the minor matter of 'healthcare outcomes' (i.e. whether you get better or not).
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ime=1500015436
the minor matter of 'healthcare outcomes' (i.e. whether you get better or not).
https://www.newscientist.com/article...ime=1500015436
Really? Then why does the Netherlands health service come top in access and second in equity, but sixth in outcomes? By your logic, it should come bottom.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/inte...mirror-mirror/
Anyway.... the NHS comes out top overall and scores well in every category apart from the ‘everybody dying’ category.
Also note that category focuses on preventable diseases and mortality across a population, and NOT specifically on outcomes from NHS care.
It suggests an ageing, unhealthy, disease-ridden population rather than an incompetent, bureaucratic health care system. In other words, the NHS is doing a reasonable job but people are dying anyway.
Overall, proof it is the best healthcare system in the world.
And that everybody dies…..
Would of course be helped if idiots like these had to pay for their healthcare! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-40598537
There is a difference between good, lifelong health education and endless prissy hectoring. This country does a lot of the latter and búgger all of the former.
For instance, a really good use of NHS funds would be to teach people to budget, choose healthy food and cook from an early age. Also, the provision of sporting facilities and equipment would help.
That sort of thinking's a bit too joined-up for our mandarins, though. Much better to spend those billions on wagging your finger at those who are already past saving.
But it's exactly that sort of siloed thinking that's the problem, you see? If you take a holistic view of health and the factors that impact upon it, then effective prevention is surely within the remit of a health system?
Besides, the NHS has fùck tonnes of money to spend on shīt like diversity officers, multi-faith chaplains and incredibly inefficient central purchasing practices that mean I can buy paracetamol 20 times cheaper at Tesco than it can be prescribed to me by the NHS.
Its more a question of added value.
For example, Leicester winning the league is arguably a greater achievement than City winning it.
Also interesting that it comes close to the top on efficiency when we are constantly told that the problem is public sector bureaucracy rather than under funding or poor strategic planning.
And Ash’s point that earlier ‘interventions’ and attempts to prescribe behaviours is something british people tend to hugely resent.
Look at the gastropods lumbering their way around our supermarkets. You can’t force-feed these people salads.
Yet comes out 3rd for efficiency on your list. Go figure. Must be wrong, I suppose.
I don't think it takes NHS money to provide education on diet and facilities for fitness. Those are catered for elsewhere, just not very well. Or at least, with little take up.
Of course, we could take the punitive route. Taxes on high fat food and fast food that subsidises the cost of fruit and vegetables, greater subsidy on local authority gym membership.
People are more likely to avoid a fine/tax than take advantage of a subsidy.
Don't sunshine me pal.
I am a fan of your NHS. While I have no doubt the organisation as a whole is pretty much fúcked and the overlords at the top are hugely incompetent the public facing staff in most hospitals are superb and do their best in trying circumstances.
To be honest, I don't really take that survey terribly seriously, since it is clearly designed to laud the most socialised forms of medicine and punish the least (i.e. the US). I just find it amusing that, even in such a survey, the NHS comes bottom in terms of healthcare outcomes.
I would argue that hiving these things off into different, competing departments is exactly the problem, though. Other countries do educate their populace far better in terms of food and exercise and for me, those are health-related matters and should therefore fall under the remit of a true national health service. Otherwise, its 'prevention' strategies can only be reactive.
You want to fine people now for not eating up their vegetables?
Some of the most health-service intensive people I know actually have quite 'healthy' diets and lifestyles. I smoke, drink somewhat heavily, eat English breakfasts and even some #gasp ready-meals and have been the doctor's once in ten years and about twice in the ten years before that.
So basically **** the food-snob policing of lifestyles. It's just another version of virtue/status signalling imo.
No. I’m saying you could use the tax system as a deterrent with fast food and very unhealthy stuff in the same way we do with smoking (because that has worked really well ;))
I don’t think accepted wisdom is that bad diet makes you drop down dead in your 30s or 40s. It’s the problems it can cause in later life. Most of us tend not to worry about that and I’m not convinced that an NHS lecture is going to change our minds.
Well the survey appears floored if for no other reason than that it ranks the country with the second poorest health outcomes as the best provider.
On the other point, surely the key is that the message gets through, not who it comes from. How do the other countries that do such a wonderful job of this manage it?
And won’t you be the first in the queue to bang on about the NHS spending money on retard cooking classes instead of beds and kidney machines?
Veal kidneys are good done in the French style, but look a bit iffy.
Attachment 677