To rant because this NHS is not a charity

[Monty27]

Wtf is all this about having to donate to a service that is national.
The clue is in the name:
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
and breathe 😭

“Health insurance companies in other European countries are very, very strictly regulated, and actually in a lot of places, the government, not private companies, provides health insurance. “

All the evidence points to our following a US model of private healthcare, not a European one.

I feel a little sorry for OP who set off with a very ill informed and naive , and frankly rather angry post. I am not really quite sure why. It is pertinent to note that learning about the Inception of the NHS in 1948 at the age of 15, cannot give a person an inkling about how it has evolved and the political football it has become.

I don't think OP learned much about the NHS in 1948, otherwise she would know that NHS charities have existed alongside it since its inception - it is not a new thing. The have contributed to many things from making the patient experience a little more pleasant to buying state of the art equipment. With time, some of that equipment becomes mainstream - I remember at school in the 1960, our class raising money to help buy a dialysis machine for a local hospital! Some NHS charities are household names, like Great Ormond Street or Tommy's but this seems to have passed OP by.

All the evidence points to our following a US model of private healthcare, not a European one

What evidence is that ?

We have a completely different attitude towards healthcare in this country to what they do in America. The public would simply not accept that cover for healthcare is not accessible to all. Every party is well aware of that and is that was changed they know that they will not be in power for a very long time.

We can model more on what other European countries are doing but we need to have this discussion but it’s constantly shut down with cries we shall become like America if we don’t save our NHS

The main issue with the NHS is that it is politicised. It should be taken out of political control and managed independently to the Government. Too often it is used as a political football, being changed on a whim (targets!, no targets!) to suit politicians, many of whom don't give a shit (many do). Funding models changed so that trusts can't plan properly, meddling in pay levels etc.

THIS ^

I totally agree with you OP. Just as collecting the bins isn't a charity. It's a service, paid for by our taxes. This sort of thing leads to people thinking it's optional. "I did a sponsored sit in a bath of baked beans once, that'll pay for my replacement hip. I should be first in line."
It's the misrepresentation that gets me the most. People think that the money raised by Captain Tom is paying for PPE and wages, but it's not. A doctor friend said that she was a bit weirded out by all the free food.

Also I can't believe how so many people are normalising chronic underfunding. (Actually, I can. They voted the fuckers in again.) We are the 5th richest nation. We can afford to run the NHS properly and shouldn't need to rely on charity for equipment.

The secondary problem with the NHS is a lack of personal responsibility for our health.

I agree with this - too many people want to live totally self-indulgent unhealthy lives and then get a pill or an operation that will enable them to continue with the same self-indulgent unhealthy lives.

BUT - I would suggest a system where you pay a small amount (£10?) That no one would miss each time you go to the gp or a&e - and awful lot of people could not afford this, and would avoid going to the GP until they were in a very serious state. Just like it used to be in the good old days.

Is the NHS underfunded or is it badly managed? I've certainly heard from some staff of wasteful practices (they despair) but is that true of the organisation as a whole?

It’s both.

Is the NHS underfunded or is it badly managed? I've certainly heard from some staff of wasteful practices (they despair) but is that true of the organisation as a whole?

I also agree both. The waste is eye watering

No one had any idea how much medical science would come on when the NHS was founded. It was more about vaccinations and midwifery and convalescence after TB than organ transplants and chemotherapy. No one envisaged it being so successful that many, many more people would reach octogenarian status etc,

We are beyond lucky to have it, but we do need to be realistic about funding it better and that means working people contributing more.

The charities are fantastic for going over and above the medical care, but they are being used to plug necessary gaps and that’s not acceptable or sustainable (especially as a recession will leave the public with less to donate).

Right now though, the charities are needed. Staff are working far outside their usual remit and many are unable to go home (due to vulnerable relatives) or shop in the few hours they have off. Our local hospital charity is asking for funds to buy staff care packages including phone chargers and toiletries, not because the staff can’t afford them, but because they are working such long shifts they have no time to go out and look for them.

@handies dont twist what I am saying. We all know there have been jobs created that need not be there and is just another way to get money in peoples back pocket from the NHS in the form of wages etc.
Just because they are being paid a wage doesn't mean they are worth it. So yes they shouldn't get anything.

However, it our current crises, just think of all the "vulnerable" people out there that now need shielding. Many of these people would not have been alive 50, 40, even 30 years ago. Think of all the amazing medical advances that have allowed people with chronic conditions to live better and fuller lives, how we now feel that 80 years old is "young" and that 99 year olds still get hip replacements on the NHS (Captain Tom), it is not perfect, by any means, and I am all for total reform on the European model, but it is also actually, not as crap as some people make out.

I also agree both. The waste is eye watering

I don't think that's 100% the nhs or the staffs fault. Alot of the stuff they use has a disposable element, but the disposable bit contains expensive components. I'm sure the companies making this stuff could create more economic designs so only the cheap bit needs replacing, but they don't because it makes them more money.

For example a sats monitor has to continually have the prob changed, they are also one use diaposoble, but they cost like £80 each! Why can't they just be designed so you only have to throw away the sticky bit and replace it, not the whole bloody wire and sensor.

