United States Almost had Universal Health Care

[Geilinor]

Nixon also had an idea for universal health care.

[The Sotoan Union]

Don't you think a big important event happened in Russia between 1960 and 2013?

All the Ukranian, Tajik, Kazakh, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Uzbek doctors and nurses went home?

Communism collapsed. It was replaced with a big capitalist oligarchy that feels no need for healthcare. The new republics were unstable simply because they were new republics. Completely by coincidence (not really) life expectancy went down.

[Socialist Czechia]

Let me ask you a question: Do you think WHO would highly criticize western, powerful and so called "democratic" country for bad health care? They rather take their own numbers, which seems legit.

It reminds me one funny flame war, why no American or British general ever was never put before International court for War crimes or crimes against humanity. No one could answer me without insults.

one google search later

If you can't be bothered to follow the link it's a news article on a WHO report that criticises the government's dealings with fast food companies in promoting healthy eating. That took me literally 10 seconds to find, so no I don't think the WHO is somehow cowed into submission.

Criticising fast food dealings. Really, really horrific. What a wicked state *sarcasm*

What about some WHO report about common abuse of old people in hospitals and retirement homes in Britain? Or how many people died during or immediately after surgery? Some THESE kind of critics?

[The Serbian Empire]

And then it came crashing down once the USSR fell apart. That's the problem with the US and this system. No country can't support both being a military superpower and a universal health care system. The USSR is proof that it's one or the other.

USSR fell due to collapse of it's inner market, since too much industry was focused on something else than day-to-day needs of it's people.
It was Party's fault that they accepted Reagan's game with so much devotion, which surprised even Americans themselves. They expected five or ten years more, at least.

Not any profit from military technologies sold to private sector. That was a massive problem.
Often best technological stuff on whole Earth but with just military and top secret use, that was USSR's economic suicide.

I suspect it was the state capitalist system not having enough resources to operate everything as needed. Simply, they couldn't sell enough industrial products to pay the bills for the health care and military. The inner market meant nothing to them.

[Farnhamia]

All the Ukranian, Tajik, Kazakh, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Uzbek doctors and nurses went home?

Communism collapsed. It was replaced with a big capitalist oligarchy that feels no need for healthcare. The new republics were unstable simply because they were new republics. Completely by coincidence (not really) life expectancy went down.

No, that wasn't it. I'm sure there was something, I just can't put my finger on it.

I am pulling your leg, you know that, right?

[The Serbian Empire]

Nixon also had an idea for universal health care.

And he was forced to resign before he could put it in place.

[The Sotoan Union]

Communism collapsed. It was replaced with a big capitalist oligarchy that feels no need for healthcare. The new republics were unstable simply because they were new republics. Completely by coincidence (not really) life expectancy went down.

No, that wasn't it. I'm sure there was something, I just can't put my finger on it.

I am pulling your leg, you know that, right?

What then?

[Farnhamia]

Nixon also had an idea for universal health care.

And he was forced to resign before he could put it in place.

Well, see, the President can't really put much of anything in place on his own, you know. Congress has to be involved a little.

[The Emerald Dragon]

The mentality in America is that "anything socialist = bad."

God it's a shame we developed that mentality.

Well, I don't mind. I mean, socialism really doesn't work so...

Partial Socialism does work however.

[Geilinor]

You might want to use a better example in future, as the World Health Organisation has consistently ranked the NHS as one of the best healthcare systems in the world thus slightly undermining your point. Also on a per capita expenditure basis the NHS is actually one of the more efficient healthcare systems, far outstripping the USA in this regard. In need of reform? Yes. Horrific, inefficient, and corrupted? Not really, no.

And I can find independent studies which proves NHS's highly questionable structure.

Any state's government can be magician with numbers, like Greece.

Go there, look around in real hospitals, ask real people.
I went there, I looked, I asked. Many times.

The real people are satisfied with the NHS. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8396134/Record-satisfaction-with-NHS-even-among-Tory-voters.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-27616963 The government isn't lying with its statistics.

[Alyakia]

I find it interesting that you're quick to dismiss studies that do not agree with your view of the NHS, you who wondered if my mind was "really opened for new informations to reconsider your opinion."

In the end, when you have some personal experience as much as read opposite studies, you must choose which view is generally more legit.

So in short, without bitching around:

NHS today sucks.

Opinion based on my own eyes, another people's experience which I heard personally and opposite researches of course.

Satisfied?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011 ... h-services

the NHS is still one of the best systems in the world and i can guarantee you most of its problems are related to 1) really stupid government decisions 2) PFI 3) tory government

you know what, actually, that's all stupid government decisions isn't it

shit i can't spoiler in a spoiler oh well here you go

What? Why? Do you believe that private hospitals, which are already fucking things up, would never have ay sort of controversy?

