The future of the NHS, your opinions.

[Technologic]

Spurred on by various articles i've been reading in the BMJ, comments from healthcare staff during my work experience and a spate of recent news items on NHS cuts etc. I want to hear your opinions on where the NHS is now and its future.

-Do you agree with the government plans for reform (now on hold due to unprecedented opposition from staff within the service)?

-Do you even understand what's going on?

-Has the government misled the public and are these reforms destined to fail?

Discuss.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think in general the NHS should be broken up if i'm quite honest and perhaps privatised. It is not only inefficent but it is only going to become more and more of a burden on the economy as the years go by with an ageing populationt that is living longer - something a money pit like the NHS will not be able to cope with. There is a great myth around the NHS, that the NHS was put there for the poor, who, the impression is given that they were refused medical treatment before the NHS - this is untrue. The British healthcare system was rather effective before the NHS with charitable hospitals being there in place for those who could not afford healthcare while those who could (the wealthy) had to pay for their treatment.

The introduction of the NHS made no difference to the poor but did for the wealthy as they no longer had to pay for their own healthcare. Now I know i'm going to be attacked for suggesting anything other than the usual mantra of 'the NHS needs more investment' and so forth with it being a sacred cow, but the facts are that it is a bloated organisation being the worlds third biggest employer after the Chinese red army/Indian train service which is often ripped off by drug companies due to the monopoly it holds.

Now as for the reforms proposed for the NHS, I do not think they will make much difference at all as whether or not the healthcare system is private or public all depends on the amount of red tape involved. The healthcare system in the United States for example is often held up as a 'its private and a terrible system' example when in reality, healthcare there regulated by such an extent by the government that it is publically owned in-all-but-name. I see the proposed devolution of powers the government are proposing as mere window dressing, as I suspect a large amount of regulation will follow on how and what that money can be spent on by hospitals/GP surgerys - again, making little or no difference at all.

In other words, the government is simply rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

[ifuseekamy]

Isn't there that fat guy that costs £100,000 who also wants to sue the NHS for being so fat? Regulations should be brought in regarding people like that. Far better uses for that sort of money.

[luce]

If i'm honest i don't even understand what is going on and I hear these stories about people been given viagra and stuff like plastic surgery from tax payers money and it makes me think what's the point. I know people need health care and it's a fantastic system but it needs reform because we're over populated so regulations need to be put in place on who gets free health care and who doesn't. It's always been a massive debate since it was introduced after WW2 but not alot seems to have been done recently about it..

oh and these ambulances that they have had to buy for 75,000 more a pop or something for fat people isn't on. if you're fat you don't get treated because it's likely to be causing your illness. Think how many malaria jabs that could buy in africa.

[-:Undertaker:-]

oh and these ambulances that they have had to buy for 75,000 more a pop or something for fat people isn't on. if you're fat you don't get treated because it's likely to be causing your illness. Think how many malaria jabs that could buy in africa.

Do you have the same view towards those who contract HIV then?

[luce]

Do you have the same view towards those who contract HIV then?

I don't understand? Do you mean if the people "caused" their own HIV?

[GommeInc]

I don't understand? Do you mean if the people "caused" their own HIV?

He's assuming each time you have sex you carry an HIV tester kit to see if your sexual partner or one night stand has HIV I think he's focusing on the people who have HIV and know it, but refuse to protect others through some form self-loathing and like to spread it, and forgets that people without it should not be expected to be paranoid of life and have everyone they come in contact with check themselves, and I am also assuming he thinks obesity hits you one day when you least expect it. One day 9 stone, the next 19 stone

[luce]

He's assuming each time you have sex you carry an HIV tester kit to see if your sexual partner or one night stand has HIV I think he's focusing on the people who have HIV and know it, but refuse to protect others through some form self-loathing and like to spread it, and forgets that people without it should not be expected to be paranoid of life and have everyone they come in contact with check themselves, and I am also assuming he thinks obesity hits you one day when you least expect it. One day 9 stone, the next 19 stone

yeah i thought that when you are THAT fat that you need a reinforced ambulance i don't see why you should be treated for angina because over the time it's built up you could just stop eating rubbish rather than have the tax payers money wasted on you when they could be treating people who HIV. Not everyone who has HIV is the cause of it and i accept that with the obese too HOWEVER i'd say about 98% of people who do require an ambulance to be reinforced it is their fault.

[Technologic]

yeah i thought that when you are THAT fat that you need a reinforced ambulance i don't see why you should be treated for angina because over the time it's built up you could just stop eating rubbish rather than have the tax payers money wasted on you when they could be treating people who HIV. Not everyone who has HIV is the cause of it and i accept that with the obese too HOWEVER i'd say about 98% of people who do require an ambulance to be reinforced it is their fault.

Should people who play squash professionally get knee replacements in their 50s?

It's the same question.

[luce]

Should people who play squash professionally get knee replacements in their 50s?

It's the same question.

It's not thought because being fat nothing good comes out of it for the person, except for maybe being happy but i don't know if you truly can be with that disability, whereas a professional sports player has kept himself/herself fit and done their job. Many people play squash and don't need a knee replacement whereas the people who eat themselves into that state can't possibly claim being fat is a side effect by chance, like a bad knee is for the squash player.

Just so you don't think i'm a complete fatist i also don't believe smokers should be treated for lung cancer etc, alcoholics for liver failure etc. It's hard line but it might actually stop people from being so flippant with their bodies knowing that they can just go and get it sorted for free.