Now is the winter of Britain's healthcare discontent

[gwb-trading]

The worst is yet to come for the NHS - hospital chiefs
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41030635

The NHS in England may suffer its worst winter in recent history if it does not receive an emergency bailout, hospital chiefs are warning.

They say the cash is needed to pay for extra staff and beds because attempts to improve finances have failed.

The government has given councils an extra £1bn for social care services to help relieve the pressure on hospitals.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "The NHS has prepared for winter more this year than ever before."

But the latest figures show A&E waits and bed shortages remain "stubbornly" bad, according to NHS Providers.

The group, which represents NHS chief executives, is calling for between £200m and £350m to be made available immediately.

The target to see most patients in A&E within four hours has been missed for two years now, while bed occupancy rates remain above recommended levels.

Over the summer, just over 90% of A&E patients were treated or admitted within four hours.

That was below the goal of 95% and was almost exactly the same percentage as last summer, which was then followed by the worst set of winter waiting times since the target was introduced in 2004.

(More at above url)

 

[Tony Stark]

Better than The US,where millions have to wait forever to see a doctor because they have no health insurance.

 

[Vertex]

The target to see most patients in A&E within four hours has been missed for two years now

WTF!? The last time i had to go to an emergency room i was pissed about waiting for 20 minutes.

 

[Arnie]

That's the best thing about socialist health care. If you don't like one doctor/hospital you can go to another.

Around here, they have electronic billboards that advertise ER wait times (imagine that. Competition). I think the longest I have seen is 40m. Most are 10-15m.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I had a routine colonoscopy about a year ago.

They took me right in the next week when I showed up to schedule an appointment. I wish I had shopped around a little more so I could have found someone that would tell me there would be a ten month wait.

 

[echizen01]

At some point, they are really going to have to address the cost structures of the NHS, and I fear that it will be with a bang, not a slow and steady incremental change. The collateral damage from that will not be pretty.

 

[newwurldmn]

I had a routine colonoscopy about a year ago.

They took me right in the next week when I showed up to schedule an appointment. I wish I had shopped around a little more so I could have found someone that would tell me there would be a ten month wait.

That kind of available capacity costs money. One reason US healthcare is so expensive. There are other reasons too.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

That kind of available capacity costs money.

No. It's the other way round. The free market allows doctors and hospitals to organize in a way to meet demand, get paid more for doing more, and serves as an incentive for doctors/other providers to move to areas where there is demand.

In contrast, it is costly to pay a bunch of pakistani trained doctors in the NHS to be collecting the same paycheck and for the hospital to be collecting the same revenue regardless of the number of patients and number of services provided. In the U.S, our Veteran's Hospitals are on the UK model and veterans are dying waiting to see a doctor. Meanwhile there are private medical care providers nearby who could see them- maybe not instantly- but soon.

"Available capacity" is only costly if it is under-utilized. When properly utilized it is a profit making asset. Some of you guys here talk like you are from socialist countries and never learned basic economics. Yes, "available capacity" costs more, but it also allows for greater revenues by providers who want to provide more. duh. When profits no longer exceed costs then they will cut back, relocate, or do something that is profitable. Unlike an NHS facility that just waits to see what their budget is every year and that is the extent of their entrepreneurial skills.

Health costs in the U.S are sky high. But less capacity/fewer providers is not the right answer. Only in a socialist state do people think that less competition lowers costs/prices. Well, to be fair clueless lefties in America believe that too.

 

[newwurldmn]

No. It's the other way round. The free market allows doctors and hospitals to organize in a way to meet demand, get paid more for doing more, and serves as an incentive for doctors/other providers to move to areas where there is demand.

In contrast, it is costly to pay a bunch of pakistani trained doctors in the NHS to be collecting the same paycheck and for the hospital to be collecting the same revenue regardless of the number of patients and number of services provided. In the U.S, our Veteran's Hospitals are on the UK model and veterans are dying waiting to see a doctor. Meanwhile there are private medical care providers nearby who could see them- maybe not instantly- but soon.

"Available capacity" is only costly if it is under-utilized. When properly utilized it is a profit making asset. Some of you guys here talk like you are from socialist countries and never learned basic economics. Yes, "available capacity" costs more, but it also allows for greater revenues by providers who want to provide more. duh. When profits no longer exceed costs then they will cut back, relocate, or do something that is profitable. Unlike an NHS facility that just waits to see what their budget is every year and that is the extent of their entrepreneurial skills.

I run 4 manufacturing companies. The name of the game is throughput and capacity. I was merely pointing out that the ability for you to see a doctor quickly means there is capacity for that. That costs money and that's one of the reasons US healthcare is more expensive than other places. I personally think that capacity is a good thing and there are hybrid socialized and private solutions that can work.

But then you bring up "Pakistani" in an implied derogatory way that does nothing to further your point. It weakens your entire reasonable argument. and then your brethren wonder why they are branded as racists. And btw there are many Indian and Pakistani doctors in the US. Does that aspect of the free market system upset you?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

But then you bring up "Pakistani" in an implied derogatory way that does nothing to further your point. It weakens your entire reasonable argument. and then your brethren wonder why they are branded as racists.

Actually, you are playing the racist card as a kneejerk way to dismiss a highly relevant point that I am making- and which everyone should be able to talk about in the light of day, unless they do not have permission slip from the political party that tells them how to think.

My reference to "Pakistani" is a reference to foreign workers and the issues that go with and is not racist unless you have a need for it to be. In the same way that in an economics/trade discussion one may make reference to "the Chinese" which is not racist if it is relevant to be taking about chinese workers. It is well established that countries such as Britain- facing rising health care costs, rising patient demand, severe provider shortages, etc- are turning to Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Caribbean counties etc for labor. With this comes all sorts of opportunities and problems and issues. All of those related opportunities and issues are at play instances where the UK and/or the United States go forward with increased patient and throughput plans to meet future needs. And indeed they are key to re-setting expectations for patients and taxpayers. You may get more doctors but some of them may not speak english as well as you like and/or might have graduated from the University of Lahore or Bangladesh.

Very relevant to the discussion. It is only racist if that is the way your reflexes are wired. As they say, the zen you find in the temple, is the zen you bring. Meanwhile, it is being discussed in many places as just part of what needs to be discussed. You are saying that we should count you out of that discussion and that's fine.

Good on you though for the economic points you made in the first paragraph. You set me straight on your knowledge and background there and it is all for the good. Let us remain of good cheer even though I am allegedly racist.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/79...ated-incompetence-than-british-trained-medics