Turns out letting hospitals/trusts self-audit and then screaming about MONEY MONEY MONEY DEBT DEBT DEBT (almost always ballooning PFI costs, if you were wondering, like "Nonetheless, details of the contracts compiled by the Treasury make clear that some NHS organisations will end up paying almost 12 times the initial sum over what is usually a 30-year contract.") was a bad idea.

Unannounced inspections by CQC found 48% of residential homes for people with learning difficulties were non-compliant

Almost half of residential care homes for people with learning disabilities failed to meet care and welfare standards, the health and social care watchdog has found.

The Care Quality Commission said 48% of the 150 locations it inspected were non-compliant in terms of whether patients "experienced safe and appropriate care, treatment and support and whether they [were]
protected from abuse".

The unannounced inspections were launched after BBC's Panorama revealed that people with learning difficulties were being abused at Winterbourne View, a private assessment and treatment centre in Bristol, last year. The hospital, which could handle 24 patients, charged the state about ￡3,500 a week.

The CQC found that NHS locations were twice as likely to be compliant as private hospitals, with 33% of independent providers meeting the standards compared with 68% of those run by the state."

A health board is consulting its lawyers after surgeons had to complete an operation and keep a patient alive by torchlight when contractors unexpectedly shut off their power last month.

NHS Lothian disclosed that the unscheduled power cut, midway through an operation at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary in late March, shut down all electrical machinery in the theatre for 11 minutes, including breathing machines and heart monitors.

It meant surgical staff had to use hand-ventilators to keep the anesthetised patient breathing in complete darkness for 90 seconds and then by torchlight for another nine-and-a-half minutes, while monitoring the patient's pulse by hand, as surgeons completed the operation without any power.

NHS Lothian said it was "angry and frustrated" and claimed that the private operator that runs the hospital, built under the PFI programme, had repeatedly put patient safety and lives at risk.

Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish health secretary, backed the board's complaints and urged the hospital's operator, Consort, to "get its act together".

She told BBC Radio Scotland there were robust contingency plans in place to protect patients. But she said: "Make no mistake about it, I share NHS Lothian's anger about this. It's totally unacceptable that this company isn't performing to the standards expected of it, particularly given the huge amounts of public money that it gets paid."

In the latest in a series of incidents involving power and safety failures at the hospital, the electricity to all operating theatres was cut off for 10 minutes on 29 March when scheduled maintenance work started early without warning.

The power cut meant emergency generators were unable to start, forcing surgeons to use torches to finish one operation. A second operation had to be cancelled just as it was about to start.

Among other incidents stretching back a decade, an expectant father had to use the torch app on his smartphone to find his newborn son in a birthing pool when the lights failed last December. There were two power failures in 2003.

In February this year, hospital staff were not told there was only one security guard on a night shift due to sickness. In January, Consort failed to tell the NHS that fire alarms in 10 operating theatres had stopped working; in 2007, it failed to tell the NHS that panic alarms were out of order.

Consort said disciplinary action was under way following the power cut. The firm faces financial penalties under its contract with the NHS.

Alan Boyter, executive director of NHS Lothian, said disciplinary action and a small fine was no longer enough. "We have reached the point where we can no longer tolerate the repeated, serious and potentially life-threatening nature of these incidents at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh by our PFI provider Consort," he said.

"We are currently consulting with our lawyers to discuss what options we have in relation to the contract and it would be inappropriate to comment further while that is ongoing.

"Patient safety is always our absolute priority and we will not allow that to continually be put in danger by a third party. We are angry and frustrated with the performance of our PFI provider Consort."

The Consort director, Stephen Gordon, said: "Consort has taken this incident very seriously and have undertaken a thorough investigation into this matter in conjunction with NHS Lothian to review the current operating procedures in place for works of this nature."

Consort – which is said to earn £60m a year for running, cleaning and maintaining the hospital, under a contract estimated to be worth £1.26bn by 2028 – said disciplinary action was under way following the power cut.

Under the terms of the PFI deal, agreed 15 years ago, Consort will still own the building when that contract ends, forcing the NHS either to buy the building, sign a new lease or leave.

Dave Watson, head of bargaining in Scotland for the health service union Unison, said the time had come to cancel the PFI contract.

"It's a costly and inefficient way of delivering services. It's meant to mean a transfer of risk, but when things go wrong the risk stays with the public sector and, at the end of the day, the public, because the companies expect to get paid," he said.

