france has better medical care then us

i was reading a bbc article about how France has better medical care then us and survival ratings for cancer paitents even so when it comes to the actual equipment and medicene we trump them.

the problem lies with the budget

we spend roughly 600million as they spend 900+ million

we have 2-3 doctots for every 1000 as they have 6-7 for every 1000

they have more equipment then we do 67+

they also use a ring system so hospitals dont have to decide not to use expenive drugs and so forth

they dont have waiting times with delays all cancer paitents are seen ASAP


could the goverment take a leaf from France and use their expeince and their methouds to improve our NHS?

[edit on 17-5-2007 by bodrul]

[edit: title]

[edit on 28-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

I'm not totally familiar with how the French healthcare system works, but I would imagine there are some key differences between the French system and the National Health Service which prevent us from just creating a carbon copy (I think you have to pay for the procedure yourself and then you're reimbursed with most of the cost after you leave hospital - you get about 70% back... but if you have an operation that costs €20,000 then it would still mean you paid €6,000 yourself, so it isn't exactly like the NHS where it's all paid for via the tax system and you don't pay anything extra unless you want to go to a private hospital or something).

That said, I'm all for learning from other countries when it comes to improving our own services. I know India have made some interesting proposals to change their health system as I posted here back in January. This could perhaps be applied to our own.

[edit on 18/5/07 by Ste2652]

firstly i made an error its 3-4 not 6-7

this is the article

BBC
The NHS has some of the finest cancer specialists in the world, and new techniques and treatments mean that survival rates are steadily improving.

And yet France does even better, with the best survival rates in Europe. So what are the differences between cancer care in the UK and France?

In part its down to speed of treatment.

The Centre René Gauducheau is a functional modern building on the outskirts of Nantes.

mod edit: cut down external quote, please keep quotes short

[edit on 18-5-2007 by UK Wizard]

Wow Bodrul you got nothin better too do than but beat the anti-american war drum today? I mean isn't it common knowledge that the US has a crappy health care system, if so why do you feel it necessary to start a new thread on the subject?

Well anyway like most Anti-American rants its based on pure bs.

Isn't education a wonderful thing.

US Survival Statistics by Cancer Type
Europe Survival Statistics by Cancer Type

Originally posted by danwild6
Wow Bodrul you got nothin better too do than but beat the anti-american war drum today?

what? US= US in the UK
did you even read the topic before replying?
this is even UK politics

jeez some people really need to get their heads out the cloud
the world doesnt revolve around the USA

Originally posted by bodrul

could the goverment take a leaf from France and use their expeince and their methouds to improve our NHS?

[edit on 17-5-2007 by bodrul]

I believe the answer is simple YES! we can can take a leaf from frances book when dealing with cancer patience in paticular, as this article is particular to the cancer subject.

Whereas the UK has 279 linear accelerators, France has 336 - 20% more for the same population

France also has more doctors - meaning faster access for patients.

The UK has 2.3 doctors for every 1,000 people. France has 3.4 - that's 50% more doctors.

We simply need more cancer equipment and more doctors as above but the problem we seem to have with the NHS at the moment is alot of the money is going to PFI Companys who rip off the tax payer by delivering any gevin project at many more times the actual cost and most of it goes on managers and consultants.

France simply invest more in drugs, doctors, and much needed equipment.

A friend of mine Studied to be a doctor but when he applied for a training position he could not get one and had to go back to being a chemist for the mean time, all the while we are importing doctors from abroad. I wonder how much this kind of thing goes on and to some extent may explain why so many doctors leave the uk.

got to agree we do need more doctors and nurses
the main problem with that is the training and costs of getting a degree
with the cost of living in the UK rises more and more people leave the country that have this profession to another country where they get better pay and better housing accomedations.

The French have a mandatory private insurance scheme as part of their health care system.

This keeps coming back to the central issue - if you want 1st class services then you have to pay for them whether that be through private provision or public funding.

Despite the propaganda to the contrary we in the UK have a relatively low tax economy.

IMO we do very very well with our NHS considering the seemingly general public hostility to paying either additional taxes to better fund it or to pay for any private health insurance.

But you can't have it both ways.

Under this Labour Gov we now have a health care system in the UK that is at or around the European average in performance & total funding for the first time in decades.

......but if you really want to match the very best systems that are found in the top European countries (namely Sweden, Germany and France) then it must be funded and frankly there is precious little sign that 'the people' want to do that.

But here's a little food for thought on how things are in the NHS right now and the facts on how things have improved since 1997 -

Approximately 1.3 million people are now employed by the NHS, an increase of 38,000 on average per year since 1997.

The number of doctors, including dentists, has increased by 2,974 on average each year to 90,630.

The number of qualified nurses in hospitals and the community has increased by 10,099 on average per year to 381,257.

