Yes, under a pro-spending, forward-looking government (such as the one we had from roughly 1997 to 2010), staffed public services improved and a trajectory was laid down for future improvements.
Under pro-austerity, myopic governments (such as the one we had from 2010 until now), public services have been rotting from the inside.
It's not difficult to draw a straight line from one to the other. Pouring money into "diversity" is certainly nothing to do with it, and that goes double for our current reigning party.
For what it's worth, it's a testament to the overall resilience of the NHS as a service that it has broadly managed to weather the storm of long-term underfunding and is likely going to continue on track until a forward-looking government is able to come back and breathe life back into it again. Roll on 2024.
> What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
You don't have a clue about what's actually going on in reality. That was the point. Thanks for proving it.
> Pouring money into "diversity" is certainly nothing to do with it
It must be nice to be able to spend the same money twice. Please let us know how exactly to accomplish this feat.
> Overall resilience of the NHS
People dying right now waiting for ambulances. People dying in spates of cancer and heart disease due to delayed screening or missed treatments[1]. "the NHS is so resilient".
> It's not difficult to draw a straight line from one to the other.
So your plan is to put all your eggs into one basket (i.e. state-run health care) and then cross your fingers that no bad politicians (ehm conservatives) ever get into power. That sounds like a very well thought out and forward looking plan.
The numbers you cite represent a real-terms fall after inflation - despite the population growing about 8% in that time - AND a reduction as a proportion of GDP.
> It must be nice to be able to spend the same money twice. [...]
Meaningless.
> People dying right now waiting for ambulances. [...]
Yes, well observed. I do know that. The fact that more do not is frankly miraculous - and the fact that many do right now is more testament to chronic underfunding of other public services, especially elder care and social services.
> So your plan is to put all your eggs into one basket (i.e. state-run health care)
No. You have invented that line of thinking. In the UK state and private healthcare coexist. The only way to put all the eggs in one basket would be to erase the public provision of services which, in case you hadn't noticed, is exactly what the conservatives are trying to do.
You took your time thinking about your excuses. The fact is that you weren't the slightest bit aware of the magnitude or direction of NHS funding. You just assumed it must be down because that's the only reason the godlike public services could fail.
> The numbers you cite represent a real-terms fall after inflation despite the population growing about 8% in that time
Who made the population grow like that? Isn't it usually the same people who tend to champion mass immigration and socialized health care? Have you ever spoken up about the tension between these two issues?
Who made the inflation? Isn't it usually the same people who champion centralized fractional reserve banking with easy money who want socialized health care? Or are you in the inflation threads arguing for limiting inflation to "Save the NHS".
> AND a reduction as a proportion of GDP.
Is that even true? Can you show some math?
And who says health care costs have to keep up with GDP? Are we just supposed run faster in place like we are in a hamster wheel where every bit of increased production is just eaten up by rising costs?
> Meaningless.
Sorry, there is nothing else to say here but that if you are fine with frivolous spending in a funding crisis, as you see it, then you are just an idiot.
Compared to the cesspool that is the US system? The NHS was amazing.
We don’t talk about it, but people still die for non-COVID emergencies because hospitals in the Us are routinely full in 2022.
Privatization of hospital systems in the US have lead to very warped incentives, where C sections are the norm because it’s faster and more money for the hospital and Drs.
Here in the US I had stage III cancer. I was receiving full blown cancer treatment(s) less than a week after I went to the ER with symptoms (chest port + three types of chemo drugs). And that's routine. The US health care failures are mostly the fault of administrators and insurance companies gaming the public. The care is fast + extensive and it's not a cesspool.
And the "full hospital" meme isn't entirely accurate. The US hospital wards are -- by design -- supposed to be full. If 100 beds are allocated for severe flu cases (example) but there's only 25 patients they'll shift the flu ward to 35. Thus they achieve a 75% capacity for the flu beds and allocate the additional beds to other sections. Sometimes the American media (sensationalist by design) will report this as "OH MY GOD THE FLU WARD IS NEAR CAPACITY. 75% FULL!!" without reporting total beds vs flu beds.
While it's nice that you were able to get quick treatment, there are tons of people who never receive any or adequate treatment because they are absolutely terrified of what the cost will mean for themselves and their families.
Hospital capacity depends on the number of staff capable of supporting it. You could have a room with a thousand beds, but if you've got two nurses, your capacity is a tiny fraction of that.
It's laughable to call the US healthcare system bad, but I feel like that sort of treatment should be commonplace and universal for what we pay here. The UK has spent about 10 percent of GDP over the last ten years. The US spends 20 percent. It's going somewhere, but I don't think it's going towards care at quite the same rate as over healthcare systems. Even 15 percent of US GDP would be $3 trillion, or more than the entirety of UK total GDP.
Its 16.77% of GDP for the US currently. Germany is at 11.70%. I think Germany is probably the most reasonably run health care system to compare against since Germany doesn't have the collapse of healthcare issues of UK or Canada we keep hearing about.
> Privatization of hospital systems in the US have lead to very warped incentives, where C sections are the norm because it’s faster and more money for the hospital and Drs.
The US rate of c-sections was 32% in 2017 (and roughly the same for 2020), the same as Switzerland. It's 27.7% in Canada, 33.7% in Australia and 27.4% in the UK.
28% across the OECD, 30% in Germany, 45% in South Korea, 34% in Italy.
Per your own link:
“ Variations in caesarean section rates across countries have been attributed to a number of factors, including financial incentives, malpractice liability concerns, differences in the availability and training of midwives and nurses, and the proportion of women who access private maternity care. For example, there is evidence that private hospitals tend to perform more caesarean sections than public hospitals. In Switzerland, caesarean sections were found to be substantially higher in private clinics (41%) than in public hospitals (30.5%) (OFSP, 2013[1]).”
Sadly, this cynical take is correct in all too many cases.
The solution is to bring more intelligence to the problem of governance and human organization in general, not less. Stupidity has never been the right answer to any problem, yet it seems to be all the conservative side has to offer nowadays. Weaponizing the left side of the IQ bell curve will prove to be a bad idea in the long run.
