Would you be willing to be part of the UK to get better healthcare?

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

It is only a few years since the IMF and the UK had to intervene here to bail us out, and this little country of 4 million odd souls owes something like €200,000,000,000.00 and is still borrowing. That despite have got God knows how many billions of grants / training funds / development funds / agricultural subsidies / motorways etc from the EEC / EC since the seventies. And who were and are the 2 biggest contributers to EC funds - Germany and the UK.

The UK is one of the most heavily indebted countries in the developed world, with a debt that currently stands at about £1.5 trillion and, due to the still significant budget deficit, that figure is growing all the time.

maryishere wrote: »

And our HSE is stll worse than their NHS, despite our vat being higher, and the HSE costing much more per heads of population here than the NHS costs in the UK. Even medicines cost a lot more here.

The NHS is dangerously underfunded, despite the fact that the tax take in the UK is significantly higher than Ireland’s. Regardless, the problems that the two organisations face are very similar, albeit for different reasons, with long waiting times being the chief complaint levelled by patients.

I genuinely don’t understand why Irish people have this totally warped view of the NHS. Being "free" at the point of service is not the be-all and end-all.

maryishere wrote: »

Who? Are there any there you would put on a par with the like of Charlie Haughey, the squire of Kinsealy, or Bertie Ahern ( de lad who didn't have a bank account when he was minister for finance but who won his money on de races and digouts from his pals).

Boris Johnson? Prepared to undermine the future of the entire country just to further his own political career.

What’s more, there have been numerous political scandals in British politics over the last few years, often culminating in the resignation of an MP. For example, the expenses scandals involving David Laws and, more recently, Maria Miller.

The point is, pretty much every country has elected representatives that make the majority of that country’s population cringe, but hey, that’s democracy. Ireland is certainly not unique in that regard. I mean, Christ, look at the race for the Republican presidential nomination in the US.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

What’s more, there have been numerous political scandals in British politics over the last few years, often culminating in the resignation of an MP. For example, the expenses scandals involving David Laws

There have been very few political scandals in the UK culminating in the resignation of an MP. Yes, David Laws did resign as he was renting 2 rooms from his partner, at a cost of £950 a month, when the rules were that he could rent rooms but not off a partner - it had to be a stranger. Here, that pales in to insignificance compared to what the likes of Haughey, Ahern etc got up to, or what was spent on tribunals trying to uncover various dealings.

As you mentioned the Healy-Raes, remember that Michael Healy-Rae took part in the reality television show on RTÉ called Celebrities Go Wild set in the "unforgiving landscapes" of Connemara. He emerged as the winner having received the largest number of votes from the "viewing public". In June 2011 news broke of a voting scandal. It was revealed that Healy-Rae had received 3,636 votes from a phone in Leinster House at a cost of €2,600 to the Irish taxpayer, the premium-rate calls being charged on a tariff designed to raise money for charity. Only limited information was available as to how the calls were made. Speculation suggested they were made over 31 hours using "redial" . The Ceann Comhairle Seán Barrett described it as "an outrageous abuse of facilities", while the Enda Kenny said the money spent on the calls should be paid back. The same Enda Kenny who is now talking about rewarding this Healy-Rae lad, who has not a clue about national or international politics, with a cabinet post.

djpbarry wrote: »

I genuinely don’t understand why Irish people have this totally warped view of the NHS.

Because it is so efficient and well run compared with our own very expensive HSE. Many Irish people have friends and relations who have plenty of experience of both systems.

ancapailldorcha

maryishere wrote: »

There have been very few political scandals in the UK culminating in the resignation of an MP.

I'd say any British versions of the Healy-Raes would be very few and far between. British MPs seem to conduct themselves with a great deal more professionalism and gravitas.

maryishere wrote: »

Here, that pales in to insignificance compared to what the likes of Haughey, Ahern etc got up to, or what was spent on tribunals trying to uncover various dealings.Because it is so efficient and well run compared with our own very expensive HSE. Many Irish people have friends and relations who have plenty of experience of both systems.

