'The people I hung out with while there were bitter towards the required TV licenses and "religion" for NHS in public discourse. Curious how widespread this attitude is.'
Not very widespread at all in my experience.
Not very widespread at all in my experience.
- Seventy-seven per cent of the public believe the NHS should be maintained in its current form. This level of support has remained consistent over almost two decades despite widespread social, economic and political change. - Around 90 per cent of people support the founding principles of the NHS, indicating that these principles are just as relevant today as when the NHS was established. - A clear majority (66 per cent) of adults are willing to pay more of their own taxes to fund the NHS, underlining growing support among the public for tax rises to increase NHS funding.[1]
[1]: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what-does-public-t...
Absolutely, but at least when I lived in England everybody was also very opinionated about how CurrentGovernment ruining it, how it used to be so much better and how you need to to X right now to fix it.
You are saying the NHS is popular.
Those are orthogonal: you can like the NHS and want to change it.
Edit: I'm not suggesting that either the BBC or the NHS are above criticism - far from it. But I'd rather criticism was based on facts and not what the Daily Mail reports.
Mind you - I'm only talking about a handful of people but the ones I did meet who thought that way were at such a level of foaming at the mouth lunacy I can't really forget them. I did memorably try and explain to one crowd why I was quite happy with not being able to shoot trespassers on my lawn but I think I was regarded as a dangerous communist after that.
NB Not had any conversations like that for 10+ years...
I get that the NHS has this 'sacred cow' thing going on, where it's almost impossible to criticise and even proposing much change must be done tactfully... but this is because we think it's great, if underfunded.
I think its fair to say that a person's views on public service broadcasting and public healthcare, i.e. the TV Licence (which funds the BBC) and the NHS, correspond to where they are on the political spectrum - the further right are openly critical, the moderate right are insincerely supportive, and the centre and left are openly and genuinely supportive. Based on this, it sounds like the author was hanging out with some people from the far right, in which case this would not be hugely widespread in the UK as a whole.
It might be possible that the demographics populating these areas might be less 'grateful' for the services the NHS provides.
[1] You can dial 112 instead if you prefer.
[2] Unless the private hospital charges you an admin fee for calling the ambulance for you, which I wouldn't put past those bastards. If it was profitable to slowly torture you to death that's exactly what they'd do to you. Personally I prefer to be treated by someone on a fixed salary who just wants to do the best they can with the resources available to them while earning the respect of their colleagues.
[3] This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I suppose it gives people a feel for the British NHS "religion".
You were the first to have it and now you messed it up, compared to most of the european countries.
Lots of odd things are funded with this money, including for example local newspaper reporters at for-profit newspapers (!) but the name and forcing the BBC to actually collect it mean in the public consciousness it's all blamed on the BBC.
Now, Public Service Broadcasting is _distinct_ from having central government revenue funding a broadcaster as happens for the BBC. All UK terrestrial TV is "Public Service Broadcasting" and so are the old US TV networks. PSB means you're using up some finite public resource (radio bandwidth) and so you need to "give back" to the public. It's pretty common to require a daily news broadcast and to have other constraints "for the good of the public" e.g. a non-English country might require at least 10 hours per week of the local language even though viewers would really just prefer wall-to-wall imported soap operas in English or whatever.
As well as the internationally famous BBC, Britain also has "Channel 4" which owns the Film Production company Film4 that made or co-made films you've probably enjoyed (e.g. "Trainspotting", "12 Years a Slave"). Channel 4 is a PSB, but more importantly it's publicly owned. It operates more like a for-profit television company (e.g. advertising) except the money goes back into making TV and it has a publicly controlled mission to be er, challenging. So e.g. the BBC went "Hey, half the population are women, so it's crazy to have all these panel discussion shows with 6 men and no women. From now on, if your show has a panel discussion it needs either a woman or a sign-off explaining why there weren't any women" but C4 is the kind of place where they go "Hang on, there totally must be Muslim lesbians, right? Let's do a show about the Muslim lesbian dating scene, so there's this whole tolerance angle but also it has hot women kissing each other".
