[Fifer82]

I would rather be slaughtered than vote for Conservative, but I have to say, the NHS is already dead.

1. My nephew is 15 months old, sick and has to take tablet form which is almost impossible. The liquid one is beyond the budget.

2. My mum is having big problems with her knee due to arthritis, it has been going on for 4 years, and all they do is treat the pain. So now she is on boxes of Tramadol, and this is creating all kinds of new problems.

3. My father in law has a poor heart and he has medication but what they have given him creates a list of side effects so long that he visits the GP atleast once a week. If he cuts himself, he is in Hospital. However, there are alternatives, but beyond the budget to be prescribed to him.

This is my only experiences with the NHS and I don't think it is fit for purpose.

The desire of the common person to scream "PROTECT OUR NHS" is feeding into the problems. Now they are even paying Recruitment Agencies huge sums of money to find people remotely qualified, and they are absolutely raking in the cash (I know someone off to Miami with work in August as a perk holiday for working the NHS account).

[sangnoir]

> Now they are even paying Recruitment Agencies huge sums of money to find people remotely qualified, and they are absolutely raking in the cash

Now you know why the elite invested their own money into Brexit - Brexit is not just a pet ideology, it is an opportunity to make boatloads of money through privatization. While promoting a nationalist agenda, these well-heeled globalist gentleman will relocate to Monaco, Bahamas or some other sunny island at the first signs of Brexit failing. They will probably do so anyway even if it is a success.

May things go well for you and your family.

[lmm]

This is the "starve the beast" strategy of the right. Defund a service until it's bad, then use the fact that it's bad to justify reductions in funding. Rinse and repeat.

[grey-area]

This is my only experiences with the NHS and I don't think it is fit for purpose.

The answer to all your gripes above is to stop starving the NHS of funds in a climate where it has to take care of more and more elderly people, and simply increase funding - we spend significantly less on healthcare than other developed nations.

The gameplan is this:

1. Starve the NHS of funds for years

2. Create false crises by continually setting unrealistic budgets, putting hospitals in 'special measures', cutting GP funding etc.

3. Enforce longer waiting times, poorer service, and low morale by funding management and private partnerships but cutting front line pay.

4. Ditch the NHS, since it clearly isn't fit for purpose (nice sound-byte)

5. Make people pay for insurance to pay the private providers - and we get Trumpcare

Astoundingly, this seems to work, as evidenced by your post.

[s_kilk]

> I don't think it is fit for purpose.

Precisely because it has been fucking eviscerated by the Tories.

[cmahler7]

Wealthy Canadians get medical care in the US for a reason.

Here's some stats on NHS

1. 3x higher death rate after major surgeries compared to US

2. 48% of Brits haven't seen a dentist in over 2 years

3. Average surgery wait time of 18 weeks, 100 days for major surgeries.

4. 1 in 28 die due to subpar care

Universal health care = universally terrible

Source: http://www.dailywire.com/news/14470/7-things-you-need-know-a...

[corney91]

Most of these are due to lack of funding, just look at the examples given in the article -- "lack of beds and nurses" sums up a lot of them.

This makes sense when you see that the UK spends 9.78% GDP on healthcare when the US spends 16.91% (http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs) and you can also see we actually get great value for money when the Commonwealth Fund has rated the NHS above most other healthcare systems: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/20...

The NHS wasn't in this state in 2010 before Andrew Lansley got his hands on it. Maybe the problem lies with those who are managing it (somehow currently the imbecile fall-guy Jeremy Hunt...)

On top of that, stats like your first one are easily skewed because people in the US don't even get necessary surgeries because they can't afford it, so of course the NHS is going to have a higher rate of death afterwards!

[Fifer82]

You mean the ex culture secretary? With no experience of healthcare, finance, or anything else that the job entails? Crazy. The only thing more ridiculous is having a Chancellor with no real world business or financial experience who is known to dodge tax... oh... and now Editors a Newspaper.

[gmac]

I'll bite: across the population as a whole, the UK has much better health outcomes than the US despite spending a lot less money on healthcare. Of course, we should be spending more money, and then I expect we'd equal or even beat the US at the top too, because too much healthcare is also a bad thing, and with private healthcare that's what rich people get.

[nicky0]

Nice to see a good unbiased source referenced there.

[cmahler7]

every stat in the article is backed by a study.

[nicky0]

The selection of stats presented is still a form of bias.

[45h34jh53k4j]

So what you are saying is that only the wealthy deserve good quality healthcare? Good plan.

[cmahler7]

No I'm simply putting out facts that universal health care isn't a perfect system.

Nice strawman though

[nicky0]

Maybe not perfect, but the system was pretty good today when I went to see my doctor for free.