Comparisons with the HSE aside, I've given to agreeing with djpbarry above in that the NHS's funding isn't sufficient. One must wonder where the future cuts are going to come from given the Tories' plans to amalgamate the NHS with social care which will likely reduce funding for both services. Junior doctors and nurses strikes are only the beginning and will end up reducing the amount available to spend on patient care.

NIMAN

maryishere wrote: »

Because it is so efficient and well run compared with our own very expensive HSE. Many Irish people have friends and relations who have plenty of experience of both systems.

You're joking, right?

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

There have been very few political scandals in the UK culminating in the resignation of an MP.

That's really not true at all. There are numerous examples. Admittedly, a number of these scandals are blown out of proportion by the tabloids and the polticians in question are harrassed and hounded into submission by so-called journalists, but they have happened none-the-less.

maryishere wrote: »

Here, that pales in to insignificance compared to what the likes of Haughey, Ahern etc got up to, or what was spent on tribunals trying to uncover various dealings.

It pales into insignificance in your opinion. I'm by no means condoning either Ahern or Haughey, but I'd take far greater issue with the two invasions that Tony Blair oversaw than anything Haughey or Ahern did.

maryishere wrote: »

As you mentioned the Healy-Raes, remember that Michael Healy-Rae took part in the reality television show on RTÉ called Celebrities Go Wild set in the "unforgiving landscapes" of Connemara.

It wasn't me who first mentioned the Healy-Raes actually, but seeing as you bring up reality TV, I shall point out that George Galloway was a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother.

maryishere wrote: »

Because it is so efficient and well run compared with our own very expensive HSE.

You've clearly not been reading anything anyone has posted on this thread, have you?

djpbarry

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say any British versions of the Healy-Raes would be very few and far beween. British MPs seem to conduct themselves with a great deal more professionalism and gravitas.

Generally speaking I would agree, but that doesn't necessarily make them or their actions any less embarrassing. I really don't think British politics is anything to be proud of or to aspire to.

recipio

djpbarry wrote: »

Generally speaking I would agree, but that doesn't necessarily make them or their actions any less embarrassing. I really don't think British politics is anything to be proud of or to aspire to.

You won't see see any MPs dancing on the bonnets of jeeps. These jackasses seem to think being elected is a ticket to a gravy train. People are hurting in this so called Republic and a little humility would have been in order.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

It wasn't me who first mentioned the Healy-Raes actually, but seeing as you bring up reality TV, I shall point out that George Galloway was a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother.

I never said nobody from UK politics was ever on reality tv. Nothing wrong with reality tv. The point is British Politics is not tainted with Galloway or anyone else in the UK having won a reality TV programme having received 3,636 votes from a single phone in the house of Commons at a cost of €2,600 to the taxpayer, made over 31 hours using "redial".....
Such a thing happened the Healy Rae and there are ten thousand bigger scandals than it in Irish politics.
In the UK politicians would resign over matters much smaller and never go for re-election. Different ethics.

gallag wrote: »

Never in my life have I, or anyone in my family (in the UK) waited more than a few days on seeing the GP, there is also a walk in service every morning if you are bad or beldoc who will come to your house or arrange an out of hours appointment within 2hrs if really bad. All free of charge including all medicines.

I have relatives in the UK and that is their experience of the NHS too. Here I have had relatives on trolleys for long, tooo long.
Even socialists like Mary Lou have VHI, and Gerry himself went to the USA for private health care. If our public system is not good enough for the 2 leaders of the biggest left wing party, what hope is there?

Pugzilla

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/23/junior-doctors-to-escalate-industrial-action-to-all-out-strike-next-month?CMP=fb_gu

Yeah, the NHS is a great healthcare system......

maryishere

Pugzilla wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/23/junior-doctors-to-escalate-industrial-action-to-all-out-strike-next-month?CMP=fb_gu

Yeah, the NHS is a great healthcare system.. ....

Junior doctors there are no more happy than junior doctors here with their pay and they are talking aboutr a strike - so what?

We are looking at the NHS being a great healthcare system from the point of view of the patient, the customer and the taxpayer.

Pugzilla

maryishere wrote: »

Junior doctors there are no more happy than junior doctors here with their pay and they are talking aboutr a strike - so what?

