NHS deficits hit 'massive' £930m

[djAdvocate]

Oct 9, 2015 16:17:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Can someone tell me why America wants this? 


Source

NHS trusts in England have racked up a £930m deficit in the first three months of the financial year - that is more than the entire overspend last year.
Regulators said the problems were the "worst for a generation" and demanded immediate action be taken.
The scale of the deficits - eight in 10 trusts are in the red - also prompted warnings that care would suffer.

Alongside the financial data, the regulators have also warned about worsening waiting times for hospital treatment.
Latest figures show:
The number waiting for non-emergency operations, such as knee and hip replacements, is 3.3 million - the highest level since early 2008
The 62-day cancer waiting time target has been missed for the past 16 months
The four-hour A&E target has been missed for 11 of the past 12 months
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust chief executive Sir Len Fenwick, the longest-serving hospitals boss in the health service, told the BBC the pressures were likely to mean winter would be extremely difficult.
He predicted non-emergency operations would need to be delayed to help hospitals cope.
"In the coming winter, we do believe there will be greater pressures than ever before," he added.

first of all, England's HC system is not a top 10 system, so i don't really care for this as example of something we should duplicate.

secondly, the neoconservatives have been in charge of that system for 30 years.  you have no way of separating neoconservative policies from these results, even if you wanted to.

third, as s*&tty as this system is, it puts ours to shame in terms of general medicine, both on a cost per patient basis, and an outcome basis.

finally, MOST healthcare systems, including ours, are in trouble, for a variety of reasons that are not even being discussed, here.

edit: oh, and this deficit is tiddlywinks, btw.  it is barely $1B.  Trump is worth more than that. 

[djAdvocate]

Oct 9, 2015 17:34:58 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Oct 9, 2015 17:06:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

first of all, England's HC system is not a top 10 system, so i don't really care for this as example of something we should duplicate.

Why do you think a US Single payer system would be different?

because we are the greatest nation on earth, of course. 
and because we can learn what NOT to do from others.
that is the BIGGEST advantage to being the last kid on the block to have "X".

secondly, the neoconservatives have been in charge of that system for 30 years.  you have no way of separating neoconservative policies from these results, even if you wanted to.


How is the US political scene any different?

that isn't the point, exactly.  the point is that social programs have been under attack in England since Thatcher.  i have every reason to suspect sabbotage.  if that is not the case, that is just ducky.  i still think their system is better than ours.

third, as s*&tty as this system is, it puts ours to shame in terms of general medicine, both on a cost per patient basis, and an outcome basis.


are these the only factors to consider? Wait times, doctor and nurse care, etc

our system is best for wait times, but is twice the cost, and has pretty poor health outcomes, given the fact that people don't use it (because of the cost).  you might be keen on paying 2x as much for quicker NON-EMERGENCY service, but i am not. 

finally, MOST healthcare systems, including ours, are in trouble, for a variety of reasons that are not even being discussed, here.

edit: oh, and this deficit is tiddlywinks, btw.  it is barely $1B.  Trump is worth more than that. 


Did you read the link?  This is the deficit in the first 3 months of the year! What will the next bring?

You didn't really answer my question...why would we want a system like this?

yes, i read it.  $4B for a year is a pittance, and.....

STILL WORTH LESS THAN TRUMP

the answer to your question is that a dual system would be awesome.  ALL of the best systems follow that model.

[mroped]

The U.S. Is spending a lot more on HS than England or any other country does and we have far less quality that anybody in the same category of industrialized nations.
Our problem is with the middle man that makes the money and provides exactly zero.
Also, a big problem is the pharmaceutical industry which runs on a regulation written by pharma reps. Go figure!
Pharma, has no decency and shows no mercy. All they care about is profits.

If US would spend the same money as of now, on a system that would be single payer or something similar, we would most likely have the best healthcare system in the world.