There are a lot of companies creaming a lot of money off the nhs. That's the result of a capitalist society. But for some reason it's socialist thats a dirty word.

I agree there is a lot of waste using equipment that could be designed better to make it less costly to operate and many companies are doing very well from the NHS

I was thinking more of new computer systems that don’t quite do what was expected, building management/repair costs paid to other companies, the time wasted because we have to have yet another meeting, changes that take place the many meetings and reports written so much unnecessary time taken up with far too many people involved than needs to be

I was thinking more of new computer systems that don’t quite do what was expected, building management/repair costs paid to other companies, the time wasted because we have to have yet another meeting, changes that take place the many meetings and reports written so much unnecessary time taken up with far too many people involved than needs to be

So you think all this doesn't go on in the private sector? having worked for both state run and private companies, there is huge waste in the private sector, UK productivity is very low for a reason.

When independent organisations have examined the NHS and compared it to other countries heath care systems, we come out well on efficiency.

I know it goes on in the private sector

But tax payers are not paying for the private sector

I have worked in corporate companies and NHS and charities that work along side NHS. why isn’t the NHS managing their own buildings paying their own staff to fix a dripping tap rather than pay a company £100 call out charge before they do anything. Why do they not source from companies that charge less

And NHS love of meetings is well known - it’s a joke at work when something like a cup gets broken quick fill in form, write a report, apply for costs to cover, set meeting up to look at why this happened, another for discussion to what was discussed at previous meeting, another to discuss financial implication and another meeting for an outcome repeat ....

I personally don’t know anyone who works for the NHS who doesn’t think that huge amounts of money is wasted especially those that have not only worked for the NHS. And when I read that the NHS compares well in efficiency I have to wonder what hospital or Trust they get their data from

It would be possible to have not for profit insurance. It is possible to ring fence a tax for the NGS. NI would be the obvious one to have a new element for the NHS because the notion of “insurance” is already part of the contract. The NHS is a benefit people would get from the insurance. NI and the NHS element must be paid beyond retiring age though if older people pay income tax.

I do think there is a disconnect between paying tax and using the NHS. Most people have no idea of the costs. The fact remains taxation needs to change to provide more money but expectation needs to change too.

@EnthusiasmIsDisturbed

I've done extensive work for the NHS on IT and for private companies, there is little difference, outsourcing is where its at and in-house is sooo 20thC :(
My current company has just moved large amounts of its back office function to Bulgaria... it will prove to be a disaster but the director responsible will get his bonus so he won't be around and won't care.

If the NHS used in-house mcte, you'd be complaining that these guys are sitting around doing nothing and to change things like lighting, may require hi-lift cherry pickers, trained staff to operate, said equipment hardly used etc etc... it all seems easy but not all lighting is at head height and some will req an electrician to change, shopfitters to gain access.... all OOH... so lots of over time too!

Didn’t the NHS commission an IT service about five years ago that cost millions that didn’t work.

I work on a site that has 10 different departments we always have contractors on site if its a specialised job the costs are extra and other contractors are called out but they are certainly kept busy. Every time we have them in our building we pay the call out fee. Unfortunately residents don’t wait until there is a few things that need to be fixed. The costs are astronomical. There is no way the coatings are less. Companies put forward a package and how soon do the costs go up.

Then there are the other services catering, non emergency transport, cleaning, odd job people, printer engineers (why we have lots of different types of printers I don’t know or they are suddenly replaced when they have been adequately working)

The more complex side of IT and the specialised equipment is different. But for general running of buildings and some other services the fees the NHS pay out are huge I don’t believe money is saved at all. I am well aware of the wages within be NHS we pay that many times over

I really don't get outsourcing maintenance services, it makes no sense. Even with the 'benefits' of a permanent member of staff such as pension, sickness pay etc it's still cheaper to have a team than to pay ridiculous hourly and equipment rates. The only things that should be contracted out are very specialist services that you don't need very often, so it wouldn't make sense to pay to train someone or for the high wage their niche skill would attract; or if a company can do it better, but maintenance is maintenance. The trouble with IT is that from going to market and creating a spec to actually going through the tender process and rolling it out takes years, tech changes and it's usually outdated by the time it lands. For some reason as well they always get lumbered with ridiculously low service level agreements, which means often systems are inadequate and they pay again to have it fixed. It would probably be cheaper to employ a team to bloody well develop and maintain it. This isn't an issue unique to the NHS though, its part of a much wider issue.

If you ever get bored most NHS contracts (and indeed any public sector spend unless there is an exemption) is viewable online, and you can see how much has been paid for what.

I hope we never move to an insurance backed scheme as I am virtually uninsurable - it would cost me a fortune each month that I cannot afford.
It's fine for those who are healthy to want this but the NHS was set up to help everyone who is ill not just those that can afford insurance

Hear hear. Our taxes should be raised to pay for it to work properly, it’s one of our fundamental responsibilities to our society:

“Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.” - Aneurin Bevan

Fantastic debate everyone. Thank you for each and every single contribution.

There's a Mumsnet premium status that can get this thread deleted?
Why would anyone want to do that?
Just asking 🤷

preparing oneself to be booted off site