The UK NHS is free at the point of use but not actually free. It is paid for out of taxation, especially the National Insurance Contributions (NIC) of employed people and their employers. About one-sixth (and as much as one-quarter in some cases) of income is deducted at source. The theory is that employed people and their employers should pay for those who are unable to work because of sickness or age or other serious difficulties. This is all a good idea and works very well when the percentage of employed people is rising in the population. Basically, it works well when the population average age is static or falling, as it was from about 1946 to 1975. There were plenty of working people and successful businesses to pay the NHS bills.
The major weakness is apparent when the proportion of working population is falling and/or if the average age is rising. In this circumstance, two factors work against the NHS. First, the number of contributors is falling and so their contributions must rise; to the point where the NIC no longer represents good value for money by comparison with private health care. Secondly, the proportional well-paid working population has been declining for about 20 years and most rapidly this past 10 years. The main reason has been the rising number of retired people and the "shortage" of young economically active people who will pick up the bills via NIC. One other consequence of this demographic change is the rising number of elderly people who impose a higher burden per person on health services than do the young. In addition, large numbers of immigrants' dependents, the existence of relaxed incapacity regulations and the tendency for earlier retirement (until recently) together mean that an increasing proportion of the population is not making NICs but is drawing upon NHS services.
In a nutshell, the main strength is the freedom from cost in the event that you are ill, even seriously or dangerously ill. The main weakness is that the taxation burden behind the NHS is rising all the time and appears unfair as it falls on a diminishing fraction of the population, and is now rather more expensive than private insurance schemes.
There is a complication also in the purpose of the NHS. When it was conceived, it was intended to reduce morbidity, increase healthy living, reduce premature deaths, raise economic activity and fight the major infections that bedevilled urban populations in those days. All that would be manageable today also, but now NHS provides a great deal of elective medicine with dubious social benefit but considerable private benefit, even personal pleasure. So, for example, the NHS provides cosmetic surgery, gender reorientation surgery and counselling, frontline hormonal and surgical treatment for sexual incapacity and so on. To many policy makers and taxpayers, these seem a long way from the purpose of the NHS, and are at least questionable.
2007-10-15 05:06:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Diapason45 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Strengths: It is free at the point of entry, so costs are spread across the population through taxation. Hence, everyone can get the healthcare they need without questions of wealth. It is also comprehensive - it covers the whole country, with suitable primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare resiurces. It also has, by-and-large, a very committed, dedicated and skilled staff base.
Weaknesses: Beaurocracy - many feel the NHS is mismanaged and doesn't provide value for money. Many staff are getting disillusioned. For patients there may be a long waiting time for elective treatment. Also the high costs of some new drugs can lead to 'rationing' where the NHS refuses to prescribe them. There is currently also big media coverage of unclean hospitals leading to the spread of MRSA infections.
2007-10-14 01:12:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by IAN 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Natives don t want to do basic nursing care they prefer to continue to go to school more and more and then come and sit in the office by the computer writing and giving orders.The few minority in the country do the basic nursing
jobs with no promoting at all.This is very unfair and discrimination in its highest form.
2016-01-16 02:51:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Adam 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Re Ians comments. Is there really such a long wait for elective treatments now-a-days?
2007-10-14 10:36:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by otleygas 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Too many chiefs and not enough Indians
2007-10-14 01:16:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Gary Crant 7
·
0⤊
1⤋