NHS overburdened and overcrowded (British Socialised Healthcare)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/15/doctors-medication-80-hour-a-and-e-ordeal-nhs

The Left under the previous government overwhelmed the country with immigrants. Now the NHS (taxpayer-funded government-run healthcare system) is overwhelmed and being stretched apart at the seams.

Of course the Left just blames the Right for not giving it lots more money.

But when you add more people, things don't just magically continue along as they did in the past without it costing more money.
See, anything "free", people have a tendency to just take for granted and not think about.

If this gets any worse, the British will have a second-rate healthcare system like a Third World country.

One patient describes how while at a hospital stay, the hospital was ridiculously understaffed and overburdened with patients.

They left this guy in a corridor for hours, because there was no one to attend to him.

He says he got no sleep and no medication for 80 hours, and had to wait until the very end of that before doctors gave him any care.

This type of overcrowding is dangerous and could even lead to the risk of patients dying.

 

Which country are you talking about? How did they bring in the immigrants? Net immigration to UK has been fairly steady for the past 20 years.

Sure sounds like you are doing all the blaming.

 

A single mother in Wales faced a horrific choice to save her toddler after being told she'd have to wait eight hours for an ambulance for her unconscious son... The dispatcher told her to "get to the hospital immediately" -- but that there was an eight-hour wait for ambulances, she recalled. Johnson described how she put Tobias into the car and sped toward the emergency room, but quickly got stuck in traffic.

"UK mom told to wait 8 hours for ambulance after son has seizure", Olivia Land, New York Post, October 21, 2022

two additional related stories:
Young woman in UK almost died because of national healthcare system
Man describes long wait time for emergency surgery in France

 

Oh yes the dark underside of "free" healthcare.... Rationing.

You know what we need? Some of that right here in the United States.... Said no one who understands logical math...

 

"The government-run, government-funded health systems in the U.K. and France are overburdened and overwhelmed.
I blame several decades of high levels of immigration, but there are probably several other factors.
I think a lot of the public was too stupid to realise that more people is going to mean more money is needed, when you're providing a public service to all."​

 

Lol. Another anti-immigration thread in disguise. Laughable.

 

immigration levels should always be decided by infastructure. Roads, schools, health care, housing, welfare...if these things cannot sustain current population then immigration needs to be stunted until it can.

 

excellent point.

Here is an NHS report. They had this to say:
"Capacity has not kept pace with this increase in demand and performance"
The essence of the report basically says things are overall not that bad but they seem to be gradually and continually getting worse.
It did point to a worrying trend of patients who were diagnosed with cancer having to wait longer before they could be scheduled to begin receiving treatment. It said that, for the 2018-2019 year, only 79.1% of patients referred to begin treatment for cancer actually received that treatment within 62 days, and the percentage was projected to fall even further in coming years.
NHS performance and waiting times - The Health Foundation

another article:
"Falling number of nurses in the NHS paints a worrying picture"
"Pressures on nursing staff and the potential impact on patients are again in the news."
"The number of nurses is also not keeping pace with population growth: the number of nurses per 100,000 population in England declined from 604 in 2009 to 576 by 2016."
Falling number of nurses in the NHS paints a worrying picture | The King's Fund (kingsfund.org.uk)

 

As of May 2023, a record-high 7.47 million people in England were on NHS waiting lists to receive care. That number has been going up for the past 15 years -- and has skyrocketed by nearly 3 million just since January 2021.

Once a patient is on a waitlist, it can take months to get treatment. As of May, over 3 million patients have been waiting for more than 18 weeks. An additional 385,000 had been waiting for more than a year. That's more people waiting a year-plus for care than the population of Cleveland.

Even patients facing critical health issues must take their place in this slow-moving queue. As of early this year, nearly half of all cancer patients had failed to receive treatment within two months of an 'urgent' referral.
Worse, the official statistics substantially understate the number of those waiting in need. That's because NHS eligibility criteria for treatment are very strict. For example, a knee or hip joint may have to degrade past the point of debilitating pain before a patient can get in the NHS line for a replacement.

Emergency care response times are equally grim. The English 999 emergency line divides callers into four categories of need. The good news, so to speak, is that if your life is in immediate danger due to respiratory or cardiac arrest, the average wait time for help as of June 2023 was a little over eight minutes.
But those in England who suffered a stroke or other Category 2 emergency in June 2023 could expect to wait an average of nearly 37 minutes before help arrived. That’s well above the 18-minute target that’s been in force since 2018. It's even higher than the new 30-minute target that’s been set for this year and next.

All this waiting leads directly to worse health outcomes. In 2021, over 100,000 people died while awaiting treatment in England. A study of 18 comparably wealthy countries around the world found that the United Kingdom ranks 15th in breast cancer five-year survival rates, 17th for both lung and stomach cancer, and dead last for colon cancer. Of 19 similarly wealthy countries, Britain ranked 17th in life expectancy.

