If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The REAL threat to the NHS
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Over the past few months we have heard from many an "anti-immigration" viewpoint that these poor people are a threat to the NHS.
However, one thing consistently gets over looked.
Currently there are approx 59.2m people in the UK, of which 16% are over 65. There is evidence which shows that this segment of the population uses more of the NHS than any other age group.
By 2031 it is projected that the population of the UK will have increased to 65.7m people. Of this 23% will be over 65. And increase of 6m people.
What problems can you see this causing, and can you think of a solution?
However, one thing consistently gets over looked.
Currently there are approx 59.2m people in the UK, of which 16% are over 65. There is evidence which shows that this segment of the population uses more of the NHS than any other age group.
By 2031 it is projected that the population of the UK will have increased to 65.7m people. Of this 23% will be over 65. And increase of 6m people.
What problems can you see this causing, and can you think of a solution?
0
Comments
THe solution is simple: Privitise the NHS, get people to pay for their own healthcare and not other peoples. Its the only way to avoid disaster.
Not everyone can afford to pay for treatment, thats why the NHS was started in the first place. As far as i know we are the only country in the world to have a national health service, we should treasure it not trash it!
No thanks, I like my hospitals clean and my operations uncancelled.
Mmmmmm strange since it is PRIVATE contractors that clean the hospitals.........
Yes and let old people with pensions die off, and the poor who can't afford private healthcare die too.
I would love it if it was privitised and you couldn't afford any healthcare. :mad:
Well at least they would do something right......
Funny, because the golden age of cleanliness which most complainers refer to, was when the NHS did it themselves...
Exactly!!!
Firstly, those without an income (at the time they need treatment) will get a poor standard of care. Ditto those with low income. This means that they will become chronic cases, and preventative medicine will not be available.
Secondly, no insurance company will want to touch "risk" groups. Therefore over 65s and those in deprived areas will either face huge premiums, or will get poor care standards.
Ultimately it will be the Govt who pays for their minimal care. Effectively taking us back to where we are now, with the added change that a means test will be required before treatment can start.
You have no idea how loathed by his local NHS he is.
If he makes one more unsubstantiated claim about poor care in this area...
It's long past time that money spent on the NHS can never be considered "wasted". Anything that makes people more comfortable, heals them or even improves their general quality of life has to be a good thing all around. Financially the NHS only contributes, because if nothing else, demand for resources creates supply.
How to provide it's resources?
Have family liability for healthcare, or allow groups to fund for themselves. Allow group insurance schemes on a voulntary basis. Allow minimal profits to be made for healthcare related products, by using the NHS's monopsony position like Asda and Tesco do.
Reduce paperwork by just paying doctors etc what they would earn minus tax rather than putting them through the tax system. And so on.
The rich should be the first ones interested in their slaves- sorry, workers- being in a good state of health so they can work harder for them, should they not?
This benefits the rich and is bad for the poor. In America there are nearly 40 million people without medical insurance (according to this article). With roughly 300,000,000 people in America, that means 2 in 15 people do not have medical insurance, and thus cannot receive adequete health care. If you don't find this a scary prospect, then god help you.
Assuming you ignore anything anyone ever says.
Again, what about the people who can't pay?
ETA @ Moonrat. Run runner...
What about the people who can’t afford it the American system which you would probably advocate have tremendous problems. In 2002 43.6 million people within the US could not afford health care which is 1/5 of the population a big percentage
Some things should not be run for profit a health service is one of them...
The government realise that but are acting very slowly. Health promotion and prevention from an early age is getting through but slowly and sporadically.
you really are a dangerous unstable character aren't you?
i think our fast food luxury life culture will be our downfall..we are healthier, are more knowledeble and have the technology to treat victims better but what good is it when we go home and stuff our faces with fatty foods and sit on the internet like slobs, like who would do that :chin: :angel: :razz:
I don't think they are acting slowly though, I think people are slow to realise that health promotions aren't just in place to nag them etc.
Recently the govt. launched a health initiative (I can't remember what it was, which probably illustrates my point!) that was slated by the media and the general public as being 'nanny state' ish. They can't win really. They're accused of being a 'nanny state' when they launch these awareness campaigns and then slated for not doing enough!
Is that why it takes a celebrity chef to highlight the shite that kids are fed in school - oh what was announced today, yes millions into increasing the quality of school meals.
I can't decide whether this point is agreeing or disagreeing with what I said, but it must be aimed at me since you quoted me. Can you clarify?