So most people abstain unless they know it is OK to talk.
Then that's not going to make you popular.
If someone emits a criticism it MUST mean that they want "an American system" and "to sell the profitable parts to the friends and family of conservative politicians" because, of course, that's the only alternative to the current situation...
So it's fine to criticise as long as the criticism is limited to suggesting that perhaps the hospital's car park could be slightly cheaper, if that's not too much bother, please, sorry.
Hence why people either say that everything's great or keep quiet.
(More funding would be hugely popular, as the Brexit A/B testers discovered with the "£350m for the NHS" bus...)
There is a debate to be had about whether "make poor people fill out paperwork" is a justifiable approach, but it doesn't have to cost you £20 for the check-up.
University used to be free in the UK. Then tuition fees at University started at £1000ish a year, went up to about £3000, and is now £9000. All in about 10 years.
Also small fees like these affect the poor more than the well off. If I miss an appointment and it costs me £5, I wouldn't miss the money.
A quick search apparently shows that a quarter of British households have less than £100 in savings. [0] When that's 5% of their money that's just punishing the poor.
[0] https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-4234518/Savings-...
I'll say "Well they shouldn't miss the appointment, they can cancel if they can't make it"
To which you'll reply something about people and last minute, completely unavoidable things which prevent appointments being made.
To which, I'll reply that blah blah and on and on.
I've learned there's no point. I don't think fees for that are abnormal (have seen them and their handling of scenarios in operation in other countries to no big alarm) but it's against NHS dogma! Don't get me wrong, I like the NHS but there's seriously zealot-esque thinking towards it from many corners. It's not a case of "totally free" or the USA.
But as said, I'm an immigrant and have learned to keep quite on such matters.
If someone doesn't show they move onto the next person.
Usually GPs have an issue in that appointments take longer than planned, so there's often waiting on the side of the patient.
Most GPs have appointments reserved to be bookable on the day if you call up in the morning.
What problem are you proposing a solution for?
Your comment about religious zelotry is condescending. Saying that anyone criticising your viewpoint is a blind fanatic.
> Are missed appointments such a issue for GPs?
"Patients who miss GP appointments are costing NHS England £216m a year, officials have said." - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46732626
And the incident I described what started due to one of the girls, a receptionist in a GP, bemoaning how many missed appointments they have and what a backlog it begets. People agreed. Just now I checked my doctor's online portal and I can't get an appointment for over two weeks (they advise to ring up at 8 on the morning if it#s an emergency and they'll try to fit you in). Unfortunately recently I had cause to have 6 appointments over a two week period, I saw a lot of names being called and no-one attending.
> If someone doesn't show they move onto the next person.
This presumes that people without an appointment, just hang around the waiting area... As said the backlog grows.
Often their inability to keep appointments is inextricably linked to the medical condition, too - either physical or mental. Often it's linked to poverty or insecure living too.
We could start trying to price them out, which will at the margin result in someone dying of a preventable condition. This seems to be becoming more politically acceptable (see benefits system, food banks, refugees etc), but it's also something people are right to be squeamish about.
Personally, I think the situation can be improved by more education. I think a fine would unfairly affect the less well off, not only because it would be a much more significant amount to them but because those are the same people who are more likely to have unforseen circumstances that mean they can't make an appointment, such as a job where they might just change your shift with little/no notice.
I think the actual booking system could fix a lot of these issues at most surgeries, too. My last surgery held back 75% of appointments such that you couldn't book them until the day of the appointment. This meant that you could almost always get a same day appointment as long as you called at 8:30am, and also meant you probably had a much better idea of whether you were going to be able to make that appointment or not. People who needed to get an advance appointment could still do so, and would have to wait a couple of weeks usually but that's no worse than most other places. It really did seem to fix a lot of the problems I've seen - I don't know why more places don't do it.
