against it.
Its implementation will cost a lot of money and will fragment the NHS.
It will not benefit patients.
It will benefit private Healthcare providers.

Let’s remind ourselves – the NHS came about because of poor standards when the health of ordinary people was left to the vagaries of the market.

There was no electoral mandate for the Bill.
It is being implemented at a time of cost cutting.
It involves top-down reorganisation that is bigger than any other.
Most Doctors are against it

A pretty accurate description of the foundation of the NHS that.

Is this the normal problem whereby the NHS – a service whereby we (as residents of Britain) receive free health care – is confused with the current system of implementing this (centrally-driven, with limited or no choice and little feedback from consumers)?

The NHS was very necessary and useful, and may have been set up in the best way possible. In the 1940s.

Of course, it could be that this is still the best way possible. But the argument has to be made – you cannot just assume a system of over 60 years antiquity is the best way to do things still. And the argument has to be against what is proposed – not the American model (generally agreed to be a bad thing) or the pre-NHS system (generally agreed to be a historical thing). After all, Sunny could put forward valid (if in my view unconvincing) arguments for electoral reform, so clearly he (and many others) do not believe a system should remain purely because it is long-standing.

[3] “But the argument has to be made” – yes, an important consideration before spending £3 billion on yet another reorganisation – a reorganisation that despite it’s far reaching consequences was, mysteriously never mentioned in the tories pre-election manifesto (although there was, as it turned out, false claims made by D-Cam that there would be no more ‘top down’ meddling).

Personally I think there is zero possibility that the planned changes are being driven by ‘evidence’ rather than ideology.

Be Goldacre has already spanked the politicians for their laughable grasp of health research – or perhaps they do understand the statistics but find it far more convenient to misrepresent them?
http://www.badscience.net/2011/02/why-is-evidence-so-hard-for-politicians/

a&e,

The case for the change has been made – that the market is the best way to allocate resources, so allowing greater choice and mobility will promote good practice and improve outcomes.

The problem here is that, setting aside the incompetent use of statistics by politicians, even if the NHS led the world on all rankings (and trends or no trends, it is a long way from doing that), it is still not perfect. People still die unnecesarily, treatments still takes too long, people are still ignored in favour of completing forms. So regardless of whether the present system works, it could be better. The proposed changes are a way of doing this – and without disbanding the system as exists to boot.

So if you want to defend the current system, explain how keeping it will improve outcomes without the ever-increasing level of funding that meant some measures (and not all by any means – avoidable deaths in hospital for example increased) improved from 1997-2010, which are clearly not available. Make the argument – because it is a pathetic argument to claim that the argument for a more market-based system has not been made, when it clearly has.

I work in a large bureaucratic institution – and when defence of the system and focus on outputs and key measures become the purpose of something, you know there are problems. For bureaucratic systems to work, there needs to be incentive to innovate and to improve – and a system where everything is ultimately controlled centrally lacks this. The NHS as currently constituted needs to be justified – despite the hard work of staff who generally try to do the right thing, the system itself lets people down and recourse to statistics simply ignores the fact that people are not statistics.

@5 – There’s nobody to call to account when it IS disbanded. Nobody responsible. Companies will charge, and you’ll pay or not get. Oh, or you could go three hundred miles for treatment.

[5] Simple question – which health system with comparable demographics to the NHS provides better outcomes at a LOWER cost?

I assume your fundamental belief is that ‘the market knows best’ (when it comes to health care) but don’t forget the NHS first came about because of market failings, failings that the vast majority of doctors, nurse and managers believe can only be exacerbated by Lansley’s dogs dinner of a reform.

Hell, according to Dan Pink much of the market still does not even understand the basic science of motivation?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

How will patient’s be any better off once “any willing provider” starts sloughing off profits, or administering increasingly (and probably impenetrable) bureaucracies?
The answer quite simply will be to reduce services or dumb down – we have already seen evidence of this (especially for unsexy chronic conditions) once austerity really start to kick in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/10/nhs-cuts-deprive-patients-physiotherapy

Blogger and Tweeter Rick has managed to obtain the BBC documentary titled ‘The NHS: A Difficult Beginning’, which exposed conditions before the NHS was set up.