[Deleted]

I think the US is going to be changing the money system sometime in the future and those in power are getting the last bit of value out of it before the change.  For those who think this is just paranoia, the US changed it monetary system before. Taking us off the gold standard moved a lot of value from one set to another.  The banks and government are looking out for themselves not us.

[mroped]

Are you asking if doctors will be unhappy for getting paid what they billed for or if people will just decide that they don't care that they suffer, they like it that way or what?

Ofcourse you will have unhappy people: "I want a titanium hip God dammit!!" " Can you make them 40DD? My boyfriend likes them big!"

[mroped]

It should by all means. After all it works all over the world doesn't it?

Nobody, and I mean nobody in this world spends the kind of money that we do( government wise) on health care- subsidizing, Medicare, Medicaid etc.
At this point if we just remove -as I already mentioned- the middle man, and set some kind of tax-fixed or otherwise- on income, we could come up with what's missing.
And will work, there is no reason why it shouldn't.

so fiscally, we can do it.
Socialy, I don't see why not? Are people going to complain about better health care?

Politicaly... That's a different animal. There we might have a problem and will not be easy solving it.

[weltschmerz]

Oct 9, 2015 18:09:58 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

(Not bolding anymore, because it's getting confusing)

If the Brits haven't learned from their mistakes, with firsthand knowledge of the system, how is the US supposed to fare with those lessons learned?

The US Govt couldn't get a simple enrollment website to work...is that an indication they are ready to tackle a single payer system?

--
Don't people think that the US social services have been under attack? 
Instead of the clandestine sabatoge you mention, many US politicians are overtly attempting to 'dismantle' social programs -according to some.  How will this change with a single payer system?
--
Isn't the US consumer economy based on paying for convenience? When was the last time you heard of a successful marketing campaign "You'll wait longer, pay less, but more people will be served" 
do you want to wait longer than you have to for a hip replacement to alleviate pain and regain quality of life?

We learned from our mistakes. We had your system, and it was a mistake, so we changed it.

We love our healthcare and you wouldn't get us to switch back for all the tea in China.

Any hint of dismantling it would result in riots that would make the storming of the Bastille look like a yoga class.

Is it perfect? Of course not, but it's a lot better than what we had.

[fishy999]

Oct 9, 2015 16:17:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Can someone tell me why America wants this? 


Source

NHS trusts in England have racked up a £930m deficit in the first three months of the financial year - that is more than the entire overspend last year.
Regulators said the problems were the "worst for a generation" and demanded immediate action be taken.
The scale of the deficits - eight in 10 trusts are in the red - also prompted warnings that care would suffer.

Alongside the financial data, the regulators have also warned about worsening waiting times for hospital treatment.
Latest figures show:
The number waiting for non-emergency operations, such as knee and hip replacements, is 3.3 million - the highest level since early 2008
The 62-day cancer waiting time target has been missed for the past 16 months
The four-hour A&E target has been missed for 11 of the past 12 months
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust chief executive Sir Len Fenwick, the longest-serving hospitals boss in the health service, told the BBC the pressures were likely to mean winter would be extremely difficult.
He predicted non-emergency operations would need to be delayed to help hospitals cope.
"In the coming winter, we do believe there will be greater pressures than ever before," he added.

No- because America does not want this.  You can attack the NHS all day- but they are still doing a better job for less than we are.

[weltschmerz]

[jkapp]

Oct 10, 2015 0:09:55 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

Oct 9, 2015 16:17:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Can someone tell me why America wants this? 


Source

No- because America does not want this.  You can attack the NHS all day- but they are still doing a better job for less than we are.

Yeah a better job as long as you actually LIVE long enough to get the care.  And what's living with cronic pain for an extra year or so really mean?  Just take some Advil, right?  As long as healthcare is cheaper, then screw you and your pain!!!