In England if you know you are going to be getting a lot of prescriptions you can pay an amount upfront, then prescriptions are at no extra cost than that. https://www.nhs.uk/using-the-nhs/help-with-health-costs/save...
The state of dentistry in the UK is shocking.
It's not dogma but yes it could be classed as zealotry, and not in a derogatory way. There are worse things to be a zealot about than public health. I cherish one part of our country that actually has written, founding principles.
They shaped what the NHS has been for over half a century, and what many people still want the NHS to be.
The NHS is popular, and people like it, but it's also very inefficient and it can become a political nightmare for anyone who tries to address that.
Poor analogy, Netflix would also have to be owned but not funded by US Govt.
TV licence people can't exactly kick in the front door and search you for broadcast reception equipment, they're not the police, more like slightly more official bailiffs. They may threaten you with all sorts of legal toil but their powers are quite limited, they rely on their reputation to scare you into submission.
Well yes, that's part of the scenario. That doesnt dismiss the point there's a news and entertainment company that thinks everyone watches their content and therefore sends them angry threats
No they're _less_ official than bailiffs.
Bailiffs can force their way into your home to take your property to pay for some fines and taxes.
A TV licence person can do absolutely nothing - they're just a normal member of the public.
I mean't more official in that TV licence people work for a government owned organisation. Though I hadn't realised they didn't even have bailiff powers.
Not true in all cases!
https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs
> Bailiffs are allowed to force their way into your home to collect unpaid criminal fines, Income Tax or Stamp Duty, but only as a last resort.
If these circumstances don't apply they can take things from outside your home, such as your car.
TV Licensing People certainly can't drive off with your car.
> TV Licensing People certainly can't drive off with your car.
It would make for a very interesting Top Gear replacement if they could though.
Given the health results for the amount we pay I think the NHS is actually very efficient - most of the problems with the NHS seem to have come about through ideologically motivated meddling and an an unwillingness to resource it properly.
Ideally with data and not anecdotes
- The public sector is inefficient (1)
- The NHS is in the public sector
- Therefore the NHS is inefficient
[1] Apart from the bits that the person repeating this argument is proud of (e.g. SAS) or scared of (e.g. GCHQ)
This leads to oddities like there is a national contract for medical staff (nurses, surgeons and doctors etc) but hundreds of different employers.
Each PCT negotiates it's own suppliers, and has a number of stakeholders who are normally GPs. Its all totally ballsed up.
Thats not even touching the IT systems.
However using per capita spend on health, it is ridiculously efficient https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm
The outsourced local Patient transport fiasco in my trust caused no end of problems people missing dialysis treatments etc.
Yeah, there's a disparate mix of up to date tech and unpatched Windows XP systems, since there's no centralised tech management - some trusts care about patient data and external threats, others don't.
1. Hardly any way to see a GP outside work hours, so you have to take time off.
2. Cannot see a GP near to where you work, it has to be near to where you live. Which, combined with point 1, is a pain.
3. If you don't use the NHS and go see a private GP instead (which makes economic sense given how much your time off costs vs a private GP costs), you still have to pay for it.
4. Hard to get an appointment at short notice; registration is a pain and very inconvenient.
5. Unless you are dying, they are unlikely to offer any real help/proper tests, but then again that depends on individual GP and is probably not that different between NHS/private.
6. No personal accountability for your health. You end up paying for all the clowns that drink too much on a Friday night and end up in an ambulance and other people that do not take care of their health. Old people seem to go to a GP just because they are lonely.
I have not had to use NHS hospitals luckily, but I am guessing if you are not dying the wait times could be bad.
> Old people seem to go to a GP just because they are lonely.
I somehow doubt the above.
If you’re really sick you’ll be seen very quickly, and you’ll be extremely glad the doctors aren’t busy pandering to people with minor conditions.
longer waiting times
an inflexible system with no opportunities to pay for top ups to standard care
https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Healthcare-Bri...