The number of qualified allied health professionals has increased by 2,008 on average per year to 61,082.

The number of staff supporting doctors and nurses has increased by 8,800 on average per year to 310,441.

The number of support to ST&T (scientific, therapeutic & technical) increased by 2,205 on average per year to 55,715.

Ambulance support staff has increased by 538 on average per year to 10,063.

The number of staff in central functions has increased by 4,365 on average per year to 105,565.

The number of managers and senior managers has increased by an average of 2,152 per year to 39,391.

The number of GP’s (excluding retainers) has increased by 739 on average per year to 35,302.

Dentists, (excluding hospital & community) increased by 520 on average per year to 20,890.

Practice nurses have increased on average by 564 on average per year to 22,904.

Other practice staff has increased by 942 on average per year to 89,190.

The ONLY decrease is in the number of hotel, property and estates staff – down on average 296 per year to 75,431, mainly due to contracting out.

The NHS received approximately £81bn this year, after a period of record investment.

Out of that £81bn, approximately 40% has been spent on NHS staff salaries through Agenda for Change.

The “cuts” the media have run with in the past year amount to less than £500m, or less than 1% of that funding.
(but bear in mind these finances are in very large measure as a result of this Gov giving autonomy to local heath trusts - as per it's critics wanting it both ways, the supposedly 'control-freak' Gov devolves decision making to the local trusts but if those trusts run up deficits it's, somehow, still the Gov's fault)

The RCN has produced the largest estimate of the number of job cuts - 22,000, or less than 1.5% of the total workforce of 1.3m.

The actual number of job cuts this year is less than 1,000.

Annual turnover of NHS staff is currently approximately 10% - 130,000 per year.

Today (20 May 2007) the number of NHS job vacancies as advertised on the NHS Careers website is 7,137, including 1,692 nurse vacancies.

Waiting lists continue to fall, and deaths from heart disease and cancer are down.

- No-one is claiming it is perfection but by any credible comparison the NHS today is whole magnitudes better than it ever was under any Gov that has gone before.
That sort of enormous improvement didn't 'just happen' and it certainly would not have 'just happened anyway'.

In fact it's possibly fair to talk about a disconnection between the media (and by extension the public's) perception and the actual reality.

The NHS today is in the much improved state it is in thanks to the actions of this Gov since 1997.

This is a truth that is now so undeniable that even the opposition parties are reduced to complaining about 'the way things were done' and the ever-popular and non-specific 'waste'.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

The US healthcare system is notriously inefficient. As a general measure of national heath and healthcare look at child mortality rates as a measure. These show the US trails other modern industrialised nations such as France, UK, Germany and so on). This is repeated if the other measure of life expectancy is used, with the US trailing behind.

Those who constantly slag-off the NHS should experience some of the US healthcare system before being so judgemental. I have!

Regards

why have you put 'US' in capitals?

everybody is thinking you mean 'US' as in the United States, lower case please 'us'

Originally posted by st3ve_o
why have you put 'US' in capitals?

everybody is thinking you mean 'US' as in the United States, lower case please 'us'

i have sent a PM to the admin/mods
since i cant edit the title

So bring in complusory private medical Insurance for all (like France) or put contributions up 100% then you'll get a decent service, though Ive got no complaints about the NHS

Originally posted by realyweely
So bring in complusory private medical Insurance for all (like France) or put contributions up 100% then you'll get a decent service, though Ive got no complaints about the NHS

Me neither.

Casualty waiting times in the Royal Berk's are, at tops, an hour for walk ins, but I have been seen, treated and out the door in less time than that. (I seem to be rather accident prone....)..

The only gripe I have is when trying to book an appointment for my GP. For example, on Monday I may have flu. I ring the doctor, who says he can get me in on Friday.. What's the point? I'll be better by then!

When I do go down to the GP's, usually for the little one now, it's full of old people, Poles, Africans and other migrants, who I might add all seem to be getting free prescriptions too, whereas I have to pay! What's that about? I can't get an appointment for day's because old people and migrants are getting a free lunch? Grrr...

(I know Sminkey is going to come at me with some New Labour speak and "Government Statistics" about the above comment.... I just know it...)

Originally posted by stumason
When I do go down to the GP's, usually for the little one now, it's full of old people, Poles, Africans and other migrants, who I might add all seem to be getting free prescriptions too, whereas I have to pay! What's that about?

- Presumably you'd agree that the health of the people around you is actually important to the health of you & yours too?

I can't see anything desirable in a system that does not act, primarily, on the basis of need.

......but as for being charged?
Are you (if it is for you personally) or your daughter's mum (if it is in respect of your daughter) not getting some sort of 'qualifying' benefit or tax credit?
Cos if you (or she) are then you do not have to pay.

