Health care systems compared

With an expanding population, and lower incomes, would that not be the normal trend of events?
Yup and the rising cost of treatments and new technologies etc etc etc. There is so much bullshit in UK politics about how the NHS is funded and how it performs and whichever bunch of prats is in power they blame the other for not spending enough on the NHS. It’s just a game. Bottom line is every year more goes into it despite what the Labour Party say or the tories or the liberals.
 
Werbung:
an FYI for you...NHS net expenditure (resource plus capital, minus depreciation) has increased from £78.881 billion in 2006/07 to £120.512 billion in 2016/17. Planned expenditure for 2017/18 is £123.817bn and for 2018/19 is £126.269bn. Don't get caught up the the politics of the NHS and all the crap from the Tories and Labour and all the other assholes.... there is actually more going into it every year.

Yes. But it is a fact that EVERY country's medical care cost is increasing, partially due to the more complex and advanced medical technology AND the aging of the population, which obviously includes more people reaching retirement age AND more people living longer. So, even for the same quality of care, the total cost is increasing.

In fact, the 2018 budget for NHS remains STABLE in terms of % of the total budget (it was 17% from 2012 through 2014, but was raised to 18% in 2015, 2016, 2017, and will remain at 18% in 2018). So, in spite of the advance in medical technology AND the aging of the population, there really is no REAL increase in budgeting!

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html
 
Last edited:
Yup and the rising cost of treatments and new technologies etc etc etc. There is so much bullshit in UK politics about how the NHS is funded and how it performs and whichever bunch of prats is in power they blame the other for not spending enough on the NHS. It’s just a game. Bottom line is every year more goes into it despite what the Labour Party say or the tories or the liberals.

Almost the same here save for while costs increase the amount of spending by the government decreases, and more are forced off government programs, and insurance companies, doctors, big pharma, etc., reap in the profits.
 
So, in spite of the advance in medical technology AND the aging of the population, there really is no REAL increase in budgeting!
.....or decrease....as you said earlier....QED....you've gone round in your own circle which is exactly what all the politicians do here until nobody believes a friggin word being said.
we're are own little microcosm of the whole slapdash NHS debate....cute huh....:)
 
Almost the same here save for while costs increase the amount of spending by the government decreases, and more are forced off government programs, and insurance companies, doctors, big pharma, etc., reap in the profits.
yeah...you guys have a bit of an issue with all this...especially the not so better off...kinda sucks for them I guess.
 
.....or decrease....as you said earlier....QED....you've gone round in your own circle which is exactly what all the politicians do here until nobody believes a friggin word being said.
we're are own little microcosm of the whole slapdash NHS debate....cute huh....:)

I never said that the NHS funding decreased. What I said was (and I was actually quoting British people) that British people were not in the street protesting AGAINST the NHS, as Trump tried to make his followers believe, but were protesting against the potential cuts in all the services the NHS has been providing for 70 years. . .which is basically the OPPOSITE of Trump's lie!

By the way: NO increase in the % of the budget for healthcare, compounded with an increase in population, the aging of population, AND inflation does represent a DECREASE in real terms.

You seem to be enjoying criticising just about everything and everyone, but I do not remember your providing any positive or constructive opinion that might actually energise and benefit any debate. What about trying to provide SOMETHING?

And. . .maybe you could also remember what a good British person you are and watch your grammar?
You see. . ."we're are own little microcosm" doesn't make as much sense as "we're OUR own little microcosm."

As I stated before, I have experienced the English NHS, but also the French system of healthcare, the US system and now the Belgian system. So. . .let's say that I have personal experience with several "microcosm" and can offer comparative input and opinion.
 
Almost the same here save for while costs increase the amount of spending by the government decreases, and more are forced off government programs,
Interesting little wrinkle here in that we have this lad Rees-Mogg bucking for the PM job and he's playing on the popular heart strings, bit like your Trump fella did, anyway he's now highlighted the fact the us Brits give away £14billion odd in foreign aid and to be honest I think the lad is right when he says that cash would be better off spent here at home. Difficult to argue against that when there's all the crap being hurled around about NHS under-funding. I'm pretty sure our hospitals and mental health services would like to get their paws on that amount of cash and since its all tax payers money...why not.
 
Interesting little wrinkle here in that we have this lad Rees-Mogg bucking for the PM job and he's playing on the popular heart strings, bit like your Trump fella did, anyway he's now highlighted the fact the us Brits give away £14billion odd in foreign aid and to be honest I think the lad is right when he says that cash would be better off spent here at home. Difficult to argue against that when there's all the crap being hurled around about NHS under-funding. I'm pretty sure our hospitals and mental health services would like to get their paws on that amount of cash and since its all tax payers money...why not.


If I am correct, I believe your doctors salaries are at a fixed amount. Here the opposite is true. For instance, last October I came down with pneumonia, and ended up in the ER. Got the bill just for the doctor, and his three hours of "treating" me. And this did not include hospital costs. The bill for him alone was $1314.00. And then they wonder why the cost of insurance is increasing.
 
As a vet do you get decent medical coverage?


Most of the time. I have recently moved most of my primary care to Central Oregon to avoid the 200 plus mile drive to Portland VA. Now most of my care is done through private facilities, and the VA, and Medicare, pay for it. Tried the Medicare supplemental route for a while, however, the premiums kept going up 20% a year, and it finally hit over 20% of my income so I dropped it. That is the Republican Medicare Part D program the right wing never wants to talk about. It is comparatively just as expensive as the ACA, but it is a Republican program.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top