We are looking at the NHS being a great healthcare system from the point of view of the patient, the customer and the taxpayer.

I'm in medicine so it's relevant to me. You lay people don't have a clue. You only see 1%of the work that goes on in hospitals.

Morale in the NHS is at an all time low. This impacts directly on patient care.

maryishere

Pugzilla wrote: »

Morale in the NHS is at an all time low. This impacts directly on patient care.

More than 1.3 million people are employed in the NHS. You will always have the odd vested interest claiming out of more than 1,300,000 people claiming "morale is at an all time low". Show me a workforce anywhere which could not argue sometimes that "morale is at an all time low". Its quite amusing, often its the people in the best paid, secure, relatively cushy pensionable jobs who claim "morale is at an all time low".
At least in the NHS it is run relatively efficienty compared with the HSE; anyone who has experience of both systems will tell you that. Thats not a dig at you personally, I know there are good people who work in both systems.

Jimoslimos

I'm confused. What the hell does Healy-Rae have to do with the NHS or the HSE?

I live in the UK. I like the NHS and I admire the principles on which it was founded. Some things they do very well, or even make considerable attempts to, such as the two-week deadline to see a specialist once a GP suspects cancer.

However it is far from a perfect system, and is riddled with massive inequalities and inefficiencies depending on which postcode/Trust you fall under. If we were part of the UK the best I can imagine would be a system on a par with the worst performing NHS trusts in England and Wales.

maryishere

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I live in the UK. I like the NHS and I admire the principles on which it was founded. Some things they do very well, or even make considerable attempts to...

However it is far from a perfect system, and is riddled with massive inequalities and inefficiencies depending on which postcode .....

Try living in Ireland and spend some time on a hospital trolley here, or care for people who have been hospitalised here. Not system is perfect as you say, but if you really want to see inequalities and inefficienies... lol.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

Try living in Ireland and spend some time on a hospital trolley here, or care for people who have been hospitalised here. Not system is perfect as you say, but if you really want to see inequalities and inefficienies... lol.

The NHS also has people on hospital trolleys. It is not a uniquely Irish phenomenon.
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/patients-die-12-hour-trolley-waits-Royal-Stoke-s/story-27732026-detail/story.html

The shocking statistics have been revealed following a review of all 731 patients suffering 12-hour trolley waits in January and February by the NHS Trust Development Authority (TDA) .

That's a quite brilliant hospital by the way. Sometimes pushed close to bursting point (clearly), but the staff handle it as best that they can.

Trolleys are overflow, sometimes overflow is required. Unless you demand that each and every hospital in the country be built and staffed far far beyond normal capacity, at huge expense, overflow will happen.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

In the UK politicians would resign over matters much smaller and never go for re-election. Different ethics.

Different electorate.

maryishere wrote: »

I have relatives in the UK and that is their experience of the NHS too.

And I have relatives in Ireland who say the HSE is the best healthcare system in the world.

maryishere wrote: »

We are looking at the NHS being a great healthcare system from the point of view of the patient, the customer and the taxpayer.

But you’ve yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your belief that the NHS is “great”.

All the evidence produced thus far on this thread suggests that NHS has serious problems, but you insist on believing it’s amazing just because someone told you so?

maryishere wrote: »

More than 1.3 million people are employed in the NHS. You will always have the odd vested interest claiming out of more than 1,300,000 people claiming "morale is at an all time low". Show me a workforce anywhere which could not argue sometimes that "morale is at an all time low". Its quite amusing, often its the people in the best paid, secure, relatively cushy pensionable jobs who claim "morale is at an all time low".

I don’t know about you, but when 55,000 doctors in a healthcare service are prepared to go on strike to voice their dissatisfaction with how said service is being run, I’m going to listen to what they have to say, rather than just dismiss them as “the odd vested interest”.

maryishere wrote: »

At least in the NHS it is run relatively efficienty compared with the HSE; anyone who has experience of both systems will tell you that.

Anyone who has experience of both the HSE and NHS will be familiar with the intricate workings of both systems and will be in a position to offer a critique of their relative efficiencies? Really? Because I have experience of both systems and I am in no way qualified to make such a judgement.

