Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American using Britain’s NHS (2015)

businessinsider.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: American using Britain’s NHS (2015)

#111

Post by DanBC »

moduspol wrote: post #104
DanBC wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that are similarly culturally homogenous London is culturally diverse. Moreso than any US city. And its NHS seems to be working ok.

The NHS doesn't exist only in London. It covers the UK, which is 87% white (followed by Asians at 7%). A nationwide system in the US would be covering far larger and more diverse areas.

No, "the" NHS does not cover the UK. For one thing there are four seperate NHSs for each nation (Scotland, NI, Wales, and England).

It's incorrect to say that the English NHS is a monolithic thing. It isn't.

The NHS is regional. It's split into regions by "clinical commissioning groups". There are 32 CCGs in London. These are independent from each other, and from the rest of the UK.

http://officelondonccgs.org.uk/what-is-clinical-commissionin...

> Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) were created following the Health and Social Care Act (2012), replacing Primary Care Trusts on 1 April 2013. They are clinically-led statutory NHS bodies responsible for planning and commissioning health care services in their local area. There are currently 207 CCGs in England.

Re: American using Britain’s NHS (2015)

#112

Post by moduspol »

DanBC wrote: post #111
moduspol wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NHS doesn't exist only in London. It covers the UK, which is 87% white (followed by Asians at 7%). A nationwide system in the US would be covering far larger and more diverse areas.

No, "the" NHS does not cover the UK. For one thing there are four seperate NHSs for each nation (Scotland, NI, Wales, and England). It's incorrect to say that the English NHS is a monolithic thing. It isn't. The NHS is regional. It's split into regions by "clinical commissioning groups". There are 32 CCGs in London. These are independent from each other, and from the rest of the UK. http://officelondonccgs.org.uk/wha…

I’m aware. Per the very first line of its wikipedia page:

> The National Health Service (NHS) is the name used for each of the public health services in the United Kingdom – the National Health Service in England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland – as well as a term to describe them collectively.

Emphasis on that last part.

Re: American using Britain’s NHS (2015)

#113

Post by DanBC »

moduspol wrote: post #112
DanBC wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "the" NHS does not cover the UK. For one thing there are four seperate NHSs for each nation (Scotland, NI, Wales, and England). It's incorrect to say that the English NHS is a monolithic thing. It isn't. The NHS is regional. It's split into regions by "clinical commissioning groups". There are 32 CCGs in London. These are independent from each other, and from the rest of the UK. http://officelondonccgs.org.uk/wha…

I’m aware. Per the very first line of its wikipedia page: > The National Health Service (NHS) is the name used for each of the public health services in the United Kingdom – the National Health Service in England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland – as well as a term to describe them collectively. Emphasis on that last part.

But it makes no sense in the context of your comment.

The Scottish NHS has nothing to do with London.

But even within only the English NHS, what happens in say Bristol has nothing to do with London.

My point stands: London is more diverse than anywhere in the US, and the various NHS CCGs in London are doing okay.

Re: American using Britain’s NHS (2015)

#114

Post by moduspol »

DanBC wrote: post #113
moduspol wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m aware. Per the very first line of its wikipedia page: > The National Health Service (NHS) is the name used for each of the public health services in the United Kingdom – the National Health Service in England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland – as well as a term to describe them collectively. Emphasis on that last part.

But it makes no sense in the context of your comment. The Scottish NHS has nothing to do with London. But even within only the English NHS, what happens in say Bristol has nothing to do with London. My point stands: London is more diverse than anywhere in the US, and the various NHS CCGs in London are doing okay.

> The Scottish NHS has nothing to do with London.

This is just getting boring as you argue pointlessly over semantics.

UK: Covered collectively by the NHS, which has its own branches.

England: A part of the UK that has 55 million people and its own branch of the NHS. It is racially 85% white and 7% Asian.

London: A big city in England with a population around 9 million.

The number of people in London is much smaller than the number of people in all of England, and all of the UK. Yet, England (as shown above) is quite racially homogenous (typically a good indicator for being culturally homogenous). That a single city exists in a sea that is culturally homogenous (that you feel like is "doing okay") does not mean that if all of England or the UK's population were more diverse, there would be no problems.

Nobody is arguing that the system would collapse the moment it encounters a single diverse area, so your point is irrelevant.

Re: American using Britain’s NHS (2015)

#115

Post by pbhjpbhj »

justinmk wrote: post #27
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't put a figure on it. The system interfaces with every area of life, and with capitalism. Western Capitalism says the amount spent on healthcare should grow until all available money becomes profit for the Capitalists. Meanwhile there's always some new area of life that impacts health - spend on sport, then on encouraging sport by paying for teachers, then on improving colleges where the teachers train, ... b…

> Meanwhile there's always some new area of life that impacts health - spend on sport, then on encouraging sport by paying for teachers, then on improving colleges where the teachers train, ... before you know it the NHS is funding a deep mine in Siberia In other words, central planning doesn't work[1]. NHS was a "special case" that tends towards the general case, as is the tendency of all untouchable mandates. [1] h…

I'd go with "you can't centrally plan health within a system of Western Capitalism".

Look at the trains in the UK - government was running one major line at a large profit, but they prop up the system as a whole with tax monies, why? It certainly seems like trains (maybe transport) could be centrally planned if you define the limits of the sector carefully.

Re: American using Britain’s NHS (2015)

#116

Post by rmc »

sgt101 wrote: post #7
oldcynic wrote: post #5

As a Brit using the NHS I can only add that I trust, and expect, every government to make the NHS worse whilst they talk of how marvellous it is. I would really like it given to an independent cross-party body, or the civil service, to try distance it from politics and The Treasury. I'd like to see legislation to heavily penalise drug companies seeking 20,000% price increases and the like. Both sides fiddle with it,…

Imagine how well an NHS organised as it was in 1948 would function in today's world. Although there is no doubt that it could be better managed setting it in aspic will kill it surer than a nail in the back of the head. The NHS will face massive challenges in the next 30 years from demographic pressure on demand and staff, technology change and citizen behaviour and expectation. Radical "fiddling" is going to be need…

When it was set up in the 1940s, it was claimed to be impossibly expensive, and would bankrupt the nation.
Post reply on HN