The NHS is too important, so it’s a step too far?

[Rainbowheart1]

Conservative have been in a power for quite a while now, and whilst the general consensus seems to be both labour and conservative are shit, conservative (in my view) seems to just nab it on the votes due to labour ignoring 51% of the population (women).

However in the news you hear a lot now about the NHS collapsing. Everyone knows the conservatives want to take this down and privatise it.

Problem is a lot of the general public are not well off and wouldn’t be able to afford care, for instance their are millions of asthma sufferers and cancer patients alone.

Do you think the NHS is a step too far as it’s so loved in the U.K. and people will go back with labour to save it even though they are just as shit, because it will then be labour who is the lesser of two evils?

Other parties are available.

I think the NHS is very important to the majority of us in Britain, but I don’t know that Labour could automatically make it work. I am in Scotland, where the SNP have responsibility for health and have driven the NHS into the ground.
Having lived in countries with private medicine, I would not wish that on us at all; however the NHS ‘back office’ needs to look long and hard at how it manages the budgets, and the Politicians need to stop headlining grabbing gimmicks - for example Free Prescriptions in Scotland - nice, but not necessary for all, and the argument that admin takes as much cost is a sign of inefficiency.
Anyway, interesting question, hope you get thoughtful answers.

It's clear that it's not working though and something needs to be done. I don't see why we can't look at other European models of healthcare and adopt some of these. The NHS wasn't set up to deal with the increasingly complex range of conditions and disabilities that are around now. Rationing has gone too far and people need an affordable way of accessing timely and appropriate healthcare when they need it.

I agree with Quickchangeartiste that part of the problem is the way that budgets are managed and the efficiency, or lack, of the system.

In these days of instant communication, it should be possible to join up the strands of primary and secondary care, but how often do we hear of GPS not getting results from tests, appointments not followed through, appointments cancelled because the patient didn’t get notified in time and so on.

My DH has had piles of letters over the last 20 months, about being vulnerable. Sending letters each time is wasting time and money, when there are more efficient methods of communicating.

The front line NHS workers are under severe pressure and the government has been rubbish, but who knows whether another one would have been better or worse.

The NHS has “been collapsing” every year for as long as I can remember, including when labour were in power.

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/28/health.politicalnews

When the NHS was formed I don't think that they envisaged that short term treatment for one individual could cost in excess of over £1,000,000 in 2020. I don't think that it needs a shake up, it needs a radical thinker who has the authority to take it by the throat and deal with the inefficiency that is going on.

The problem is people stupidly think throwing money at NHS would instantly solve all the problems.

There are many many issues and I wouldn't say funding is the major one.

I think we all probably agree it can't go on in its current form but some difficult decisions need to be made. In the 1940's Diabetes was uncommon, by the 2030's over 5 million people are projected to have it in the UK. The cost of supporting those people could bankrupt the service alone.

I do not beleive that the conversatives will privatise the NHS. However it would definitely benefit from being run like a private corporation so so much money is wasted in it