More than half the British population is dissatisfied with the NHS -- the highest level since polling began 40 years ago. More and more people are turning to supplemental private health insurance. 13% of Britons have paid for some private health services in the past year. Google searches for 'private healthcare' in Great Britain are at an all time high.​

PIPES: Britain Offers A Cautionary Tale For 'Medicare For All', Sally Pipes, Daily Caller, 8/17/2023

 

I don't see a serious comparison in this thread so far.

Any analysis has to include the fact that in most countries, how much is spent on healthcare is something you can vote on. The most we can vote on is how much help we give those who our system would simply refuse to serve, because it isn't profitable.

Plus, one must consider the cost per capita of healthcare under the various systems.

In the USA, the average PER PERSON healthcare PER YEAR is $13K.

There are a LOT of people in the USA who can't afford $13K per year for healthcare.

In the UK, the average is $5K.

And, if they wanted their system to include faster service, they could make that change.

 

Exactly! But the Democrats don't give a ****. Because even when we set immigration numbers, those get bypassed by anyone who wants to get trafficked across and declare asylum.

Democrats have unrealistic border/immigration policies.

 

They can not just "declare" asylum. So, not sure what you actually mean.

Those in industry who need various skills can't necessarily find them in America. And, cutting them off because of various other categories is nonsense. Why would we refuse important skills on the basis of "numbers"?? These people improve America by coming here.

 

If you inject more people than the social systems can handle, you haven't improved anything. You've made everything worse.

 

Many of the peons on the Left seem to have a habit of just ignoring the likely possibilities of what could go wrong with their policies.

To some degree this is like the Tragedy of Commons. When things are socialized and provided for free, people in the society have a tendency to just take those things for granted and not think about where they come from. Assuming it's like a constant of nature rather than something economic variable subject to change if the pool of people in the society changes.
In other words, if the NHS provides free care to every person in Britain, and provides a certain quality of care, people mistakenly and erroneously don't see any reason that would ever change. They think you could add more people and the per person output wouldn't change.

But the thing is, it not only takes labour but also training, human capital, and above all, MONEY.
Right there is where the Left's brain just overloaded and they can't understand it.

 

Stop spouting rubbish. You took an opinion piece and then proceeded to comment on things the article didn’t even mention.

Where were immigrants mentioned as the cause of present issues in the NHS? The author stated that in 2010 the Tories slashed budgets for training places for medics which led to the current staff shortages. The author also mentioned Brexit and the rising number of Coronavirus cases that are causing the increase in number of people in the A&E. This article is over a year old as well.

You do know that THE worst healthcare system related to high income countries is the USA healthcare system. At least people in the UK don’t have to starve and forgo medical treatment because they can’t afford to pay for it. How many people in the USA have no medical insurance — something like millions. Your life expectancy is shorter. The USA has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any other high income country. The USA has one of the lowest rates of practicing physicians per 1000 people.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones nor should they make stuff up.

 

This is your excuse for the USA to have the most expensive healthcare in the world?

Is there any chance you might consider how the US could save billions of healthcare dollars?

The US spends $13,000 per person per year on healthcare. Canada and UK spend HALF what we do.

So, yes. Our system requires HUGE dollars and still fails to deliver healthcare to our population equally.

 

Who says I can't do that?
I took a news article and gave my commentary about the story, adding my opinion and perspective. Isn't that normally what is done in a political discussion forum?

I see, so if a legitimate news source does not tell you what to think about things, it is not worth thinking about?

I notice that so many people on the Left like you seem to have trouble deciding the difference between facts and interpretations about the facts.

If a professional news source gave an explanation of a likely cause for something going on in society, it wouldn't really be any more credible than if I gave my personal thoughts and opinions about the matter, would it?

Maybe you don't realize that things like that cannot be simply and easily fact checked. They involve thinking and some analysis. They are a derivative that is taken from the basic facts, and often involve some opinion and political controversy.

 

You miss that their NHS serves all and spends WAY less than does our system which does NOT serve all.

Plus, we have a whole party who wants to CUT our ability to serve even those we do serve today.

 

I really took the NHS for granted when I lived in England. I could see the doctor the same day
if I waited for a cancellation.

Here in the US I pay 10,000 a year for medical care system I am in, I also get
access to secondary care. Yesterday I made a booking to see a nurse about a knee injury
and the earliest appointment was 12 days in the future because they are short of staff. If it
had been obviously life-threatening I might have got something sooner, but it might lead
to a blood clot and become life threatening.

Has it gotten that bad in England yet?

 

Certain areas of the U.S. are experiencing shortages in the healthcare sector. These are both rural areas that have less money, sometimes combined with a smaller patient/customer base; and certain regions with high rates of poverty with large ethnic minority populations, and some big city areas with large immigrant populations that place a strain on the resources of the local hospitals.

