The British Nation Health Service tops list of what makes Brits proud to be British

Americans often say that universal healthcare wont or cant work. Europeans look with amazement that America struggles with healthcare.

A recent survey in UK concludes.........

It may be in a state of perpetual crisis, but the NHS has topped a list of things which make people most proud to be British...............

James Sweatman, head of healthcare for Optimum, said: “For almost 70 years, the National Health Service has stood as a symbol of national pride and our commitment to the principles of equality and humanitarianism, and it is heart-warming to see it tops our list of things that make us proud to be British.”

The full top 5:

1. The NHS - 36%

2. British history - 25%

3. British sense of humour - 23%

4. The Monarchy - 22%

5. UK’s landscape and architecture - 22%

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/this-is-wh...115406496.html

If you look at the funding problems the NHS has and what it beat to be top it really says something. And beggars the question how proud is America of its health care.

The problem with nationalized healthcare is that it suppresses many of the price mechanisms usually used to calculate what healthcare should cost. It's practically impossible to manually set a market clearing price which doesn’t hurt the health service provided. Most nationalized healthcare have to pick between two options; either rationing the healthcare, or risk wasting money, time and resources on services not needed.

A big problem is also that wages in nationalized industries work according to a completely different mechanic that in the private industry. As it is impossible to tell in the public sector whether or not certain institutions produce more value than they cost in taxpayer money, wages become a function of political discretion, rather than market forces. Because of this, the cost of nationalized healthcare always seems to go up, as no one feels the need to cut anything when the healthcare Is working, and politicians prefer to increase the amount of money spent on something when there is a “problem” rather than try to decrease costs.
Nationalized healthcare does bring the advantage of collective bargaining. However, with the disadvantages presented above, all nationalized healthcare become a calculation of cost-benefit.

This doesn’t mean that people can’t and shouldn’t be proud of their healthcare. It just means we shouldn’t make it out to be something that it isn’t. That was just my view on the matter. Hope you found it interesting.

Its no doubt true what you say but I don't see the relevance. Why should healthcare conform to free market economy rules. Do we do that for education, defense, firefighters or police. No. We accept that these are different. Why should healthcare be treated differently from education or even defense. Health kills more people than wars. Health is more important than education.

Perhaps the point is how much importance people (Brits) attach to healthcare and the benefits to the nation and governments in giving the people what they want.

But we do let the market decide the price for defense and certain educations. BAE Systems is massive in the UK, and goes a long way in ensuring that the price for defense is a function of the demand. Higher education does take tuition fees in the UK, again letting the market decide the price for this service. Firefighters and police are notorious for being rationed, to the point that it only works due to goodhearted volunteers.

Also, as nationalized healthcare is payed by the taxpayer, politicians have an obligation to make sure that the costs are minimized as much as possible. The only way you can make a service cheap while still giving the service to all who needs it, is to set it to the market clearing price; something almost impossible in the public sector. That’s why the NHS is always rationing, yet the cost for NHS keep going up year after year, to the point that a large part of the 90% debt-to-gdp of the UK is due to the NHS. If I wanted to be outrageous, I could easily make the accusation that the British citizen have sold away their children’s future and loaded them with debt so that anti-depressants could be bought here and now. The large majority of NHS cost is not in any way related to life saving services, so implying that making the NHS as costless as possible would kill people is really a strawman. At worst, people who have made bad lifestyle choices will have to face the consequences of these choices. People who are actually deadly ill due to circumstances not of their doing have been, and can always find help.

I'm not understanding your point and the relevance. Its clear costs have to be considered and costs are related to the quality of the product or service. The NHS has always been underfunded, has always been considered not as good as it should be. The point is most would rather have a poor NHS than no NHS. There is always going to be a balancing act between taxation and budgets.

btw - I dont accept that bugest should be totally dependant on taxation. Costs can be cut, efficiencies made, preferential regulations. incentives, restrictions and the service can get additional revenue sources.

The difference between public and private sectors needs little discussion. But this where you lose me. You are applying private sector thinking and factors to the public sector as if no difference. Lets forget cost for a second. If education is accepted as public sector why should health not be. In principle, the concept, they are same.similar. If anything health is more important to the nation and people than education. Both can have public and private sectors.

The fundamental is one of principal. Some believe government should provide certain basics to the people. Defense, justice, education. health, food, shelter for the common good and the good of the nation. The cost -taxation - funding - quality question comes after the commitment to the concept that government should consider basic health a governmental responsibilty.

If you want to make the argument about debt then lets look at government spending as a whole and ask ourselves would we rather government spent trillions on making the lives of people in another country worse and shorter by bombing the crap out of them or making the lives of its citizens longer and better by providing health care.