"The health board should now be seeking an exit from this failed arrangement with Consort and at the very least be looking to bring facilities management back in-house."

A private hospital which accepts NHS work has instructed its doctors to artificially delay operations on non-paying patients to encourage them to pay fees. The Department of Health last night branded the practice "unacceptable" and pledged to intervene.

Bernie Creaven, executive director of the private BMI Meriden Hospital, Coventry, had ordered an immediate four-week postponement of operations on NHS patients referred to the hospital, which will be extended to a minimum of eight weeks by September.

In a letter to the hospital's consultants dated 13 July, seen by The Independent, Ms Creaven said the imposed delays were to discourage patients thinking of going private from opting for treatment on the NHS.

Private hospitals receive taxpayer money for treating NHS cases, but can make larger fees if the patients go directly to them for treatment.

"I believe time to access the system is the most critical factor for private patients converting to NHS patients," she wrote. She added that "other aspects of differentiation" would be introduced over the next few weeks to make NHS treatment at the hospital relatively less attractive.

The Health Department condemned the move. It said NHS patients should get treatment when they needed it.

An expert on the health market said all private hospitals were under pressure from the recession and low NHS waiting lists, and were seeking ways of making their hospitals more attractive to paying patients.

Philip Blackburn, of private health consultancy Laing and Buisson, said: "They do differentiate between NHS and private patients in some respects, but it probably differs across hospital groups."

BMI is a leader in private healthcare with almost 70 hospitals and clinics nationwide. It was involved in a damaging row with BUPA, the private health insurer, last year after BUPA claimed some BMI hospitals were too expensive.

BMI offers treatment to NHS patients at NHS costs to fill empty beds under contract with local primary care trusts, as do other private hospital chains. But it is bound by the NHS Constitution which says: "All patients should receive high quality care without any unnecessary delay."

NHS hospitals themselves sometimes delay operations on patients in order to prioritise other patients or to balance budgets. But they argue these delays are necessary for the wider benefit of the NHS.

The 52-bed BMI Meriden Hospital in Coventry charges self-pay private patients from £8,500 for a hip replacement. The NHS cost is from £5,485.

In her letter to consultants, Ms Creaven says: "Over the past few months I have had numerous discussions with consultants regarding the lack of differentiation between NHS and private patients and there is significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that the lack of differentiation has had a negative effect on our private patient referrals.

"I now wish to implement with immediate effect a new rule which will mean that operations on NHS Choose and Book patients will not be able to take place until at least four weeks following their outpatient consultation. Also, in each subsequent month, I will extend this by another week until September and the time will be eight weeks from initial consultation. I believe that this time to access the system is probably the most critical factor for some private patients converting to NHS patients."

A spokesperson for BMI Healthcare said: "We treat both NHS and private patients to the same high standards of clinical quality."

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Minimum waiting times that do not take account of healthcare needs of patients are unacceptable. Decisions on treatments, including suitability for surgery, should be made by clinicians based on what is best for the patient. This applies regardless of whether a hospital is run by the NHS or the independent sector.

"We will therefore be contacting BMI to ensure that NHS patients are not disadvantaged"

The NHS is one of the most cost-effective health systems in the developed world, according to a study (pdf) published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

The "surprising" findings show the NHS saving more lives for each pound spent as a proportion of national wealth than any other country apart from Ireland over 25 years. Among the 17 countries considered, the United States healthcare system was among the least efficient and effective.

Researchers said that this contradicted assertions by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, that the NHS needed competition and choice to become more efficient.

"The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, of Bournemouth University, who analysed a quarter of a century's data from 1980.

"The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals ... The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you. Pretty dismal results."

The study will be a blow for Lansley, who argues that patients should choose between competing hospital services and GPs.

Pritchard's last academic paper, which argued that surgeons were being distracted from frontline work by "unfunded" targets in the NHS, was used by Lansley to justify government reforms.

Using the latest data from the World Health Organisation, the paper shows that although Labour's tax-and-spend strategy for the NHS saw health spending rise to a record 9.3% of GDP, this was less than Germany with 10.7% or the US with 15%.

Not only was the UK cheaper, says the paper, it saved more lives. The NHS reduced the number of adult deaths a million of the population by 3,951 a year – far better than the nearest comparable European countries. France managed 2,779 lives a year and Germany 2,395.

This means, the paper says, that dramatic NHS improvements have led to a situation where that there are now 162,000 fewer deaths every year compared with 1980.

The paper says the US suffers from a "relatively huge bureaucratic burden needed to monitor the costs, behaviour and risks of customers, as well as the immense legal costs required to control payment".