I can't get an appointment for day's because old people and migrants are getting a free lunch?

- The local GP service is probably one of the last NHS areas to be sorted.....and every year there is a fight with (some of) the local GPs & the BMA (ie the doctor's union) to try and extract some further progress.

(I know Sminkey is going to come at me with some New Labour speak and "Government Statistics" about the above comment.... I just know it...)

- I think I've done the stats bit earlier.
You (or anyone else) can choose to believe them or not.

Personally I at least like to know the truth of what has gone on nationally when weighing these things up rather than rely solely on my own 'feelings' or be led by a media (or Dr's union) which is not giving me the whole story.

Sminkey sorry to burst your bubble but statistics is one thing reality is another. Having the missfortune to sustain a serious fall followed up by a further more serious health condition I have been under hospital care since 09/06.

I dont no how many times I have had appointments cancelled, waited months for treatment or to see a specialist, the standard response is we are short staffed, there is only one consultant to see you etc. These comments have come from receptionists, nurses, doctors and consultants.

The treatment I have received is very good, but I find that once your in the loop your classed as being treated when the reality is your just in limbo waiting for an appointment. This gives a false picture of what is really going on.

And with regard to those figures you have omitted to mention the increased burden placed on the NHS, the population is not static is it, its increasing all the time.

How many immigrants from the former eastern block have moved to the UK in the last 15 years, all coming from countries where health care standards are very poor. Perhaps as many as 1.5-2 million all who will need health care.

If you wish to quote figures thats fine as long as you match it with the burden placed on the NHS. typical politician speak

Originally posted by magicmushroom
How many immigrants from the former eastern block have moved to the UK in the last 15 years, all coming from countries where health care standards are very poor. Perhaps as many as 1.5-2 million all who will need health care.

If you wish to quote figures thats fine as long as you match it with the burden placed on the NHS. typical politician speak

Herein lies a major problem which the Government ignores. they woefully under predicted the influx of migrants from the eastern block and resource allocations are shot to pieces. Not only in the NHS, but Local Authority services are being overstretched as well.

Slough, for example, has been complaining that the NOS estimation on their migrant population is way off by an order of magnitude!

As a result, central government funding is much less than it should be, so services are being stretched and the local taxpayers are picking up the bill.

The same can be said of Reading (where I live) and many other towns that have now become "Little Poland's".

It might be so bad if so many didn't concentrate in little area's and didn't all do cash in hand work. Cash in hand = no Tax revenue. So the rest of us need to pick up the tab!

mm you might even end up like myself and have to wait almost 3 years for surgery
(as has just happened thanks to my Dr initially making a cods of part of the 'booking' proceedure).

But seeing the need was far from life-threatening and I am now no longer a young spring-chicken I can't say as I felt any anger about it.
It would have been nice to have had it done right away but I can accept that there are higher priorities.

I've experienced the UK's accident and emergency care 1st hand (coupled with years of periodic hospitalisation & follow-up surgery) for over 18 years.
I know what it's like.

(....I'm not belittling you 9mths experience but I'm willing to bet you have been through a lot of contact with your GP, the hospital and the consultant - or his/her staff.
You have said you have already received some treatment to date.
Previously people sometimes used to have to wait well over 2 years or more for 'elective treatment' as a matter of routine).

That's not to say things are perfect, of course, nor to deny that some areas still have problems.

I also know it is enormously improved on what went before.

I've seen the new buildings/wings/units/equipment (on 4 hospitals within a 25ml radius to me alone).

But ok folks, if you want to pretend the hospitals are all full of immigrants getting freebie treatment that might otherwise be yours then fine, go ahead.
Ditto the Dr's surgeys.

......and similarly if you wish to paint every migrant worker here as a tax-dodger then I guess you can sweep that generalisation too.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
But ok folks, if you want to pretend the hospitals are all full of immigrants getting freebie treatment that might otherwise be yours then fine, go ahead.
Ditto the Dr's surgeys.

......and similarly if you wish to paint every migrant worker here as a tax-dodger then I guess you can sweep that generalisation too.

It might be all nice and dandy where you live, Smink, but where I am the "official figures" for the eastern influx are way, way off target and as a result, PCT's, Local Education, Local Authorities etc have all had a hammering on their budgets as not enough money has come down from central Government to accomodate. The NOS and the Government ballsed up big time with their "estimates" of how many would come here.

As for the tax dodger swipe you took. Well, care to explain what the migrants are doing when they loiter around in huge numbers (outside LIDL near where I live there are dozens every day and similar sites at other locations), get picked up by scores of White vans looking for labour, then dropped off again at the end of the day with a fist full of cash?

Every day, they are there. And every day, each one will work for a different "employer".

