No one is left to die. Even if you don't have insurance for some strange reason (and this was discussed on the TV about a week ago with the vote today) you are still looked after. I imagine you get a monster bill later but you'll just be broke rather than dead. There isn't really a big difference in the treatments available. The basic standard of Swiss healthcare is extremely good. But you get more choice if you pay more. Essentially, everyone is a private patient - that's why we have to have health insurance. I had a burst abscess in my throat once and went to hospital, on the advice of a doctor friend, at 11pm. There was no one there apart from staff. I was examined pretty much immediately, just had a moment to move my car from a handy "Doctors Only" parking space, and was put on a trolley and operated on at 1am. I think I had a toothbrush on me just in case, but that was it. My knee op was more or less immediate too (ie, the specialist told me he could fit me in later in the week, although it wasn't urgent). You never really hear of waiting lists for ops, so I assume they aren't very long. Going to A&E can involve hanging around a bit, but it's not too bad. Depends a bit on day of the week and time of day.
A large chink in the ideology of Switzerland: those that have, can; those that have not can die and starve in their own piss Suddenly proud to be British
Well, id just like to say that my son (im in hospital with him today - wife did the night shift) - has just taken a massive shit. He looked pretty pleased anyway! So, the bowels are starting to work again. Just thought id refocus the thread a little...!
One simple fact proves my statement. You are more likely to die in hospital if you are admitted on a Friday than you are on a Monday.
I'm afraid my recent experience of my family and myself tells me just that. It no longer provides the healthcare that it should. 'Care' in fact seems to be a forgotten word in most of the NHS criteria. Want to see my GP? I would be lucky to get an appointment next week. Even then one of them is so inexperienced, i have now heard him say more than a few times that he has no idea what the problem is. And he is the only one i would get to see within the next 3 weeks. It really is no longer fit for its original purpose.
It's strange that in this thread full of whinges about the NHS, praise for the NHS, and predictions of collapse of the NHS, nobody has said anything about what it actually costs. The fact is that the cost of healthcare in the UK, as a percentage of GDP, is an extraordinarily low figure. Nearly every other developed country spends more, and many of them spend two or three times as much as we do. The UK prescription is "healthcare for all, free at point of use, and resourced on a shoestring". And that is what the NHS, amazingly, delivers. We could have better healthcare in the UK, if we chose to increase expenditure to the levels of other countries. Or we could keep the NHS as it is - a bargain at the price, in my opinion.
Sorry Pete but i dont agree. We could have better healthcare if the NHS was better organised and run as though it were a service for its patients. As it is it appears to be run firstly for the benefit of the doctors, consultants and managers and its patients come well behind those in the list of importance. As a first port of call it should address the issue of using huge numbers of agency staff. I cannot understand how that is of any benefit to the NHS as they are not NHS employees and thus the NHS cannot dictate the terms under which they work. Ludicrous!
So what other countries spend more then and how much? As UK is fairly unique in free service, how can other countries spend more?
Much depends how you compare the figures. As a percentage of GDP the UK spend is quite low but per capita it is high. The current projection is that by the end of the next Parliament the NHS will cost £30 billion per annum more than it does now. With a country as heavily in debt as we are, that is just not sustainable. Per Capita GDP
The NHS is free at point of use, not 'free' overall: in every country it costs money to provide healthcare, obviously. That money may be allocated from taxation, or via some kind of insurance scheme, or paid directly by patients. Countries vary. The mechanism by which the money for healthcare is raised is one thing; the total amount of resources allocated to healthcare in each country is another. The point I was making is that the total amount of money allocated to healthcare in the UK, measured as a percentage of GDP, is small. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, just that it is a fact.
I cannot tell what the first graph is supposed to mean. The second one is relevant and telling, but unfortunately it's a decade out of date.
So the US, with a notoriety for allowing its citizens to die on the table because their insurance has run out, spends more (double) tax on its health care than the Uk? Doesn't stack, don't believe it
Ok for someone who knows here is my question. How much does each citizen contribute, via their taxes directly to the govt and not by any indirect means such as private ins, to the care system and how does the UK compare on that basis Spend overall per capita or GDP is irrelevant when discussing whether NHS is VFM or affordable into the future
It's not spent in taxes, it's sent on private medical insurance. Wikipedia suggests its around $12,000 per person per year through employer and personal contributions The NHS Budget for 2012 / 13 was just under £109 Billion. Divide that by the number of taxpayers that year and it comes to just over £3,500 per tax payer or less than £10 per day.