[djAdvocate]

Oct 9, 2015 18:09:58 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

(Not bolding anymore, because it's getting confusing)

If the Brits haven't learned from their mistakes, with firsthand knowledge of the system, how is the US supposed to fare with those lessons learned?

i am speculating that the neoconservatives in Britan have no interest in "learning from their mistakes".  they are interested in dismantling social welfare.  what better way to do that than to cause it to fall into disrepair?  but again, i don't think $4B is a big deal.  on another thread, we were talking about a city sewer that will cost $2B to repair.  recently a bridge in my community cost that much to repair.  it really is a pittance, if you care about it.

The US Govt couldn't get a simple enrollment website to work...is that an indication they are ready to tackle a single payer system?

the website is working fine.  that is ancient history.

--
Don't people think that the US social services have been under attack? 
Instead of the clandestine sabatoge (sic) you mention, many US politicians are overtly attempting to 'dismantle' social programs -according to some.  How will this change with a single payer system?
--
Isn't the US consumer economy based on paying for convenience? When was the last time you heard of a successful marketing campaign "You'll wait longer, pay less, but more people will be served" 
do you want to wait longer than you have to for a hip replacement to alleviate pain and regain quality of life?

actually, MANY companies work on this principle.  have you ever had a skilled contractor do work on your home?  services that are non-emergency AND in high demand generally invite competitors, which is what makes dual systems work.

do you know what a dual system is?  your reply makes it seem like you don't.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 9, 2015 18:48:33 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Oct 9, 2015 18:23:20 GMT -5 mroped said:

The U.S. Is spending a lot more on HS than England or any other country does and we have far less quality that anybody in the same category of industrialized nations.
Our problem is with the middle man that makes the money and provides exactly zero.
Also, a big problem is the pharmaceutical industry which runs on a regulation written by pharma reps. Go figure!
Pharma, has no decency and shows no mercy. All they care about is profits.

If US would spend the same money as of now, on a system that would be single payer or something similar, we would most likely have the best healthcare system in the world.

I'm not asking what the problems are. I'm asking what makes anyone think it would work here?

if we can send a man to the moon, we can build a healthcare INSURANCE system that serves the interests of the average American.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 9, 2015 21:27:02 GMT -5 mroped said:

It should by all means. After all it works all over the world doesn't it?

Nobody, and I mean nobody in this world spends the kind of money that we do( government wise) on health care- subsidizing, Medicare, Medicaid etc.
At this point if we just remove -as I already mentioned- the middle man, and set some kind of tax-fixed or otherwise- on income, we could come up with what's missing.
And will work, there is no reason why it shouldn't.

so fiscally, we can do it.
Socialy, I don't see why not? Are people going to complain about better health care?

Politicaly... That's a different animal. There we might have a problem and will not be easy solving it.

we used to be a "CAN DO" nation.  now we are a nation of pathetic whiners, complaining about problems that are too hard to solve.

i want my country back.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 9, 2015 19:00:59 GMT -5 mroped said:

Are you asking if doctors will be unhappy for getting paid what they billed for or if people will just decide that they don't care that they suffer, they like it that way or what?

Ofcourse you will have unhappy people: "I want a titanium hip God dammit!!" " Can you make them 40DD? My boyfriend likes them big!"

we spend more money researching pecker medicine than cancer medicine.  there is something wrong with that.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 9, 2015 22:26:08 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Oct 9, 2015 21:27:02 GMT -5 mroped said:

It should by all means. After all it works all over the world doesn't it?

Nobody, and I mean nobody in this world spends the kind of money that we do( government wise) on health care- subsidizing, Medicare, Medicaid etc.
At this point if we just remove -as I already mentioned- the middle man, and set some kind of tax-fixed or otherwise- on income, we could come up with what's missing.
And will work, there is no reason why it shouldn't.

so fiscally, we can do it.
Socialy, I don't see why not? Are people going to complain about better health care?

Politicaly... That's a different animal. There we might have a problem and will not be easy solving it.