Looking at elderly patients, the difference was even more stark with the best performers – Ireland, the UK and New Zealand – having health systems that were three times more effective and efficient than the worst – Switzerland, Portugal and the US.

Pritchard said that only Ireland's position today would be significantly different – because its economy has shrunk. "I think Ireland would have slipped back today."

The paper also takes Lansley to task over his claims that "if UK cancer survival rates were at the European average, we know we would save 5,000 extra lives a year."

It says: "In terms of actual cancer mortality rates, rather than the more ambiguous 'survival' rates, the UK had better results ... which appears to be linked to major additional funds going to cancer care."

Pritchard points out that even Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and father of market-based ideology, thought the state was "probably better" at health and education.

"It's naive to think that Lansley does not want more privatised health service. But there's no evidence why it be better. There's a lot to suggest it would be worse."

A Department of Health spokesman said that the paper was "mistaken to think that competition is an end in itself, or will necessarily increase the independent sector's role in the NHS".

He added: "Under our modernisation plans we are improving choice for patients to drive up the quality of care and improve patient experience ... We are investing an extra £12.5bn in the NHS to improve the quality of services and safeguard the NHS for future generations."

But that's enough of that. I also had some things about how shit has really went downhil since 2010/2011 in terms of targets, and I'll give you one fucking guess what happened in these to cause that.

So, people seem to be less satisfied with the NHS.



How the fuck did we go from a record high in 2011 to making another new record, the largest fall? Have people opened their eyes as a result of targets getting fucked up in 2011, a truly magical number, or is there some force out there that has been trying to destroy the NHS and been ramping up their propaganda efforts? Maybe a bit of both. I wonder if they're trying to destroy the NHS with stupid fucking reforms that most GPs disagree with and everyone with half a brain predicted would result in poorer care then throwing a shitfit over it when it turns out, holy shit, everyone was right.

Also fuck it while I'm here, remember the privatization of cleaning services? Reduction in standards? Increase in infections? And now we're literally banning it up here? Since you're not "For" the NHS, I assume that's what you want instead?

FAKE EDIT:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/ ... cost-lives

This is what I was looking for before, I think. I started with ""An expert on the health market said all private hospitals were under pressure from the recession and low NHS waiting list, and were seeking ways of making their hospitals more attractive to paying patients." because low NHS waiting lists, eh? I thought NHS waiting lists were super high? It's almost like they... made it up?

"Doctors are also concerned that the number of patients waiting more than six weeks for a diagnostic test has risen from 3,378 to 15,667 in the last year."

"NHS data shows that while in May 2010, 337 patients had waited beyond six weeks for a colonoscopy, that had risen to 2,313 in May this year."

Wow, that's fucking horrible! What the fuck? What happened between 2010 and 2012 that caused this to happen? Since 2010... Mmmmmmmmm..

[Atheist Heathens]

one google search later

If you can't be bothered to follow the link it's a news article on a WHO report that criticises the government's dealings with fast food companies in promoting healthy eating. That took me literally 10 seconds to find, so no I don't think the WHO is somehow cowed into submission.

Criticising fast food dealings. Really, really horrific. What a wicked state *sarcasm*

What about some WHO report about common abuse of old people in hospitals and retirement homes in Britain? Or how many people died during or immediately after surgery? Some THESE kind of critics?

Yeah, but these kind of things are common only in your head and in unnamed quasi-fictional "independent studies" that you haven't linked to, so there aren't a huge amount of publications on them.

[Sklavinia]

On November 19, 1945, only 7 months into his presidency, Harry S. Truman sent a Presidential message to the United States Congress proposing a new national health care program. In his message, Truman argued that the federal government should play a role in health care, saying "The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility." One of the chief aims of President Truman's plan was to insure that all communities, regardless of their size or income level, had access to doctors and hospitals. President Truman emphasized the urgent need for such measures, asserting that "About 1,200 counties, 40 percent of the total in the country, with some 15,000,000 people, have either no local hospital, or none that meets even the minimum standards of national professional associations. "

President Truman's plan was to improve the state of health care in the United States by addressing five separate issues. The first issue was the lack of doctors, dentists, nurses, and other health professionals in many rural or otherwise lower-income areas of the United States. He saw that "the earning capacity of the people in some communities makes it difficult if not impossible for doctors who practice there to make a living." He proposed to attract doctors to the areas that needed them with federal funding. The second problem that Mr. Truman aimed to correct was the lack of quality hospitals in rural and lower-income counties. He proposed to provide government funds for the construction of new hospitals across the country. To insure only quality hospitals were built, the plan also called for the creation of national standards for hospitals and other health centers. Mr. Truman's third initiative was closely tied to the first two. It called for a board of doctors and public officials to be created. This board would create standards for hospitals and ensure that new hospitals met these standards. The board would also be responsible for directing federal funds into medical research.

