Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 24-7-2010 @ 08:24 PM by jdub297

Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
...
Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients.

www.nytimes.com...

Some of saw this coming last year when Obamacare was still being debated, and many ATS members were citing England and Canada as examples of "successful" nationalized health care systems:
British Leaders: "Dismantle Nat'l Health Svc., "Fails Expectations," "No Longer Relevant"

Unfortunately, while the vast resources of a national government can prop-up and subsidized a flawed system, even these resources have limits.

Those of us who have advocated real "reform" have long advocated "patient-centered health care. Systems that use this model have proven effective at lowering costs and increasing availability.

See, please:
Pateint-Centered Healthcare

Expanding Patient-Centered Care

Hoosiers and Health Savings Accounts
An Indiana experiment that is reducing costs for the state and its employees.

online.wsj.com...

It's not yet too late to reform the Obamacare "reforms."

jw

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 08:39 PM by Jenna

So Britain is moving to what we have now, or a close approximation at any rate, while our government is forcing us to move to what Britain has.

I just can't help but laugh over this. We heard for months that the system they have in Britain (and Canada) was so much better than what we have and that we should be jumping for joy that we'd be able to have the same wonderful system they have. That's just hilarious.

Is it still to early to say "I told you so"?

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 08:46 PM by neo96

good news for the brits.......

but this will fall on deaf ears over here.

keep the faith tho we still have a chance to kill obamacare.

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 08:52 PM by drwizardphd

I don't live in Britain so I won't comment on the system as if I know anything from experience, but the supposed plan has some very legitimate criticisms against it:

“It’s like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,” Mr. Furness said. “The government is saying that G.P.’s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn’t necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef — why would they be? They’re waiters.”

Dr. Durie added, “The gulf between the rhetoric of the white paper and the technicalities of what is involved in the various elements of the overall reorganization being proposed is just extraordinary.”

For example, he asked, how will the government make good on its promise to give patients more choice — a promise that seems to require a degree of administrative oversight — while cutting so many managers from the system?

Not to mention,

Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished.

All from your source.

Also, it's not as if the UK is returning to a privatized system. This is just a restructuring of the NHS, not an abolition of it. It would be political suicide to dismantle the NHS, as from what I understand it is still exceptionally popular among British citizens.

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 09:04 PM by drwizardphd

Originally posted by Jenna

Is it still to early to say "I told you so"?

According to 90% of British citizens, WAY too early...

Which system would you rather be treated under?
89.9% The NHS, every time
10.1% I'd prefer to avoid the waiting lists and go stateside

Guardian Poll

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 09:10 PM by endisnighe

reply to post by drwizardphd

Well, the on quote you have posted, I find HILARIOUS.

Thousands of unnecessary positions are to be eliminated.

And that is a BAD thing?

Everyone else is going the other way and the good ol US of A is expanding government at break neck speed. Hmmmm, sounds like someone that has never ran anything in their life is running our government.

Reminds me of a sub contractor I had once. When he was falling behind schedule he would send me tons of people, the problem was they had no idea what they were doing. I kept telling him to leave the same crews on site instead of a bunch of different ones. I hated having to teach ten different crews the same thing over and over again.

You do not improve anything by throwing money at it or by having unnecessary bureaucrats attempting to run things.

Tell you what, if the government could eliminate all fraud and corruption in the taxation system but the downfall would be eliminating tax accountants and tax lawyers because of their unnecessary roles, would you do it?

I think we should bring back the ice chest refrigerators and eliminate electric refrigerators. This would create millions of ice carrying jobs!

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 09:30 PM by jdub297

reply to post by drwizardphd

The entire point of the "restructuring" is putting patient control back into the doctor-patient relationship, with the patient in charge and the doctor guiding the referrals.

Cuts out many levels of bureaucracy. Currently, insurance companies represent that extra level of interference; under Obamacare, it will be government employees, as it is in Britain.

Either way, when you remove the patient from the equation, the system fails. It loses focus at the "customer's" expense.

Yes, many intermeddling bureaucrats will lose their jobs, but they are only impediments to health care delivery rather than facilitators. Those were jobs for bureaucrats from bureaucrats to benefit the bureaucracy, instead of the patient. Good riddance.

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 09:33 PM by Jenna

reply to post by drwizardphd

I'd be more interested in a scientific poll as opposed to one ran/posted on a website that doesn't bother letting you know how many people actually responded.

Edit: Almost forgot, my I told you so was aimed more at people here in the US than people in Britain.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Jenna]

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 09:38 PM by jdub297

reply to post by drwizardphd

Although I fail to see The Guardian as the most un-biased or trustworthy source for conservative views, the quoted material makes an excellent point:

According to 90% of British citizens, WAY too early...

Which system would you rather be treated under?
89.9% The NHS, every time
10.1% I'd prefer to avoid the waiting lists and go stateside

Once you are "addicted" to gov't. 'give-aways,' OF COURSE you're
going to insist on more of the same!