And it’s still like this in France and Spain today… er…

I always swell with pride when I attend an appointment at an NHS hospital for 9am and am still waiting to see the nurse 30 minutes later. And then when I finally see the doctor, she spends more time writing things on various forms than talking to me or examining me and then i am instructed to deliver these forms to someone down the corridor, who is on a crucial phone call……and then I get sent to a holding cell until I am finally allowed to leave.

Whatever you say about the NHS, it is not efficient in any way.

diogenes

In the name of Christ and all his saints… seriously? Your ‘proof’ that the NHS “is not efficient in any way” is that NHS staff you encounter do not give you their full and undivided attention from the moment you arrive until the moment you leave – daring instead to answer telephones, fill in forms, attend to other patients, and generally try to get as much done as possible in the limited time available, while you have to wait around for a few minutes?

What you want is the opposite of ‘efficiency’ – it’s more staff spending more time on fewer patients.

@ 7 – Yea, these days the physiotherapy treatment I had (three 10-minute visits, basically to explain the exercises I had to do) after I had muscle problems in my legs? Now in much of the country would simply be refused.

Which would have left me limping along painfully.

I broke my shoulder in Canada about 5 months ago it was a really serious break of my glenoid (shoulder cup). I decided not to have treatment in Canada and came home to be treated in the NHS. I was so glad I did, I was seen straight away by a doctor in my local hospital and a week later they got a specialist in to do keyhole surgery to fix my shoulder (It was a very serious break apparently). Crazy thing is in Canada I was told I probably wouldn’t get full functionality back because of the damage. However thanks to a really great surgeon and physiotherapist I have got my full mobility back! I am totally in awe now of our NHS, it would be a disgrace to hand it over to profit hungry companies, when it can do so much good. This is of course all anecdotal evidence and should be treated as such, but I feel like I needed to say it. I am just glad I got help before the NHS changed, I doubt the service is going to be as good in a few years time when it is picked apart.

p.s. on a side note if I had done the surgery in Canada it would have been roughly £40,000 on my travel insurance, so you can get a small idea about the damage I did.

@% “The case for the change has been made – that the market is the best way to allocate resources, so allowing greater choice and mobility will promote good practice and improve outcomes.”

This is not a case by itself. To make a case you need to have some evidence that this is true, otherwise it can be countered by anyone saying that “the market isn’t the best way to allocate resources.”

Acknowledging the failings of the NHS as it stands and accepting the need for change does not mean accepting the current bill. The onus is on those proposing the reforms to demonstrate how they will improve the situation. And, given their poor use of statistics, they have failed to do so.

Provide some evidence that the reformed system will be better. Saying the NHS is not perfect is not enough.

1. the a&e charge nurse

Let’s remind ourselves – the NHS came about because of poor standards when the health of ordinary people was left to the vagaries of the market.

No. The NHS came about because of the ideological agenda of the Labour government and their absurd belief that the NHS would save money. Within months it was clear that it was going to be massively expensive and it has remained so ever since.

7. the a&e charge nurse

I assume your fundamental belief is that ‘the market knows best’ (when it comes to health care) but don’t forget the NHS first came about because of market failings, failings that the vast majority of doctors, nurse and managers believe can only be exacerbated by Lansley’s dogs dinner of a reform.

The NHS did not come about because of any market failing and of course those people who have got used to earning a lot of money for little work will resent the idea of being accountable to their consumers.

As for the market, it is demonstrable that the market does know best. I am not entirely convinced myself, as there may be a theoretical case where it does not, but in reality, in practice, the market does know best. I assume you want to make a brain-deadening, argument-avoiding, thought-killing smear with that use of “fundamental”. A shame really.