Socially I'm not so sure. So on the one hand the battle cry is that the government should not come between a woman and her doctor, but then we want the government to employ their doctor?  How do those two ideas reconcile?

i think Obama did a TERRIBLE job of messaging this.  the idea of single payer is not to change "healthcare", it is to change the mechanism by which we pay for it.  rather than pooling our resources through a billion little for-profit insurance companies, we simply set that money aside and pay it through a single pool.  it is actually a rather simple idea, but nobody ever got it, and so congress just ignored it (at the bequest of the insurance industry).  having Americans control how money is spent is way better than having some company who profits by creating poor health outcomes (aka NOT PAYING), but that message was never delivered and never received.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 10, 2015 7:46:50 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Oct 10, 2015 0:09:55 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

No- because America does not want this.  You can attack the NHS all day- but they are still doing a better job for less than we are.

Yeah a better job as long as you actually LIVE long enough to get the care.  And what's living with cronic pain for an extra year or so really mean?  Just take some Advil, right?  As long as healthcare is cheaper, then screw you and your pain!!!

the OP very clearly states that the waits are for non-emergency care, so your DYING argument is a red herring.  England and the US are roughly the same in terms of emergency care (other than England is half the cost).

[weltschmerz]

Oct 10, 2015 7:46:50 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Oct 10, 2015 0:09:55 GMT -5 fishy999 said:

No- because America does not want this.  You can attack the NHS all day- but they are still doing a better job for less than we are.

Yeah a better job as long as you actually LIVE long enough to get the care.  And what's living with cronic pain for an extra year or so really mean?  Just take some Advil, right?  As long as healthcare is cheaper, then screw you and your pain!!!

Yes, you're right. Nobody gets care in timely manner here. Why, the streets are literally littered with corpses! It's not so bad in the winter, but in the spring, when they begin to thaw out, it's hell.

[weltschmerz]

Oct 10, 2015 11:36:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 9, 2015 22:26:08 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Socially I'm not so sure. So on the one hand the battle cry is that the government should not come between a woman and her doctor, but then we want the government to employ their doctor?  How do those two ideas reconcile?

i think Obama did a TERRIBLE job of messaging this.  the idea of single payer is not to change "healthcare", it is to change the mechanism by which we pay for it.  rather than pooling our resources through a billion little for-profit insurance companies, we simply set that money aside and pay it through a single pool.  it is actually a rather simple idea, but nobody ever got it, and so congress just ignored it (at the bequest of the insurance industry).  having Americans control how money is spent is way better than having some company who profits by creating poor health outcomes (aka NOT PAYING), but that message was never delivered and never received.

Exactly! Why you would want to spend a sizable chunk of your health care dollars on paying the insurance companies is beyond me.

The CEOs of the Big Five for-profit health insurance companies all took home at least $10 million in 2014, according to each insurers' annual filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Payer CEO compensation ranged from $10.1 million for Humana CEO Bruce D. Broussard to more than $15 million for Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini. Compensation for the Anthem, Cigna and UnitedHealth CEOs also fell in that range. To be fair, each company performed well in 2014--health insurance stocks hit an all-time high in January 2015 and have continued to climb since then.

www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/top-health-insurance-ceo-pay-exceeds-10-million-2014/2015-04-10

And THAT, leads to THIS.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/

[djAdvocate]

Oct 10, 2015 11:47:57 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oct 10, 2015 11:36:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think Obama did a TERRIBLE job of messaging this.  the idea of single payer is not to change "healthcare", it is to change the mechanism by which we pay for it.  rather than pooling our resources through a billion little for-profit insurance companies, we simply set that money aside and pay it through a single pool.  it is actually a rather simple idea, but nobody ever got it, and so congress just ignored it (at the bequest of the insurance industry).  having Americans control how money is spent is way better than having some company who profits by creating poor health outcomes (aka NOT PAYING), but that message was never delivered and never received.

Exactly! Why you would want to spend a sizable chunk of your health care dollars on paying the insurance companies is beyond me.