What did you expect? "No, please don't provide for my basic needs, I want to be self-sufficient?" From people who have been told all their lives that the government will 'take care of them' from birth to grave?

Ask an addict if he'd rather have a job or another fix.

jw

reply posted on 24-7-2010 @ 10:02 PM by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jdub297

Once you are "addicted" to gov't. 'give-aways,' OF COURSE you're
going to insist on more of the same!

...

Ask an addict if he'd rather have a job or another fix.

Comparing health care to a physically addictive substance is a little disingenuous, wouldn't you say?

Oh no, you wouldn't. Because you'll say anything to self-validate your claims and refute evidence to the contrary.

reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 05:18 AM by jdub297

reply to post by drwizardphd

Comparing health care to a physically addictive substance is a little disingenuous, wouldn't you say?

No, but putting such services 'on the government teat' is exactly the same.

Once you get people used to, or refuse them the option from, taking instead of doing, they will choose the easy way out.

You and your brethren know this and desperately seek to get as many "takers" as opposed to "do-ers" on board as quickly as possible, regardless of cost and efficiency.

As with most nanny-state advocates, you misinterpret or misrepresent what I posted.

I wasn't referring merely to "health care," which most people are smart enough to purchase themselves if allowed to.

I specifically referred to government-provided services, whether they are health care, subsidized housing or basic cash transfers, such as old-fashioned welfare.

Since you cannot or will not respond substantively, you are forced to re-state my post with your own "progressive"-minded slant.

You obviously ignored my several references to patient-centered health care!

Why are you and other liberal/progressives so afraid of letting people use their own money and their own needs to determine the basic health care they want?

Did you even look at the "Health Wise" program, which allows people to set aside, tax-free, their own money (with a government contribution) to be spent as THEY see fit for basic medical needs? Which provides a back-stop for catastrophic illnesses and accidents at minimal group expense?
(Even with the government contribution to individual accounts, the overall cost is lowered; without the middle-men and bureaucracy of direct government provider payments!)

No, that wouldn't fit with the nanny-state model, so it is ignored or derided.

Reply in substance, and fact-for-fact, instead of misdirecting the premise away from what I stated.

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 25-7-2010 by jdub297]

reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 05:23 AM by Misoir

Americans who have never lived in Great Britain are arguing about their health care system as if it is relevant to us.

Let the British talk about their health care, it's none of our business when we have such a screwed up corporate system.

reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 05:29 AM by justwokeup

reply to post by Jenna

"So Britain is moving to what we have now, or a close approximation at any rate"

No, we're not. There will be no insurance companies involved. It will still remain funded from central taxation and free to all at the point of need.

Its a step in the right direction as the system has got bloated way beyond its original intent. However, going to an insurance company based system would never fly in britain. Any that tried would find themselves out on the street.

We hold insurance companies in the same level of contempt we hold lawyers and estate agents...

reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 06:10 AM by LieBuster

Can someone please remind me just what am i paying taxes for ?

No taxation without represetation i say.

Looks like new-labour was pumping money into the NHS so the cons could sell it off cheap to their mates.

make no mistake the face of goverment may change from time to time but those pulling the strings will remain the same for so long as we let them.

reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 07:02 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by Misoir
Americans who have never lived in Great Britain are arguing about their health care system as if it is relevant to us.
Let the British talk about their health care, it's none of our business when we have such a screwed up corporate system.

Except, we've MADE it relevant for quite some time now; we've MADE it our business.

Americans who pushed for government control of health care as "reform" routinely cited British and Canadian systems as "models" of how to do it.

When we refuse to learn from failed programs and experiments, we will waste lives, time and money.

The "corporate" system (assuming you equate 'insurance' with 'corporate') is a disaster. The "government" system (with government stepping in between insurers and the patient) is even worse, with additional layers to an already-bloated bureaucracy.

The REAL danger in health care delivery is the imposition of others, government or insurance, between the patient and the provider. Britain and Canada are finally acknowledging this.

Why can't we now learn from their mistakes, instead of pretending they were correct to begin with?

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 07:10 AM by jdub297

reply to post by LieBuster

make no mistake the face of goverment may change from time to time but those pulling the strings will remain the same for so long as we let them.

Precisely! That is why they should be ELIMINATED from, rather than more deeply entrenched in, provision of such basic services as health care.

There used to be a distinction between "governmental functions" (which are those things they do best) and "proprietary functions" ( those things people do best for themselves).

Now, government presumes that it does EVERYTHING best, and a growing number of the populace seem to agree! There will NEVER be enough taxes to pay for a government that seeks to do more and more for people who could otherwise do for themselves.

This will only get worse, "so long as we LET them."(emphasis added)

jw

reply posted on 25-7-2010 @ 09:15 AM by Jenna