How will patient’s be any better off once “any willing provider” starts sloughing off profits, or administering increasingly (and probably impenetrable) bureaucracies?

I find it hard to believe that any bureaucracy can be as bad as the NHS. How can you possibly justify the NHS employing 1.3 million people – few of them doctors or nurses – and thus coming in at the third biggest employer in the world? We have a similar population to France but the French bureaucracy does not come close. Germany has a bigger population, but they do not need so much pointless paper pushing. Japan is around twice as big. Needless to say they do not either. Why do we?

The answer quite simply will be to reduce services or dumb down – we have already seen evidence of this (especially for unsexy chronic conditions) once austerity really start to kick in.

That is a problem with poverty, not with provision. Even if we kept the NHS, we cannot go on paying for it as we do. The pointless services will have to be cut. I suggest we start with mental health and that doctor in Scotland who will remove perfectly healthy limbs for you if you tell him you always felt you had too many.

10. G.O.

In the name of Christ and all his saints… seriously? Your ‘proof’ that the NHS “is not efficient in any way” is that NHS staff you encounter do not give you their full and undivided attention from the moment you arrive until the moment you leave – daring instead to answer telephones, fill in forms, attend to other patients, and generally try to get as much done as possible in the limited time available, while you have to wait around for a few minutes?

Surely we can agree that by definition, time doctors and nurses spend with paper work – and it was hours in this case, not minutes – is wasted. Paper work ought to be kept to an absolute minimum.

What you want is the opposite of ‘efficiency’ – it’s more staff spending more time on fewer patients.

That would be ideal. For which we have to get rid of the useless parasites that infest the British bureaucracy. I suggest Singapore’s system.

12. Mason

I broke my shoulder in Canada about 5 months ago it was a really serious break of my glenoid (shoulder cup). I decided not to have treatment in Canada and came home to be treated in the NHS.

Sorry but this would be Canada which not only has public health care, it also makes private health insurance illegal? This Canada? You’re holding this nightmare of a public provider up as an example to avoid?

p.s. on a side note if I had done the surgery in Canada it would have been roughly £40,000 on my travel insurance, so you can get a small idea about the damage I did.

Which we all paid for. Instead of your insurance company paying for it. Thanks.

13. Hum_Con

This is not a case by itself. To make a case you need to have some evidence that this is true, otherwise it can be countered by anyone saying that “the market isn’t the best way to allocate resources.”

There is a massive body of theoretical work proving that markets are in fact the best way to allocate resources. He doesn’t really need to make a case. Any more than he would if he asserted evolution was true.

Acknowledging the failings of the NHS as it stands and accepting the need for change does not mean accepting the current bill. The onus is on those proposing the reforms to demonstrate how they will improve the situation. And, given their poor use of statistics, they have failed to do so.

The first bit is true. The second? Not so much. We have to change because we cannot afford the NHS any more. And it is in the process of collapse. Doing nothing is not an option. There must be change. If not this, and ideally we would not be doing this, what?

All the Tories seem to want to do is move us closer to the French model. Which is superior to our system in almost every way. They are too keen to hand out drugs. But apart from that, brilliant. Why not copy it?

@14 – Because America’s healthcare is cheaper! Oh, wait…

“it is demonstrable that the market does know best”

Go on then, demonstrate it.

“The pointless services will have to be cut. ”

Anything for the poor, you mean. Right.

And paperwork is often useful. Keeping it to an “absolute minimum” leads to treatment errors, insufficient documentation to diagnose issues and problems accurately tracking statistical trends of health issues.It’s also of course important to have back office staff to handle the processing and filing of the paperwork, to save the clinical staff time.

“I suggest Singapore’s system.”

Which won’t scale and It has mandatory and highly paperwork-intensive means-testing, plus it requires supplementary insurance for deacent medical care, on top of the high payroll tax rate.

@15 – I can hold up theoretical work saying the FSM exists. No, you said demonstrate. Not even prove, demonstrate. Do so. I expect to read about it on the news, since it would be the discovery of the century.