The most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan. In his November 19, 1945 address, President Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversar ... rogram.htm

President Harry S. Truman proposed that we adopt a national program all the way back in 1945. Had Congress approved, we would be on the level of the rest of the industrial world. Instead they rejected, and we are struggling with our current system. I really wish this was adopted so that health insurance would be a non-issue.

But what say you?

Just another day in the US Congress.

[Geilinor]

In the end, when you have some personal experience as much as read opposite studies, you must choose which view is generally more legit.

So in short, without bitching around:

NHS today sucks.

Opinion based on my own eyes, another people's experience which I heard personally and opposite researches of course.

Satisfied?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011 ... h-services

the NHS is still one of the best systems in the world and i can guarantee you most of its problems are related to 1) really stupid government decisions 2) PFI 3) tory government

you know what, actually, that's all stupid government decisions isn't it

shit i can't spoiler in a spoiler oh well here you go

What? Why? Do you believe that private hospitals, which are already fucking things up, would never have ay sort of controversy?

Turns out letting hospitals/trusts self-audit and then screaming about MONEY MONEY MONEY DEBT DEBT DEBT (almost always ballooning PFI costs, if you were wondering, like "Nonetheless, details of the contracts compiled by the Treasury make clear that some NHS organisations will end up paying almost 12 times the initial sum over what is usually a 30-year contract.") was a bad idea.

Unannounced inspections by CQC found 48% of residential homes for people with learning difficulties were non-compliant

Almost half of residential care homes for people with learning disabilities failed to meet care and welfare standards, the health and social care watchdog has found.

The Care Quality Commission said 48% of the 150 locations it inspected were non-compliant in terms of whether patients "experienced safe and appropriate care, treatment and support and whether they [were]
protected from abuse".

The unannounced inspections were launched after BBC's Panorama revealed that people with learning difficulties were being abused at Winterbourne View, a private assessment and treatment centre in Bristol, last year. The hospital, which could handle 24 patients, charged the state about ￡3,500 a week.

The CQC found that NHS locations were twice as likely to be compliant as private hospitals, with 33% of independent providers meeting the standards compared with 68% of those run by the state."

A health board is consulting its lawyers after surgeons had to complete an operation and keep a patient alive by torchlight when contractors unexpectedly shut off their power last month.

NHS Lothian disclosed that the unscheduled power cut, midway through an operation at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary in late March, shut down all electrical machinery in the theatre for 11 minutes, including breathing machines and heart monitors.

It meant surgical staff had to use hand-ventilators to keep the anesthetised patient breathing in complete darkness for 90 seconds and then by torchlight for another nine-and-a-half minutes, while monitoring the patient's pulse by hand, as surgeons completed the operation without any power.

NHS Lothian said it was "angry and frustrated" and claimed that the private operator that runs the hospital, built under the PFI programme, had repeatedly put patient safety and lives at risk.

Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish health secretary, backed the board's complaints and urged the hospital's operator, Consort, to "get its act together".

She told BBC Radio Scotland there were robust contingency plans in place to protect patients. But she said: "Make no mistake about it, I share NHS Lothian's anger about this. It's totally unacceptable that this company isn't performing to the standards expected of it, particularly given the huge amounts of public money that it gets paid."

In the latest in a series of incidents involving power and safety failures at the hospital, the electricity to all operating theatres was cut off for 10 minutes on 29 March when scheduled maintenance work started early without warning.

The power cut meant emergency generators were unable to start, forcing surgeons to use torches to finish one operation. A second operation had to be cancelled just as it was about to start.

Among other incidents stretching back a decade, an expectant father had to use the torch app on his smartphone to find his newborn son in a birthing pool when the lights failed last December. There were two power failures in 2003.

In February this year, hospital staff were not told there was only one security guard on a night shift due to sickness. In January, Consort failed to tell the NHS that fire alarms in 10 operating theatres had stopped working; in 2007, it failed to tell the NHS that panic alarms were out of order.

Consort said disciplinary action was under way following the power cut. The firm faces financial penalties under its contract with the NHS.

Alan Boyter, executive director of NHS Lothian, said disciplinary action and a small fine was no longer enough. "We have reached the point where we can no longer tolerate the repeated, serious and potentially life-threatening nature of these incidents at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh by our PFI provider Consort," he said.

"We are currently consulting with our lawyers to discuss what options we have in relation to the contract and it would be inappropriate to comment further while that is ongoing.

