Comments on: NHS Scandal

By: John

John — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:44:04 +0000

Using OECD figures for 2003 ( the latest and published in 2005) healthcare spend , both public and private , for the UK is 7.7% ( despite the British govt’s attempt to fix the figs upwards )
US is 15%
of GDP .
I agree with your fig of 85% of the UK spend being public – about right
ie 6.545% of GDP

US public healthcare spend if at 45% of the total would make it 6.75% of US GDP ie ahead of ours . In fact , I had thought that the US public spend was about 8.6% of US GDP . US spend is bound to be more evenly spread than in th UK – they are a federal state and each state fights its corner – no one over there would put up with the gross disparity in health spend which we have in the “United Kingdom ” for 5 minutes .

Rate This: 0 0

By: Francis

Francis — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:48:49 +0000

Spending by the British government on healthcare per head , per annum , in Scotland ( via the Scottish parliament ) is already well in excess of that of the US government in the US and of total US spend per head per annum in the US.

The former I can easily believe – but the latter really surprises me. Public healthcare spending is only 45% of the total in the US as opposed to 85% in the UK (and it is those figures that are getting compared). Could you source the claim that the total healthcare spending in Scotland is higher please?

Rate This: 0 0

By: best generic price viagra

best generic price viagra — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:36:32 +0000

generic viagra wholesale generic meltabs viagra http://cancan.net/generic_viagra/generic_viagra_sildenafil.html buy cheap generic viagra generic vega viagra http://cancan.net/generic_viagra/cheap_generic_viagra_substitutes.html and …. cheap generic viagra generic overnight viagra http://cancan.net/generic_viagra/online_generic_viagra_overseas.html generic vega viagra gel generic tab viagra http://cancan.net/generic_viagra/canadian_generic_viagra.html viagra generic brand generic sale viagra http://cancan.net/generic_viagra/caverta_veega_generic_viagra.html .Thanks.

Rate This: 0 0

By: imitrex nursing

imitrex nursing — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 09:16:11 +0000

yes.this is my site http://cancan.net/imitrex/imitrex_nasal.html Thanks.

Rate This: 0 0

By: raincoaster

raincoaster — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:50:27 +0000

In related news, is anyone else suddenly getting spam from Leinster Rugby leinsternews [Email address: leinsternews #AT# leinsterrugby.ie - replace #AT# with @ ] ? Just wondering.

Rate This: 0 0

By: raincoaster

raincoaster — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:00:12 +0000

Spending by the British government on healthcare per head , per annum , in Scotland ( via the Scottish parliament ) is already well in excess of that of the US government in the US and of total US spend per head per annum in the US.

That’s horrifying. The Americans aren’t paying for medical service or medicines: they are paying for a vast, boondoggle-choked bureaucracy of HMO’s, insurance schemes, and government departments. Something less than 40% of “healthcare costs” in the US are actually used to provide health care itself. The rest is used to keep paper pushers and lobbyists employed. This is NO-ONE’s idea of a system to be emulated.

Rate This: 0 0

By: John

John — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:15:54 +0000

How to miss a point.

” I , however, await the day when British public spending on healthcare per head matches that of America (and that’s the United States of America, not Canada). ”

The British government is , as ever , besotted with the celtic fringe and is endemically anti English . Their spend on healthcare per head per annum ( as it is for every other category of governmental expenditure eg transport , education , housing etc ) in England is massively less than for Scotland or Wales and the trend is becoming even worse year by year .

- typical British government bias against the English .
When we English have our own English parliament we can deal with our own problems ouselves ( equitably and fairly ) – it is simply ridiculous to suppose that the British government which occupies England will ever deal fairly with the English – they have had enough chances , time for them to get lost and for the English to rule themselves .

Rate This: 0 0

By: Francis

Francis — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:12:38 +0000

Much criticism is made of the NHS and illustrated above.

I, however, await the day when British public spending on healthcare per head matches that of America (and that’s the United States of America, not Canada).

The triumph of the NHS isn’t that it’s superb – it’s that it does pretty well despite being run on a shoestring.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Macarnie

Macarnie — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 09:20:15 +0000

It looks as though eddie reader might have something there. This A.M. a report on the steam wireless tells of a radiographer being suspended , due, either to incompetence; carelessness or both .

Women with symptoms of breast cancer were wrongly given the all clear , thereby prejudicing their chances of a cure..

Rate This: 0 0

By: eddie reader

eddie reader — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:40:06 +0000

The NHS has long passed its use by date. The biggest beneficiaries are the BMA, RCN and Unison. The reason – truly awful management. Why truly awful management – no competition.
It abounds with Spanish practices and always will do so as long as doctors can moonlight. There is a 4 months queue, but it can be done tomorrow (using exactly the same reasources) if you bung the consultant a few quid. As in France, they should be either in or out.
GPs are handsomely rewarded for making it difficult to get an appointment.
British doctors and nurses are the best paid in Europe (according to the Economist) and yet it is one of the worst health care systems in Europe.
In 1947 a system based on Soviet principles might have made sense. NHS targets admirably reflect the Gosplan-thinking. The collapse of the Soviet Union ought to have made someone think.
It isn’t as though it was rocket-science. Just copy the French model. Knowing the British, hell will freeze over first.

Rate This: 0 0