And of course we can’t afford the NHS now the ConDem’s you love so much have sent the economy into freefall. The Tories are moving us towards a more bureaucratic version of the American system, not the French system. It’s a typical far-right lie that you’d claim that.

France spends FAR more on healthcare than Britain. 2.5% more of their GDP! Moreover, the vast majority of health insurance is from mutual providers, which the ConDem Government has taken steps to disadvantage in their version of the bill.

Moreover, seriously ill people pay less or nothing towards their care, and the Government has a very strong oversight role into the companies providing health insurance.

NONE of these are featured in the system the Tories are using…the French system, like the British, is based on the Beveridge report, and that’s precisely what the ConDem’s are seeking to abolish here!

@14 & 15

So much for subtlety, are you an idiot?

…of course those people who have got used to earning a lot of money for little work will resent the idea of being accountable to their consumers.

Seriously, do you want to come and follow me round at work sometime? Please demonstrate the little work we do and how we are not continuously accountable for what we do.

I operated on a boy’s scrotum at 3 o’clock on Tuesday morning and took out an appendix at 4 o’clock. (That particular shift started at 0800 on Monday…)

As for the market, it is demonstrable that the market does know best. I am not entirely convinced myself, as there may be a theoretical case where it does not, but in reality, in practice, the market does know best. I assume you want to make a brain-deadening, argument-avoiding, thought-killing smear with that use of “fundamental”. A shame really.

So, never heard of the idea of market failure? Which is perhaps best demonstrated in healthcare.

All the Tories seem to want to do is move us closer to the French model. Which is superior to our system in almost every way. They are too keen to hand out drugs. But apart from that, brilliant. Why not copy it?

No, what they are trying to create is not like the French model. Not to mention the key factor that the French spend significantly more than we do on healthcare. Not to mention that the NHS is demonstrably more efficient.

I find it hard to believe that any bureaucracy can be as bad as the NHS. How can you possibly justify the NHS employing 1.3 million people – few of them doctors or nurses – and thus coming in at the third biggest employer in the world?

Right. Thanks for this. This just demonstrates how you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Few of them doctors or nurses? Really? You sure?

2009 figures for NHS staff (all whole-time equivelents):

Qualified nursing staff: 336,007 (29%)
Doctors: 132,683 (11%)

So 40% of the NHS staff are qualified nurses or doctors…Now let’s look at some of the others;

Support to clinical staff (That will include non-qualified nursing staff, ward clerks, theatre staff (non-medical/non-nursing): 301,235 (26%)
Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff (lab staff, radiographers, physiotherapists, dieticians etc.): 128,331 (11%)

Between 70% and 80% of NHS are clinical (not sure on the exact figure as most of the scientific staff wouldn’t count as directly clinical).

So, if it really is that obvious, please show me the evidence for how this bill is going to make the NHS better.

Then I’ll show you the evidence that actually, the NHS we be severely damaged by these proposals.

In the meantime, I suspect everyone can see, I know what I’m talking about – or at least I know that the biggest single group of NHS staff are nurses. And you don’t.

AFZ

18. alienfromzog
I’m sorry to disagree with you but you got your syntax wrong.
So much for subtlety, are you an idiot? should read-
So much for subtlety, you are an idiot.

A BBC documentary on life before the NHS. Hardly a neutral documentary.

Furthermore, no doubt, the documentary will conflate the situation when the country was poor with the situation when the country is comparatively richer and then claim it was ‘because of the NHS’.

Will they compare increases in technology that occurred during the era with the NHS with, say, Switzerland (which has a more market driven health model).

Will they look into the history of dialysis which was part invented here in the 70′s, but took 3 decades to become mainstream (versus home dialysis in the 70′s in the States).

This documentary will most likely be preaching to the converted.

[20] that’s the kind of cherry picking Lansley himself would be proud of.