"Patient safety is always our absolute priority and we will not allow that to continually be put in danger by a third party. We are angry and frustrated with the performance of our PFI provider Consort."

The Consort director, Stephen Gordon, said: "Consort has taken this incident very seriously and have undertaken a thorough investigation into this matter in conjunction with NHS Lothian to review the current operating procedures in place for works of this nature."

Consort – which is said to earn £60m a year for running, cleaning and maintaining the hospital, under a contract estimated to be worth £1.26bn by 2028 – said disciplinary action was under way following the power cut.

Under the terms of the PFI deal, agreed 15 years ago, Consort will still own the building when that contract ends, forcing the NHS either to buy the building, sign a new lease or leave.

Dave Watson, head of bargaining in Scotland for the health service union Unison, said the time had come to cancel the PFI contract.

"It's a costly and inefficient way of delivering services. It's meant to mean a transfer of risk, but when things go wrong the risk stays with the public sector and, at the end of the day, the public, because the companies expect to get paid," he said.

"The health board should now be seeking an exit from this failed arrangement with Consort and at the very least be looking to bring facilities management back in-house."

A private hospital which accepts NHS work has instructed its doctors to artificially delay operations on non-paying patients to encourage them to pay fees. The Department of Health last night branded the practice "unacceptable" and pledged to intervene.

Bernie Creaven, executive director of the private BMI Meriden Hospital, Coventry, had ordered an immediate four-week postponement of operations on NHS patients referred to the hospital, which will be extended to a minimum of eight weeks by September.

In a letter to the hospital's consultants dated 13 July, seen by The Independent, Ms Creaven said the imposed delays were to discourage patients thinking of going private from opting for treatment on the NHS.

Private hospitals receive taxpayer money for treating NHS cases, but can make larger fees if the patients go directly to them for treatment.

"I believe time to access the system is the most critical factor for private patients converting to NHS patients," she wrote. She added that "other aspects of differentiation" would be introduced over the next few weeks to make NHS treatment at the hospital relatively less attractive.

The Health Department condemned the move. It said NHS patients should get treatment when they needed it.

An expert on the health market said all private hospitals were under pressure from the recession and low NHS waiting lists, and were seeking ways of making their hospitals more attractive to paying patients.

Philip Blackburn, of private health consultancy Laing and Buisson, said: "They do differentiate between NHS and private patients in some respects, but it probably differs across hospital groups."

BMI is a leader in private healthcare with almost 70 hospitals and clinics nationwide. It was involved in a damaging row with BUPA, the private health insurer, last year after BUPA claimed some BMI hospitals were too expensive.

BMI offers treatment to NHS patients at NHS costs to fill empty beds under contract with local primary care trusts, as do other private hospital chains. But it is bound by the NHS Constitution which says: "All patients should receive high quality care without any unnecessary delay."

NHS hospitals themselves sometimes delay operations on patients in order to prioritise other patients or to balance budgets. But they argue these delays are necessary for the wider benefit of the NHS.

The 52-bed BMI Meriden Hospital in Coventry charges self-pay private patients from £8,500 for a hip replacement. The NHS cost is from £5,485.

In her letter to consultants, Ms Creaven says: "Over the past few months I have had numerous discussions with consultants regarding the lack of differentiation between NHS and private patients and there is significant anecdotal evidence to suggest that the lack of differentiation has had a negative effect on our private patient referrals.

"I now wish to implement with immediate effect a new rule which will mean that operations on NHS Choose and Book patients will not be able to take place until at least four weeks following their outpatient consultation. Also, in each subsequent month, I will extend this by another week until September and the time will be eight weeks from initial consultation. I believe that this time to access the system is probably the most critical factor for some private patients converting to NHS patients."

A spokesperson for BMI Healthcare said: "We treat both NHS and private patients to the same high standards of clinical quality."

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Minimum waiting times that do not take account of healthcare needs of patients are unacceptable. Decisions on treatments, including suitability for surgery, should be made by clinicians based on what is best for the patient. This applies regardless of whether a hospital is run by the NHS or the independent sector.

"We will therefore be contacting BMI to ensure that NHS patients are not disadvantaged"

The NHS is one of the most cost-effective health systems in the developed world, according to a study (pdf) published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

The "surprising" findings show the NHS saving more lives for each pound spent as a proportion of national wealth than any other country apart from Ireland over 25 years. Among the 17 countries considered, the United States healthcare system was among the least efficient and effective.

Researchers said that this contradicted assertions by the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, that the NHS needed competition and choice to become more efficient.