It is quite clearly building contractors and such like looking for cheap manual labour. Now, whilst not illegal for them to hire like this, it is certainly illegal for those being paid in cash not to declare their earnings.

Or do you honestly expect me to believe that they each fill in a tax return and voluntarily submit it to the IR?

If you like, I can make a video of them doing it and post it here. Would you believe me then? Or will you take me on my word when I say that where I live, we have been literally swamped and the local infrastructure has trouble coping. I doubt you will believe me though.

Originally posted by stumason
where I am the "official figures" for the eastern influx are way, way off target and as a result, PCT's, Local Education, Local Authorities etc have all had a hammering on their budgets as not enough money has come down from central Government to accomodate.

- That is in the nature of estimated budgets, it happens.

Those kinds of budgets by their very nature are usually 'out' to some degree, the key is in how flexible things are to identify inaccuracies and respond.

But claiming (as I have seen some media outlets do) that this has led to massively inadequate budgets 'nationwide' and some sort of 'Public Services meltdown' is simply political spin & baseless speculation......and often heaped on the other claim about how immigrant workers aren't really contributing.

As for the tax dodger swipe you took.

- I didn't "swipe" anything there stuey.

You clearly made a pretty open comment that implied migrant workers were not contributing.

That's a vague and sweeping generalisation and IMO very unfair.

It is also for that matter a blinkered view of the equation (how about the fact that the 'cash in hand' worker is adding value to the property of those he is hired by and stretching their resources?).

I'm not for a moment condoning tax evasion like this but it is also true that the total economic consideration in this consists of more than just the taxation part.

Everybody (as an individual) is a 'tax payer' in the UK now, thanks to the shift on the burden from direct taxes (like income tax) to indirect taxes (like VAT on the goods and services we all have to buy)......you can go back to 1979 & thank the old tory Gov for that one .

It's undeniable that eastern European migrant workers have boosted the British economy (in terms of total UK economic activity as well as boosting tax revenues).

Well, care to explain what the migrants are doing when they loiter around in huge numbers (outside LIDL near where I live there are dozens every day and similar sites at other locations), get picked up by scores of White vans looking for labour, then dropped off again at the end of the day with a fist full of cash?

- Those people you have seen are probably working 'cash in hand' as you say.
.....and what?

But don't just pick on the Poles (or whoever) there are British people evading tax doing that up and down the country.........and rather than focus on migrant workers evading a relatively little tax, if not paying tax properly is really your thing then why not focus on those who employ accountants to evade, er sorry 'avoid', vast amounts of tax.

Instead of the pointless diversion of inward looking finger-pointing, how about the real tax evaders are taken to task, eh?

How about someone like Murdock's news international that paid 1.2p in the pound tax on profits of almost £1billion, eh?

The real scrounger who has robbed millions from the public purse is Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Sun, Times, Sunday Times, Fox News and Weekly Standard (edited by Kostol promoting the Project for the New American Century). He flits from country to country on a string of passports in search of profit. His personal wealth is £4 billion. He laughs at the thought of paying taxes.
From 1985 to 1995, his News International paid only 1.2p in the pound in tax in Britain on recorded profits of nearly £1 billion. He gets away with tax dodging by spreading his businesses and their profits around tax havens.

[Addition from Mail on Sunday, 03Dec95: While most newspapers groups in Britain pay 30% or more in corporation tax, Murdoch’s News International (which since 1986 has made profits of nearly £1bn (£979.4m) pays virtually nothing. Thanks to the adroit but quite legal way in which Murdoch’s accountants have transferred profits and losses in his multinational company from one country to another, sometimes involving letterbox companies in offshore tax havens. It may be an embarrassing disclosure to both Murdoch and his new friend Tony Blair. It also explains how his BSkyB can afford to secure a virtual monopoly on all football matches played in Britain. And he can afford to wage a price war on weaker papers.]

www.goacom.org...

Here in NI we have a sizable Polish community and the biggest migrant workers are Portuguese.

It's another generalisation but by and large they are reliable, doing the jobs the locals either can't or won't do and affordable.
No-one forces people to hire them.

I've even seen some advertising hoardings in Polish in Belfast.
Big deal.
I don't call parts of Belfast 'little Poland', 99% of it is not and could not be further from it.

We also have a Chinese population, you'll see they have some Chinese signs up too but despite some of them probably working cash in hand (like happens amongst every 'ethnic group, including the Brits and Irish here) the truth is the vast majority do contribute just as they should.

Their contribution is helping to improve our public services and that improvement is IMO utterly undeniable.

In fact it is so undeniable that even the political opposition parties have abandoned trying to claim that nothing has improved - leaving their more partisan supporters out on a limb with that nonsense - but they now witter on about 'waste' or 'inefficiency' for want of anything substantive to say.


[edit on 5-6-2007 by sminkeypinkey]