You mention Switzerland and the USA – both spend far more on health than the NHS.
Health cost in the USA are close to twice those of the NHS (in terms of % of GDP) while the high rolling Swiss are the biggest spenders in Europe.

Lets start with a simple sum – how much more cash has been pumped into these two systems if we consider the cumulative difference over the last 50 years?

Incidentally, Man City were in the 3rd division a few seasons ago – now they are in the champions league, and 2nd in the premiership – I wonder why?

21:

Yes, the Swiss pay more than us, but get much better value for money too (although part of their costs are related to legislation preventing insurers from discriminating between people with comorbidities). The Swiss are also far wealthier than us (funny that with a minimal welfare system they don’t have people dying on the streets versus ours where we spend more on entitlements than our income tax revenue).

With regards to America:

Regarding US healthcare:

Medicare and medicaid put up prices in the states (i.e. increasing socialism lead to price inflation meaning the charity hospitals were put out of business, laws favoured provision from big insurance companies versus out of pocket payment).

A National Bureau of Economic Research paper places medicare and medicaid as responsible for 40% of the increase in healthcare costs between 1950-1990:

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/fall05/w11619.html

But of course no-one is aware of actual facts concerning America and just continues to scream ‘free-market medicine…’.

[22] you don’t want to, or more likely can’t, do the simple sum, then?

Interesting that they look at the Tredegar Medical Society, which was a sort of collective medical insurance policy for workers – they then call this a mini-NHS, which it was not (because it is not administered through taxation/government, but directly through voluntary contributions of it’s members).

This is what they should have persisted with. This is exactly the sort of thing unions should organise.

In fact, it could be argued that this is an example of literal ‘socialism’.

Also, through Nye Bevan, he actually ruined this system through the NHS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tredegar_Medical_Aid_Society

20:58 – a ward round in which everyone involved in patient care went on the round….where the doctor in charge of the patient was considered the head of the team. Awful awful awful. Much better now with the nurses wearing ‘do not disturb’ bibs and everyone on their compulsory break!

32:12

The documentary authors do not understand the morality behind decisions when they interpose the complaints that socialism leads to fascism with the comment that Bevan wanted to show who was the boss – by reducing the freedom of workers to practice how they feel.

25
Funnily enough, nurses being disturbed doing drug rounds has been identified as the main cause of drugs error, but, of course, the right aren’t really into ‘elf n safety’.
26
Funnily enough, medical and nursing practice is evidence based, not really the bag of the right either.

Thoughts so far, in addition to my previous comments (upto 40 minutes).

The NHS did not stop pneumoconiosis – it is an untreatable disease and any treatment would have come through for profit drug companies anyway.

Interestingly, would be keen to compare the history of home oxygen provision in the NHS versus a less socialised system such as pre 1965 US healthcare. With regards to renal dialysis, the NHS took about 30 years to get this to be mainstream within it, versus the States where this period was a lot shorter (i.e. comparing dialysis to home oxygen).

The NHS/socialised medicine was not responsible for the reduction in TB as inferred by this documentary.

28
Would be nice if you compared like with like, so how long did it take the USA to give dialysis as mainstream, to all those who needed it but hadn’t paid private insurance premiums?

@jojo

I must do my best to ignore non-factual comments, but :

<>

struck me as phenomenally ignorant.

Who do you think performs the R+D on drugs, new technologies etc.?

Heard of cyberknife? Did the NHS/government make this?

Who makes all the new drugs(which is part of the reason of the ‘right’ to healthcare being a fallacious argument – i.e. what is healthcare, but changing human developments and technologies which cost money in the real world and could not be made without money)!

Ditto with dialysis. The point is that the government/NHS ration drugs/treatments based on an assumed cost of life. But the point is also, that government programs put up the costs too (hence why the Tredagar Medical Society cannot afford private healthcare anymore) and are very inefficient (as evidenced by the NHS having the money spent on it doubled and then producing no increase in efficiency as well as 20billion in overspend [and these are the 'cuts', which are in reality the NHS reducing it's overspend as healthcare costs are being maintained]).