"The government proposals to change the NHS are largely based on the idea that the NHS is less efficient and effective than other countries, especially the US," said Professor Colin Pritchard, of Bournemouth University, who analysed a quarter of a century's data from 1980.

"The results question why we need a big set of health reform proposals ... The system works well. Look at the US and you can see where choice and competition gets you. Pretty dismal results."

The study will be a blow for Lansley, who argues that patients should choose between competing hospital services and GPs.

Pritchard's last academic paper, which argued that surgeons were being distracted from frontline work by "unfunded" targets in the NHS, was used by Lansley to justify government reforms.

Using the latest data from the World Health Organisation, the paper shows that although Labour's tax-and-spend strategy for the NHS saw health spending rise to a record 9.3% of GDP, this was less than Germany with 10.7% or the US with 15%.

Not only was the UK cheaper, says the paper, it saved more lives. The NHS reduced the number of adult deaths a million of the population by 3,951 a year – far better than the nearest comparable European countries. France managed 2,779 lives a year and Germany 2,395.

This means, the paper says, that dramatic NHS improvements have led to a situation where that there are now 162,000 fewer deaths every year compared with 1980.

The paper says the US suffers from a "relatively huge bureaucratic burden needed to monitor the costs, behaviour and risks of customers, as well as the immense legal costs required to control payment".

Looking at elderly patients, the difference was even more stark with the best performers – Ireland, the UK and New Zealand – having health systems that were three times more effective and efficient than the worst – Switzerland, Portugal and the US.

Pritchard said that only Ireland's position today would be significantly different – because its economy has shrunk. "I think Ireland would have slipped back today."

The paper also takes Lansley to task over his claims that "if UK cancer survival rates were at the European average, we know we would save 5,000 extra lives a year."

It says: "In terms of actual cancer mortality rates, rather than the more ambiguous 'survival' rates, the UK had better results ... which appears to be linked to major additional funds going to cancer care."

Pritchard points out that even Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and father of market-based ideology, thought the state was "probably better" at health and education.

"It's naive to think that Lansley does not want more privatised health service. But there's no evidence why it be better. There's a lot to suggest it would be worse."

A Department of Health spokesman said that the paper was "mistaken to think that competition is an end in itself, or will necessarily increase the independent sector's role in the NHS".

He added: "Under our modernisation plans we are improving choice for patients to drive up the quality of care and improve patient experience ... We are investing an extra £12.5bn in the NHS to improve the quality of services and safeguard the NHS for future generations."

But that's enough of that. I also had some things about how shit has really went downhil since 2010/2011 in terms of targets, and I'll give you one fucking guess what happened in these to cause that.

So, people seem to be less satisfied with the NHS.



How the fuck did we go from a record high in 2011 to making another new record, the largest fall? Have people opened their eyes as a result of targets getting fucked up in 2011, a truly magical number, or is there some force out there that has been trying to destroy the NHS and been ramping up their propaganda efforts? Maybe a bit of both.

Satisfaction is still higher than it was prior to 2007.

[Socialist Czechia]

Criticising fast food dealings. Really, really horrific. What a wicked state *sarcasm*

What about some WHO report about common abuse of old people in hospitals and retirement homes in Britain? Or how many people died during or immediately after surgery? Some THESE kind of critics?

Yeah, but these kind of things are common only in your head and in unnamed quasi-fictional "independent studies" that you haven't linked to, so there aren't a huge amount of publications on them.

I tried to make link-policy there, but since Farnhamia make it obvious that everyone there has answer for everything and I possibly can't say or link anything that would change their opinions, why to waste more energy?

Should I waste energy? Just tell, I'll waste it. Hope I won't be bored to death by studies's dissmis like 'just details', 'very special case', 'that was exception from rule', 'anti-british propaganda', 'too local' or 'leading questions'.

I am too old for unending flame wars like that. People yelling 'prove it', but when I try bother with it, just bitching and not any acknowledgment follows anyway.

What about to simply ask: Was anyone there, physically, in any British hospital and for more than 5 minutes?

[Wanderjar]

I'm gonna assume you're not American.

And I assume you are an American?

The mentality in America is that "anything socialist = bad."

God it's a shame we developed that mentality.

You are exaggerating, of course socialism is not necesarly bad but marxism and other form of left-wing shamanism and exoteric teachings are indeed.
Universal healtcare is also not necesarly socialist. The US governmenr do its best for it people.

Universal heathcare has also its negative sides: the doctors are easy to bribe, the quality of threatment is sometimes bad and even if the doctors do a mistake they are not allowed to take responsibility.

You're wrong mate, conservative Americans do think of anything socialist as being bad. I'm an American, from the south, a Republican and most certainly agree that anything that is even slightly socialist is bad.