Lavinia

Change in health care system - yes. Part of UK (again)?

Absolutely not :pac:

maryishere

NIMAN wrote: »

Of course the principle is great, but its like the health service in Ireland. No matter how much money they throw at it, it never really gets any better. As I said above, I use it as I kept my GP in NI. And it can take me 2 to 3 weeks to get an appointment to see him. All year round, all the time. Plus my father died whilst on the waiting list for 18 months for a heart bypass.

But it annoys me that it is used as a stick to beat up the Irish authorities with. Its in as big a mess as our health service is, and it has the annual budget of a lot of small nations.

Also, to see all the campaign literature from our political parties saying "we will fix the health service" - ah, no you won't. You could double the budget and it still wouldn't work properly.

Good points. Sorry to hear about your father dying while on waiting list. One of the reasons "No matter how much money they throw at it, it never really gets any better." is because they squander money by paying much much more for certain drugs than the going price internationally (anyone who buys prescriptions while on holidays abroad gets a flavour of this) , and by squandering money by paying some of its employees double what the p.m. of Spain is paid.

amorset wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss here for some people. I've raised children under both systems and the hse is a disgrace. I currently under nhs had never to wait more than a couple of weeks for treatment whether it be physio, speech therapist, paediatricians etc. Kids always see a gp immediately and I will if I insist, otherwise it's not urgent and I'll wait, that's fair to keep to service moving. I could go on about the regular attention the nhs monitor my kids ongoing medical condition. In the hse, this condition was left to me to figure out.
I'm not up on general waiting times for other services but my mum is waiting 2 years for a hip under hse, my father in law got it done in 7 weeks.
Of course all free including medicine which is one big rip off in south.
So no matter what anyone says here, nhs with its problems is a public service that hse can only dream of.

I agree and every I know who has experience of both systems would agree with you. The politicians keep promising to fix out wasteful, inefficient and broken system but they never do. I have met some wonderful people who work "at the coalface" in both systems and they are wonderful; if any of the posters here work in our system please remember this is not a personal attack on you.

gobsh!te

What difference would it make to be ruled by London now instead Dublin?

I know 75% of the UK's laws come from Brussels, what is the % for Ireland?

ancapailldorcha

gobsh!te wrote: »

What difference would it make to be ruled by London now instead Dublin?

I know 75% of the UK's laws come from Brussels, what is the % for Ireland?

This isn't the thread for this. Stay on topic please.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

I agree and every I know who has experience of both systems would agree with you.

I think NIMAN might disagree.

recipio

Good article in the IT today by Prof John Crown ( he is sadly not standing for the Senate ) He blames our sclerotic health service on ultra conservatism in the Dept of Health and I agree. Half of the population also are afraid to do without health insurance which they can barely afford - another legacy of concrete thinking in our mandarin class. I'll bet a lot of people would answer 'yes' to the OPs original question.

djpbarry

recipio wrote: »

I'll bet a lot of people would answer 'yes' to the OPs original question.

On the evidence of this thread, I'll bet they would not.

Tar.Aldarion

I've heard several complaints from people using the NHS. If you have a crap doctor you are stuck with them, and they are very reluctant to refer you to anybody when you need it. Somebody I know had to go private in the UK to prove there was something wrong with them (spending a lot on the test), the NHS doctor wouldn't accept the private results as they had not done them themselves and seen a positive result (they did a similar test and it didn't have the same results), still wouldn't refer them though. They went to see a doctor in another country while on holiday, NHS doctor wouldn't accept that either and are currently back in the other country getting treated by that doctor as the condition is serious, it's just mind boggling to listen to.

If everybody has it free it seems the doctor doesn't care at all, no incentive. It is just in-and-out as fast as you can.

ancapailldorcha

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If everybody has it free it seems the doctor doesn't care at all, no incentive. It is just in-and-out as fast as you can.

My boss's PA claims her bread on the NHS as she's a Coeliac patient. She owns 2 homes, one of which is in London. I don't know how many people are scrounging off it but combine that with Doctors' pay and real time funding cuts and I wouldn't be surprise if their morale is too low for them to care.

maryishere

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

with Doctors' pay and real time funding cuts and I wouldn't be surprise if their morale is too low for them to care.