The CEOs of the Big Five for-profit health insurance companies all took home at least $10 million in 2014, according to each insurers' annual filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Payer CEO compensation ranged from $10.1 million for Humana CEO Bruce D. Broussard to more than $15 million for Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini. Compensation for the Anthem, Cigna and UnitedHealth CEOs also fell in that range. To be fair, each company performed well in 2014--health insurance stocks hit an all-time high in January 2015 and have continued to climb since then.

www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/top-health-insurance-ceo-pay-exceeds-10-million-2014/2015-04-10

And THAT, leads to THIS.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/

why people love insurance companies is beyond me.  i think they are utterly loathesome, and only should be used in the worst situations.

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2015 11:39:51 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oct 10, 2015 7:46:50 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Yeah a better job as long as you actually LIVE long enough to get the care.  And what's living with cronic pain for an extra year or so really mean?  Just take some Advil, right?  As long as healthcare is cheaper, then screw you and your pain!!!

Yes, you're right. Nobody gets care in timely manner here. Why, the streets are literally littered with corpses! It's not so bad in the winter, but in the spring, when they begin to thaw out, it's hell.

You can just send them out in the raw sewage you can't afford to treat.

Win win.

[weltschmerz]

Oct 10, 2015 12:01:02 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Oct 10, 2015 11:39:51 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Yes, you're right. Nobody gets care in timely manner here. Why, the streets are literally littered with corpses! It's not so bad in the winter, but in the spring, when they begin to thaw out, it's hell.

You get just send them out it the raw sewage you can't afford to treat.

Win win.

Nah, then they'll start washing up on the beaches, and nobody wants that. Think of the children!

[mroped]

"Can someone tell me why America wants this? "


In short we want it because is much, much better than what we ever had!
If only the knuckleheads in Congress would pull their heads out of their behinds and approve it.
Also, the public needs to understand that not everything the government has a hand in is automatically evil. Look at SS for example!

[weltschmerz]

Oct 10, 2015 14:17:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

So nobody has really explained to me why or how this would work in the US. 

I didn't think it was that hard of a question 

Same way it works everywhere else. Not that hard of an answer.

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

Oct 10, 2015 14:17:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

So nobody has really explained to me why or how this would work in the US. 

I didn't think it was that hard of a question 

I don't think we do.  Look at the VA, if you want to see govt run healthcare.  They have waits where people die, spend their time covering it up, and then don't care when it is revealed.  This is with a small, concentrated population where they could get the integrated medical records (yet, couldn't get it done and make a system so the records go from DoD to the VA).

It is pathetic. If anyone wonders what single payer in the USA would look like, look no further than the VA.  It's "free" but you never get care so you get what you pay for.   

[Deleted]

Oct 9, 2015 17:06:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 9, 2015 16:17:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Can someone tell me why America wants this? 


Source

NHS trusts in England have racked up a £930m deficit in the first three months of the financial year - that is more than the entire overspend last year.
Regulators said the problems were the "worst for a generation" and demanded immediate action be taken.
The scale of the deficits - eight in 10 trusts are in the red - also prompted warnings that care would suffer.

Alongside the financial data, the regulators have also warned about worsening waiting times for hospital treatment.
Latest figures show:
The number waiting for non-emergency operations, such as knee and hip replacements, is 3.3 million - the highest level since early 2008
The 62-day cancer waiting time target has been missed for the past 16 months
The four-hour A&E target has been missed for 11 of the past 12 months
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust chief executive Sir Len Fenwick, the longest-serving hospitals boss in the health service, told the BBC the pressures were likely to mean winter would be extremely difficult.
He predicted non-emergency operations would need to be delayed to help hospitals cope.
"In the coming winter, we do believe there will be greater pressures than ever before," he added.

first of all, England's HC system is not a top 10 system, so i don't really care for this as example of something we should duplicate.

secondly, the neoconservatives have been in charge of that system for 30 years.  you have no way of separating neoconservative policies from these results, even if you wanted to.

third, as s*&tty as this system is, it puts ours to shame in terms of general medicine, both on a cost per patient basis, and an outcome basis.

finally, MOST healthcare systems, including ours, are in trouble, for a variety of reasons that are not even being discussed, here.

edit: oh, and this deficit is tiddlywinks, btw.  it is barely $1B.  Trump is worth more than that. 