Another problem is hospitals in the U.S. fired a significant segment of their healthcare employees who were unwilling to get the controversial Covid vaccination, so many of these hospitals are short-staffed currently (2021 to 2023 ). Many hospital workers also suffered burnout during the Covid pandemic (for multiple reasons too complicated to go into here), so a percentage of them have taken time off in their careers or even decided to permanently leave the healthcare field.
This is a phenomena that can also be seen in the U.K., although I think there are fewer alternative career options in the U.K. so it is harder for them to leave.

 

There's so much propaganda with the NHS, it's beyond belief. The Left and the media bash on on how **** it is, so everyone believes it's ****. So when the Tories are in, it's claimed to be always underfunded. When Blair was in for 12 years+, silence. And he increased funding, by bringing in the private sector, their money, but silence. So now the NHS rents it's new hospitals, but silence. And the Tories were back in after Blair, and it all starts again, "NGS is **** and underfunded".

The Welsh government has so many billion to spend per year, it can even raise tax if they wish. So they spend £40,000 on a gender road crossing, and install umpteen thousand 20mph signs, but they claim not to have enough money for their NHS trusts.

I know someone in the NHS. He assures me the NHS is adequately funded, employees are paid well, but money is wasted, operations are cancelled because equipment is stolen, and they reckon most staff's bedsheets at home are NHS stamped.

So don't believe the crap in the news or from a Labourer.

And did Blair train up extra doctors, did he ****.

 

From my limited experience this is very true.

Smash-and-grab for profit politicians conflate usury with investment and
good help from other countries such as Asian and Polish nurses, with an
invasion by violent Ukrainian men, and try to foist the it all on the public
as being good.

 

Oh I see, a negative story makes the whole NHS a failure. There are problems but stop making it look all bad based on an article.

How about this — a patient comes down with a respiratory illness which includes fevers, inability to eat, difficulty breathing, weight loss. Patient’s partner rings up NHS due to his partners declining health status. The patient was too weak to go to the Doctors office. The Doctor goes to patient’s house one hour later. Patient is assessed as having a critically low 02 saturation, high heart rate and high respiratory rate, low blood pressure, and dehydration. The Doctor immediately calls an ambulance. The ambulance arrives in a timely fashion and takes patient to the biggest hospital in the area. The ambulance attendants stay with the patient at the emergency room until patient is admitted to the care of the hospital. There are many people waiting and all are being looked after according to need. The patient is admitted to the A & E and bloodwork is immediately ordered, heart is monitored, as well as an X-ray of the chest, vitals are taken every 15 minutes, and within half-an-hour the patient is given massive antibiotics for the pneumonia in the right lung as well as hydrated with IV fluids. The patient is transferred to a different hospital the next morning for specialized respiratory care. Nobody died around this patient, nobody was neglected. This was all under the NHS. I have direct knowledge because that person was me. Nobody is interested in my story because it’s something that is a success story. How much did this care cost me — 0. How did I know I received the appropriate care, as I have mentioned already on this forum, I am a medical person. Did I see any of the issues mentioned in the OP — no.

I am sure there are some horror stories in the USA. Every health care system could improve but stop using cherry picked articles to try to make things look worse than they are.

Do actually understand how immigration works in the UK? A few general points, it’s not the same for everybody and there is a point system. First of all, it costs a couple of thousand of dollars to make an application to immigrate and if your application is denied, too bad, no money back. Secondly, you must be able to demonstrate english proficiency, unless you are older than a certain age. Thirdly, most have to pay a surcharge for a year to be able to use the services of the NHS. Fourthly, the majority of immigrants have to be able to prove they will be able to support themselves and their families upon moving here. You cannot have a criminal record. Immigration can take other routes as well but it’s not like the UK is opening its doors and letting immigrants pour in to get free health care and live off the government.

There are many reasons why the NHS has issues and it isn’t just down to immigration. It’s complicated. Covid put a huge strain on the NHS and cost billions. People are living for longer with major health conditions. The Government has not been meeting the needs for the increasing NHS services, health and care spending shows a decade of underinvestment, staff shortages are persistent and those are just a few reasons.

I thought I would add those points to even up narrative.

 

The UK government spends between £3200 and 4200 on healthcare per person per year. What level of income does a person have to earn to pay for this in taxes?
(Considering that 20% of a typical person's taxes go towards paying for the NHS, and the tax rate on a typical worker is 25% of their income. The typical health surcharge is only about £1000 and is only paid by those who are staying on a visa for a period longer than 6 months. Immigrants who have obtained permanent legal status do not pay the surcharge.)

It can be calculated that even for someone paying the surcharge, they would have to have an income of at least 44000 to pay for their healthcare. 64000 if they're not paying the surcharge.

 

Wow. I never paid anything for medical care, with the exception of FICA taxes. My employer always paid my medical coverage. It was part of my compensation package like salary and vacation. I had a $500,000 expense for triple bypass ten years ago. My employer paid the whole thing.

I guess it pays to start studying hard as a child, study something useful like engineering instead of music, art or "Women's Studies". It must be smart to get an advanced degree to make your value in the workplace able to get good medical coverage as part of your compensation package.

I guess not everyone knows that.