(had to edit, realized I made a terrible generalization since not ALL Americans are of a hive mind, credit to our not being socialist. Some agree, some don't, but thankfully we still have the right to do so)

[Sociobiology]

Yes it did. It surpassed the US in the 1960's.

And then it came crashing down once the USSR fell apart. That's the problem with the US and this system. No country can't support both being a military superpower and having a universal health care system. The USSR is proof that it's one or the other.

uh France, Germany, and the UK. the fifth, sixth, and seventh most powerful militaries on earth.

[Atheist Heathens]

Yeah, but these kind of things are common only in your head and in unnamed quasi-fictional "independent studies" that you haven't linked to, so there aren't a huge amount of publications on them.

I tried to make link-policy there, but since Farnhamia make it obvious that everyone there has answer for everything and I possibly can't say or link anything that would change their opinions, why to waste more energy?

Should I waste energy? Just tell, I'll waste it. Hope I won't be bored to death by studies's dissmis like 'just details', 'very special case', 'that was exception from rule', 'anti-british propaganda', 'too local' or 'leading questions'.

So when people link sources others are meant to sit in slack jawed appreciation and immediately accept at face value whatever crap someone else purports the source means? Feel free to post links, but I give no guarantees that I won't bore you by critiquing them.

[The Sotoan Union]

And then it came crashing down once the USSR fell apart. That's the problem with the US and this system. No country can't support both being a military superpower and having a universal health care system. The USSR is proof that it's one or the other.

uh France, Germany, and the UK. the fifth, sixth, and seventh most powerful militaries on earth.

I don't see any Call of Duty games where they are the bad guys do you? Therefore they aren't very powerful. I'm kidding.

[Farnhamia]

Yeah, but these kind of things are common only in your head and in unnamed quasi-fictional "independent studies" that you haven't linked to, so there aren't a huge amount of publications on them.

I tried to make link-policy there, but since Farnhamia make it obvious that everyone there has answer for everything and I possibly can't say or link anything that would change their opinions, why to waste more energy?

Should I waste energy? Just tell, I'll waste it. Hope I won't be bored to death by studies's dissmis like 'just details', 'very special case', 'that was exception from rule', 'anti-british propaganda', 'too local' or 'leading questions'.

I believe I acknowledged that the problems you linked were indeed problems. My point was that problems do not invalidate the entire system and you yourself said that the system shouldn't be replaced, just purged of incompetent doctors and inefficient hospitals (something like that, anyway). When presented with studies that disagreed with your opinion, you called a halt to debate and declared that NHS sucks, that your experience and that of one other person trumps all other studies contradicting you, and that was that.

[Viritica]

Well, I don't mind. I mean, socialism really doesn't work so...

Partial Socialism does work however.

Partial socialism?

[Socialist Czechia]

I tried to make link-policy there, but since Farnhamia make it obvious that everyone there has answer for everything and I possibly can't say or link anything that would change their opinions, why to waste more energy?

Should I waste energy? Just tell, I'll waste it. Hope I won't be bored to death by studies's dissmis like 'just details', 'very special case', 'that was exception from rule', 'anti-british propaganda', 'too local' or 'leading questions'.

So when people link sources others are meant to sit in slack jawed appreciation and immediately accept at face value whatever crap someone else purports the source means? Feel free to post links, but I give no guarantees that I won't bore you by critiquing them.

In Farhamia's case, I posted him link to some official study about dying people care in British hospitals, and he answered literally few minutes after, that it can't be applied in this topic.
Even when is obvious that he simply COULDN'T read it.

[Wanderjar]

Partial Socialism does work however.

Partial socialism?

He clearly isn't familiar with the work of von Mises and the revelation that there is no 'partial socialism', or mixed markets for that matter. Only free enterprise and communism.

[Sociobiology]

The US somehow combines shitty healthcare and incredibly expensive healthcare.

http://www.bit.ly/1nKrLYQ

[Farnhamia]

So when people link sources others are meant to sit in slack jawed appreciation and immediately accept at face value whatever crap someone else purports the source means? Feel free to post links, but I give no guarantees that I won't bore you by critiquing them.

In Farhamia's case, I posted him link to some official study about dying people care in British hospitals, and he answered literally few minutes after, that it can't be applied in this topic.
Even when is obvious that he simply COULDN'T read it.

What I said, 12 minutes later, was "What you provide is disturbing but as I replied to the other person above, I don't see how it invalidates the entire NHS system. The RCP study has to do with terminal patients, not everyone, thought the other article does speak of one 22-year-old."