Actually, £930M is closer to $1.425B (after conversion to US$).

(still way less than Trump is worth though)

[Deleted]

Oct 10, 2015 14:17:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

So nobody has really explained to me why or how this would work in the US. 

I didn't think it was that hard of a question 

We don't want England's version... we want Canada's.

[mroped]

"I don't think we do. Look at the VA, if you want to see govt run healthcare. They have waits where people die, spend their time covering it up, and then don't care when it is revealed. This is with a small, concentrated population where they could get the integrated medical records (yet, couldn't get it done and make a system so the records go from DoD to the VA).

It is pathetic. If anyone wonders what single payer in the USA would look like, look no further than the VA. It's "free" but you never get care so you get what you pay for."

We have so many generals that aspire to political chairs or that believe they are above all and they should be making decisions based on their own beliefs- mainly political.

We have had God knows how many investigations on Benghazi and now on PP where nothing came to light as wrongdoing but kept on wasting money on that over and over.
Imagine how many veterans would've been helped if that money was put to good use.

Evrything is political. Politicians try to make a point where one does not exist or there is no need for. And all that at the expense of the taxpayers.
If all these political squabbles would be put aside and act on what is in the best interest of the country and its people not in the interest of a select few, money would stretch further, more problems would be solved and no new ones created.

VA gets its money from DOD. 
We have a DOD budget greater than the next 26 countries combined. Most of that money is spent so we can have the best toys, very little spent on payrolls or medical attention to those in need.
Why? So we can claim that we are "the greatest"?
How can we be the greatest when we neglect the very ones that fight for the very freedom that we so much enjoy and cherish?

[Deleted]

If you want cheaper health care, take better care of yourself and then have a fatal accident at a late age

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

Oct 11, 2015 10:01:12 GMT -5 mroped said:

VA gets its money from DOD. 
We have a DOD budget greater than the next 26 countries combined. Most of that money is spent so we can have the best toys, very little spent on payrolls or medical attention to those in need.
Why? So we can claim that we are "the greatest"?
How can we be the greatest when we neglect the very ones that fight for the very freedom that we so much enjoy and cherish?

Umm, the VA DOES NOT GET THEIR FUNDING FROM THE DOD.

They are not connected in anyway, except for the fact that one (the VA) gets their "customers" from the other (The DoD).

The VA has no problems reminding you of that fact anytime they can.  Whenever you ask them "why don't you have my med records from the military" (So they can see what your injuries were, what treatments were already tried/failed, etc), the answer is the same across the board "We are not the DOD, we are a totally different organization and have no links to them".  
VA issues

The VA is so dysfunctional, they aren't even integrated with themselves.  You move from one area of the country to another, the medical side has you "reapply" for services, even if you were receiving "care"  another facility. Hell, I moved in the same state (~200 miles) and had to reapply. It took several weeks for them to "transfer my records" (the records are electronic) from 1 VA med facility to another. And that doesn't even mention the issues in getting your records to the medical facility (You send your records to the comp & pen dept that decides if the military caused any injuries.  Once they decide you need care for injuries X, Y, and Z, they seem to throw your records away and don't ever give a copy to the medical folks.  So, when you go for X, Y, and Z, they rely on the pt to have records of past lab work, treatments completed, etc. It's a mess.) 

The issue isn't funding as much as it is the bureaucratic attitude of those working there.  Think about the employees you have seen working at the DMV.  It's the same attitude, just these people are going to decide if you get medical care or die, not just that your drivers license doesn't get renewed or your car doesn't get registered   

[swamp]

Oct 10, 2015 14:17:21 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

So nobody has really explained to me why or how this would work in the US. 

I didn't think it was that hard of a question 

I don't  think it will work in the U.S. Because the government fucks up every program it runs.