It is the nation’s wealth that determines the availability of healthcare (e.g. Bangladesh has an NHS too, but obviously provides much less), and in this era of record government spending, all we are left with is record debt, record cronyism, record welfare payments (for rich and poor), record welfare dependency.

Like I said, the TMS was an excellent example of an economic innovation to deal with the problems of poor healthcare takeup amongst the miners.

Funnily enough, medical and nursing practice is evidence based, not really the bag of the right either

As I’ve said before, Bevan should have established a National Food Service- all food provided by the state, free at the point of delivery.

By now we would have a National Institute of Dietary Excellence to decide what types of food could be afforded and would make us healthier. If you want fillet steak you have to join the end of the queue somewhere near Newcastle, but nobody would starve, right?

And somebody from the National Media Service would make a documentary about the poor nutrition before the NFS was established.

Happy days……….

30
Wasn’t the comment at @27 about drugs error and not the testing of drugs? It appears to me that you are evading the comment and diverting attention to another subject entirely, this stratergy doesn’t work very well on LC.
Much of your post is incoherent, but from what I can gather you are talking about a private insurance scheme, which is available to those who wish to pay.
Lloyd George introduced a national insurance scheme in the early part of the 20th century, the patient paid at the point of delivery and then could claim it back. It didn’t work because most working-class people could not afford the payment in the first place.
The NHS trains all medical and nursing staff at considerable cost, which is often hidden in the figures, private practice gains from this and so too the bulk buying of new medicines and technologies which then drives the cost down.
What the NHS will not do is provide medicines and technologies which are not effective, but in private practice, where the patient/insurance company is charged, anything will be supplied regardless of its’ efficacy when a placebo would do just as well.
Finally, a subject which has been mentioned on LC on many occasions is the voluntary giving of blood, – a news report this week told of a woman who had given 120 pints of blood (an unusual blood group) absolutely free, thank f..k for socialized medicine.

[32] advice on diet belongs to the unsexy ‘prevention’ arm of health care.

We have a growing number of diabetics now and diet is almost certainly implicated in the rapid increase of type II cases – at the very least certain food choices can accelerate end organ damage (in diabetics), and it goes without saying that grub is an important factor in progression of cardiovascular disease as well.

Still, you worry about the lack of red meat in Newcastle if you think this is the more significant health issue.

@33 – Yes, and do remember that the NHS is going to have to pay £9k/year for it’s Doctor and Nurse trainees from next year. This is going to detract from other budgets…

@24 – So, limited treatment for workers in “aid societies”, nothing for the poor and everything for the rich. A very slight variation on America’s model. Right. So, more than double health spending then….

And ah yes, the Swiss system. Where the poor in recent years are shouldering an increasing amount of the burden and are skipping basic and preventative treatment. These take decades to feed down into life expectancy, but it will fall sharply. And even minor treatment can’t be done cheaply because of strict and restrictive regulations as to who can offer medical care.

Heck, millions of poor people skip treatment and checkups for cost reasons in the UK *dental* system…

Another myth perpetrated by this documentary is that of life expectancy – the documentary implies that the NHS was responsible for the increase in life expectancy, rather than the fact that Britain had just had had two wars in less than 30 years and that wars tend to reduce life expectancy and stopping them tends to reduce this effect.

I am not sure many commenting here have actually watched this ‘documentary’ (I would call it a commercial) on the NHS.

Precious little facts are given and those that are tended to be false. In fact, it is very difficult to get healthcare details pre-NHS, but I have managed to get some detailed data and am studying it (I think I googled voluntary sector hospital UK pre NHS, but I don’t have the link now). Also, through looking at Hansard, there were plenty of discussions on creating a ‘National Health Service’ pre Bevan.