The reason I brought this cost-benefit issue up is because you started this thread with the comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

Americans often say that universal healthcare wont or cant work. Europeans look with amazement that America struggles with healthcare.
…
If you look at the funding problems the NHS has and what it beat to be top it really says something. And beggars the question how proud is America of its health care.

---

I took this as a jab at the current healthcare debate in the United States, something that most European commentators never seem to take seriously, and just apply sweeping generalizations on the people who support private healthcare.

This is a forum for BDSM, a community which is grossly misunderstood and is equally ridiculed and marginalized by untrue stereotypes; that’s why I felt the need to bring forward the opposite perspective.

Also, current military spending by the UK is negligent. In comparison, the current interest payments that the UK government pays are equally high. The UK military budget is so small that should 100% of it be cut, it wouldn’t balance the UK budget. The Military only takes up about 6% of the UK budget, whereas Health, Education, social programs and subsidies takes up about 78% of the budget. Where is all this money going? Only 14% of the UK budget is spent on maintaining infrastructure, dealing with foreign nations, keeping law and order, and running the government. The UK does have a spending problem, but it is not in the military.

How was my comment a jab in any way, shape or form. I doubt you dispute that most Europeans are amazed so you must have seen the part "America struggles with healthcare" as a jab. By struggle I meant the issue of universal healthcare is a hotly debated topic that divides America. Surely you dont dispute that. Better said America is, and has been for decades, struggling to reach consensus on how healthcare should be provided. Contrast this with Europe where all countries are happy with their systems albeit maybe not budgets and costs. Americans can look to Europe and see how it works. what the costs and benefits are. If they want it or not is up to them but there should be no discussion on feasabilty any more than Europeans need to debate if its possible to put a man on the moon. They need only look across the pond to see how it can be done.

That BDSM may be misunderstood is down to BDSMers failing to adequately explain what BDSM is. Kink is not misunderstood or marginalised. One need only look at the success of 50 shades to see that many aspects of Ds and kink are almost mainstream. Is there a sex shop that does not sell floggers and handcuffs ?

Regarding UK military spending. Lets look at the figures as percent of GDP. Here's a list prepared by Forbes ranked by percent of GDP. Forbes Welcome

If we exclude the special cases of Saudi (rich small population) and Israel (should be clear) and India. Then other than Russia USA the UK with 2,2% is (equal) top of the rest of the world. That is not neglible. The question is why should US percent be so high, especially after the fall of communism and a so called peace dividend. Part of the reason is the US military has become an industry seeking to expand, needless costly foreign wars and the trend to profiteering by paying ridiculous prices to contractors for everything from guarding soldiers, to providing meals to torturing prisoners.

But nevertheless you miss my points. Regarding spending nations should look at all their spending and priorities. Not just defence. In US case it should ask whether Iraq was higher priority than health. Whether the money given to Isreal and Egypt is more important. The question of budgets for health and everything is one each government decides and goes before the people in elections. In the US however it is not just budget. The system is not decided. In the UK the principle of NHS is 70 years old. No government disagrees with the concept. The disagreement is only on tax and department budgets.

My point was the importance of having the system the people want is shown by the survey. If US doesn't want the system then fair enough, its for them to decide. But I doubt any American can be proud of the decade long debate and division on what healthcare system is best for the nation.

Apologies for long reply.

Interesting comparison between misunderstanding BDSM and Universal health care

my 2 Pence for what it's worth.

Your average u.k jo-public has no idea about what life without an nhs would be like. it is gratifying to see that it is appreciated as highly as it is but the nhs is in trouble big trouble.

it is my personal opinion that it won't survive this government, and I have a horrible feeling that this is the whole point. I don't think the government want it to survive. I think, they think, it is a massive money pit and want it privetised. no one in the current conservative government will ever have to worry about finding money that they don't have for an operation. or deciding if you spend money on food or medicine for Your child, they are all in the upper socioeconomic bracket who won't have any problems affording private health care.

The nhs is a sinking ship, it functions (just) at the moment because of the good will of the staff that work for it. Staff are working much longer hours, working for much less and having to provide more 'proof of targets' in the form of mountains of paperwork than ever before. the only reason the great institution is crawling along still, is because on the whole the people that work there believe in it and the key principle of healthcare for all comers.

