• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Britain to Decentralize NHS

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
64,658
Reaction score
33,028
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
almost as if the centralized, socialized model was unsustainable or something.....


Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948...

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment...

The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service...
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
..... open the door to further privatization of the service
:/

I should have expected it from Conservatives.
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,242
Reaction score
12,113
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
almost as if the centralized, socialized model was unsustainable or something.....


Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948...

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment...

The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service...
And yet the NHS covers everyone.. unlike the US system.. and is way cheaper... and has similar or better health results of that of the US.

Also it is pretty decentralized after the butchering by Thatcher, and it seems the new government wants to butcher it some more.

As for privatization.. will never happen.
 

DrunkenAsparagus

Devourer of Poor Children
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
4,496
Reaction score
1,878
Location
DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And yet the NHS covers everyone.. unlike the US system.. and is way cheaper... and has similar or better health results of that of the US.
Neither system is a good example of a free market. Sure the US system is mostly private, but local, state, and federal regulations and tax incentives have all driven up costs significantly and make whether it is "private" or not almost meaningless.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
almost as if the centralized, socialized model was unsustainable or something.....


Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948...

In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.”

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment...

The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service...
Nationalized =/= Centralized
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,242
Reaction score
12,113
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Neither system is a good example of a free market. Sure the US system is mostly private, but local, state, and federal regulations and tax incentives have all driven up costs significantly and make whether it is "private" or not almost meaningless.
Never said it was a free market. In fact I has nothing to do with what I said.. your response that is.
 

Goof Noodle

Active member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
257
Reaction score
60
Location
Omaha, NE
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And yet the NHS covers everyone.. unlike the US system.. and is way cheaper... and has similar or better health results of that of the US.
Sorry, but that is a blatant lie as well as total contradiction. You can't be covered if you get denied health services. Health Care costs is paid with a massive amount of taxes. And the only results a family friend got was death when waiting for over two years for heart surgery that was denied three months after his death.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,797
Reaction score
4,233
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Never said it was a free market. In fact I has nothing to do with what I said.. your response that is.
Which still doesn't mean that the British system is the best answer for the US. As I've shown in another thread in this forum, the American problems stem from too much restriction of supply.
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,729
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The NHS will never be perfect.However the idea of getting away from quotas and targets is a good when generally.
 
Top Bottom