I would say their morale is fine, they are a G8 country with a leading health care system. The few people I know working there seem very happy anyway.

They have good pay, security and one of the best pensions in the UK.

The pay system offers real benefits including:

a standard working week of 37.5 hours

harmonised holiday entitlements of 27 days per year, plus eight general and public holidays, rising to 33 days after 10 years' service

pay enhancements to reward out of hours, shift and overtime working

better career and salary progression based on the application of knowledge and skills

an annual personal development review to support their career aspirations

Other benefits of working in the NHS include training, occupational health services, automatic membership of the NHS Pension Scheme (unless they choose to opt out) and study leave for sponsored courses.

I would say their morale is fine, ancapailldorcha. They seem to be able to change their cars often and go on holidays quite often. Do not worry about their morale, its probably better than many of the hard pressed taxpayers here who have to struggle to pay a fortune for medicines in Irish pharmacies ( much more than in UK or Spain ), struggle to pay for VHI ( no NHS here), have had relatives on trolleys in Irish hospitals etc.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

I would say their morale is fine, they are a G8 country with a leading health care system.

Here’s a recent report that ranks both the Irish and British health systems as about average relative to the rest of Europe:

http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/EHCI_2014/EHCI_2014_report.pdf

maryishere wrote: »

The few people I know working there seem very happy anyway.

Well, the King’s Trust says otherwise:



http://qmr.kingsfund.org.uk/2015/17/overview

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

Here’s a recent report that ranks both the Irish and British health systems as about average relative to the rest of Europe:

http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/EHCI_2014/EHCI_2014_report.pdf[/

England and Scotland are both 8 and 6 countries higher in the performance chart than Ireland.

In the table in part 5.2, you will see the UK taxpayer get a much higher "bank for the buck", better value than the Irish taxpayer does. About 25% more.

Jellybaby1

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My boss's PA claims her bread on the NHS as she's a Coeliac patient. She owns 2 homes, one of which is in London. I don't know how many people are scrounging off it but combine that with Doctors' pay and real time funding cuts and I wouldn't be surprise if their morale is too low for them to care.

I can't comment on the UK but I wonder if you know what a Coeliac's diet is all about? I can give you the details if you wish. A gluten free life is not a choice for Coeliacs.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

England and Scotland are both 8 and 6 countries higher in the performance chart than Ireland.

All of which have roughly the same score - England (714), Scotland (710) and Ireland (644) are not significantly different to the average (673 ± 130).

maryishere wrote: »

In the table in part 5.2, you will see the UK taxpayer get a much higher "bank for the buck", better value than the Irish taxpayer does. About 25% more.

And just beneath that chart it says...

The BFB scores, naturally, are to be regarded as somewhat of an academic exercise. Not least the method of adjusting to the square root of healthcare spent certainly lacks scientific support.

The chart in section 5.1 shows that spending on health per capita is roughly the same in the UK and Ireland.

The point here is that you have been claiming that the NHS is vastly superior to the HSE. The reality is that any objective analysis shows them to be generally pretty similar. At best, the NHS could be considered marginally better, but as has been pointed out already, the quality of NHS service can vary drastically from one area to another.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

All of which have roughly the same score - England (714), Scotland (710) and Ireland (644) are not significantly different to the average (673 ± 130).

The fact that England etc is 8 and 6 countries higher than Ireland in the "league table" of European countries is a significant enough difference.

djpbarry wrote: »

The chart in section 5.1 shows that spending on health per capita is roughly the same in the UK and Ireland.

But that chart is using BFB adjustment methodology and is meaningless. It is the "bang for the buck" chart which it leads to just below that , in section 5.2 which is important. Ireland scores only just above 400 on the chart, the UK scores above 500, showing the UK delivers approx 25% more bang for the buck than Ireland. Not surprising.

From Wiki it says :"In 2010 Ireland spent €2,862 per capita on health, compared to a European Union average of €2,172 per capita,[2] of this spending approximately 79% was government expenditure.
HSE figures quoted in April 2012[10] show that at least 178,000 people in Ireland are on waiting lists to see specialists at an outpatient clinic and that more than 300 patients have been waiting for over four years to be seen by a consultant after being referred by their GP.