Are these people appreciarted? supported? heaven forbid thanked.........no. we have the onerous Jermamy Hunt imposing a dangerous and poorly conceived new contract on the junior doctors that WILL result in dangerous practices and lives lost, totally ignoring the concerns of the BMA (the doctors Union) and people who have been struggling badly with dangerous conditions to provide the service (some for their entire career). this government are forcing dangerous conditions on our juniors with no process of discussion or even any acknowledgement of these concerns.

ths is is what is going to happen.

our trainees are are gong to go elsewhere, to New Zealand, to Australia where they can earn twice as much for half the work. the NHS will become staffed with staff grade doctors and foreign doctors (some of whom are excellent, but the excellent staff grades and foreign doctors are not going to want to work in the NHS) slowly but surly the nhs will become unstaffable. mistakes will be made and people will start to sue. the public opinion of the NHS will fall and the government will step in with privatisation, the plan from the start.

it it is heart breaking to see it happening and to be totally powerless to stop it from happening.

my advise to any Brits on here is to enjoy your NHS while you have it, because it is terminally ill and doesn't have long left.

iseult - you take a very pessimistic view. The NHS is not unappreciated, far from it as the survey shows. People have said the NHS is on the verge of collapse for as long as I can remember but the ship stays afloat. Yes its woefully underfunded and the future will bring changes.

There will always be some form of universal healthcare in UK. There would be riots should any government try to stop that. We can look at Europe and see that every European nation wants some form of public funded health service. There are many possibilities for how it may be in the future but I'm sure, like the monarchy, it will survive.

Care to bet on that D?;)

To clarify I didn't say the public don't appreciate the nhs, just that the government most definitely doesn't. The recent inforced junior docs contract a prime example. Already big chunks of the nhs are being out sourced to private companies, and every year this increases,as the public system remains underfunded and over subscribed. I hope you are right but I have grave fears for the nhs, and I am one of the worlds most optimistic fluffy bunny, unicorn loving idealists usually.....

A situation getting dire is not always a bad thing as it can often lead to refore or a pay up or lose it question being put to government and the electorate. This is in fact the problem. As situation gets bad governments throw just enough money at it to pull it back from the brink of collapse but not enough to solve problems long terms.

There will be more outsourcing (strange really since long term it increases costs). I can see the day where those earning above a certain amount are required to have insurance private or public. Most would go for private because it costs less. This then reduces healthcare cost to the government. Those with government insurance go to private hospitals which then bill the government. This is indeed the end of the NHS but not free healthcare to those who need it.

Personally I'd like to see healthcare coming under local government control. Every town and city with a hospital paid for by government grant, local taxes, sponsors, private patients and insurance plus the sale of health related services and products,

I dont know much about the junior doctor dispute but am unwilling to point finger at government when a key issue is working at weekends and suyrveys showing more chance of dying if sick at weekends. I would like to see flexible hours and contracts requirements to put in so many unsocialble hours in order to get qualifications. Government gives rank and privilege, workers give their labour.

As is the case with much of the propagander the media and government spew out the 'more people due in the weekend thing' is a misinterpretation of the statistics. More people due on the weekends because weekends are inherently more dangerous times of the week, there are more MVA's more alcohol related deaths, more drug abuse, and all the really sick patients in private practice get dumped on the public system on the weekends, all of which causes a spike in the stats. it's not as the government would have you believe the result of lazy ass doctors who can't be assed working the weekend and would see patients die. I do know a wee bit about the junior doctors contracts and the issue isn't that doctors won't work weekends. They already do! Some work 2 weeks over Christmas with no stat holidays or any break not just 24/7 24/14! The issue is they are being asked to do MORE hours. And it's simply not the same comparing being a doctor with other government industries. These junior doctors literally have your lives in there hands. If they screw up because they are horribly overworked people die. Then the trusts don't turn around and say 'oh well never mind you were exhausted and made a mistake, it happens'. They sue the pants off them and these poor doctors risk loosing there registration and livelihood. Doctors ARE NOT as the media and government would have you believe greedy lazy elitist jerks who don't want their golf matches disrupted, maybe in the distant past. But not now. They are already working 24/7 what the recently Inforced contract will do is make them work dangerously long hours for no reward AND discourage any half way decent junior doctor from staying in the nhs. There is already a huge recrutment problem. In addition where having 7 day working week MIGHT work-in primary care, all research to date shows that people do not want to go to the g.p or outpatients in the weekends, all the research so far shows pilot scemes to introduce this service have failed miserably. And............ *suddenky realises she is just too tired to continue standing on the soap box and curls up in bed for a nap*

Fair enogh about the junior doctor contract. As I said I dont know the details. As for hours then its basically lowering the effective hourly income of doctors. A roundabout way of cutting costs. Yes its wrong. In fact, I'd go further. There are European laws regarding maximum hours a truck driver can work. Employers making drivers drive longer than the limit can be prosecuted. The same should apply to every profession where fatigue can put people at risk. Its a matter of compency just like a drunk driver. There should be strict regulations regarding work and rest hours for doctors and nurses.

And come to that, there should be strict regulations about nurse uniforms with stiff penalties for infractions !!!

* stops here as mind turns to iseult curled up asleep on the bed *