OK, there comes a time where opinions have to be cast aside for facts and these are the facts regarding the NHS:

1) The NHS has failed from an economic viewpoint: Despite doubling of it’s budget to the OECD average (on PPP terms) over Labour’s tenure, the NHS has not increased productivity and has been left with a 20 billion deficit.

2) There are no cuts (or maybe a 0.3% cut due to inflation) – the ‘cuts’ are really spending not increasing due to the 20 billion overspend.

3) The NHS is poor at looking after the sickest (when many think exactly the opposite) – we have fewer ICU beds than most of the OECD, much higher cancer death rates than the OECD, complication rates 40% higher for emergency abdominal surgery than equivalent patients in the States, fewer diagnostic tools such as MRI/CT scanners, fewer expensive treatment tools such as radiation therapy equipment and elderly care in many of our hospitals is actually illegal.

The facts are that only convoluted, non-direct data yields good results for the NHS (i.e. artifical man-made systems rather than death rates, numbers of things etc.).

So, in other words, there is no economic or healthcare reason to persist with the NHS in it’s current creation – none at all. Nothing I have yet to hear from anyone has ever rebutted the above.

The hysterical shrieking about the US system is also just that – welfarism through the social security act as well as legislation favouring insurance companies over individuals have put up prices there (an argument rarely heard, put accurate when data is looked at).

OK, there comes a time where opinions have to be cast aside for facts and these are the facts regarding the NHS:

1) The NHS has failed from an economic viewpoint: Despite doubling of it’s budget to the OECD average (on PPP terms) over Labour’s tenure, the NHS has not increased productivity and has been left with a 20 billion deficit.

2) There are no cuts (or maybe a 0.3% cut due to inflation) – the ‘cuts’ are really spending not increasing due to the 20 billion overspend.

3) The NHS is poor at looking after the sickest (when many think exactly the opposite) – we have fewer ICU beds than most of the OECD, much higher cancer death rates than the OECD, complication rates 40% higher for emergency abdominal surgery than equivalent patients in the States, fewer diagnostic tools such as MRI/CT scanners, fewer expensive treatment tools such as radiation therapy equipment and elderly care in many of our hospitals is actually illegal.

The facts are that only convoluted, non-direct data yields good results for the NHS (i.e. artifical man-made systems rather than death rates, numbers of things etc.).

In other words, there is no economic or healthcare reason to persist with the NHS in it’s current creation – none at all. Nothing I have yet to hear from anyone has ever rebutted the above.

The hysterical shrieking about the US system is also just that – welfarism through the social security act as well as legislation favouring insurance companies over individuals have put up prices there (an argument rarely heard, put accurate when data is looked at).

OK, there comes a time where opinions have to be cast aside for facts and these are the facts regarding the NHS:

1) The NHS has failed from an economic viewpoint: Despite doubling of it’s budget to the OECD average (on PPP terms) over Labour’s tenure, the NHS has not increased productivity and has been left with a 20 billion deficit.

2) There are no cuts (or maybe a 0.3% cut due to inflation) – the ‘cuts’ are really spending not increasing due to the 20 billion overspend.

3) The NHS is poor at looking after the sickest (when many think exactly the opposite) – we have fewer ICU beds than most of the OECD, much higher cancer death rates than the OECD, complication rates 40% higher for emergency abdominal surgery than equivalent patients in the States, fewer diagnostic tools such as MRI/CT scanners, fewer expensive treatment tools such as radiation therapy equipment and elderly care in many of our hospitals is actually illegal.

The facts are that only convoluted, non-direct data yields good results for the NHS (i.e. artifical man-made systems rather than death rates, numbers of things etc.).

So, in other words, there is no economic or healthcare reason to persist with the NHS in it’s current creation – none at all. Nothing I have yet to hear from anyone has ever rebutted the above.

The hysterical shrieking about the US system is also just that – welfarism through the social security act as well as legislation favouring insurance companies over individuals have put up prices there (an argument rarely heard, put accurate when data is looked at).

Sorry for the multi-post.

Did not realise