Waiting times at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, the only such facility in the country, can be one year

According to the Euro health consumer index waiting times for emergency treatment, minor operations, and CT scans, in Irish hospitals in 2015 were the worst in Europe,

According to the index reports by patients on waiting times were considerably more pessimistic than official Irish waiting-time statistics.[8]

Ireland has a lower than OECD-average number of hospital beds according to the 2013 OECD Health at a Glance Report[5] The same report also noted that Ireland has fewer doctors (2.7 doctors per 1,000 population) and more nurses (12.2 nurses per 1,000 population) than average in other OECD countries."

The fact that not too long ago 47.6% of Ireland's population were covered by private health insurance says it all : nearly half the population paid big money for private health insurance because they do not want to have to rely on the standard service.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

The fact that England etc is 8 and 6 countries higher than Ireland in the "league table" of European countries is a significant enough difference.

It very obviously isn't, because the difference between the scores attributed to each of those countries is very small.

You're just stubbornly refusing to accept that the NHS is really nothing special.

maryishere wrote: »

But that chart is using BFB adjustment methodology and is meaningless.

No, it doesn't. It quite clearly states above that graph that...

Healthcare spends per capita in PPP dollars have been taken from the WHO HfA database (April 2014; latest available numbers, almost all 2012) as illustrated in the graph below:

maryishere wrote: »

It is the "bang for the buck" chart which it leads to just below that , in section 5.2 which is important.

Nope, that's the one that the authors advise be taken with a pinch of salt - once again, it says so right below the chart:

The BFB scores, naturally, are to be regarded as somewhat of an academic exercise. Not least the method of adjusting to the square root of healthcare spent certainly lacks scientific support.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

You're just stubbornly refusing to accept that the NHS is really nothing special.

It delivers a better service for less cost to the taxpayer than the Irish system. Our politicians continuously promises to reduce out waiting lists, people on trolleys, the cost of medicines in Irish pharmacies and health care system etc but as usual they never deliver.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

It delivers a better service for less cost to the taxpayer than the Irish system.

How so? The spending per capita is almost equal in England and Ireland, but higher in Scotland.

maryishere

Check out section 5.2 of the above report. Ireland scores only just above 400 on the chart, the UK scores above 500, showing the UK delivers approx 25% more bang for the buck than Ireland. Not surprising.

The gross current budget for the Health Sector for 2016 is €13.175 billion.

http://health.gov.ie/blog/speeches/budget-statement-2016/

For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx

Consider the difference in population size between here and the UK and the taxpayer here is having to throw much more money at healthcare, even though half the population here has private health insurance in addition.

ancapailldorcha

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I can't comment on the UK but I wonder if you know what a Coeliac's diet is all about? I can give you the details if you wish. A gluten free life is not a choice for Coeliacs.

Of course I do. I just think that someone who owns 2 south-eastern properties (with one being in London) could afford their own bread and save the NHS a few quid.

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

Check out section 5.2 of the above report. Ireland scores only just above 400 on the chart, the UK scores above 500, showing the UK delivers approx 25% more bang for the buck than Ireland.

For the third time, it states directly underneath that chart that...

The BFB scores, naturally, are to be regarded as somewhat of an academic exercise. Not least the method of adjusting to the square root of healthcare spent certainly lacks scientific support.

In other words, it's not a reliable indicator of anything.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

In other words, it's not a reliable indicator of anything.

Its a fairly good indicator as they say themselves, otherwise they would not have gone to the trouble of analysing all the info and publishing the results.

In any case, I showed you other info too, which support the above
eg

"The gross current budget for the Health Sector for 2016 is €13.175 billion.

http://health.gov.ie/blog/speeches/b...tatement-2016/

For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/.../overview.aspx

Consider the difference in population size between here and the UK and the taxpayer here is having to throw much more money at healthcare, even though half the population here has private health insurance in addition."

Let me explain further, as you did not grasp the above the first time around. The mid-2014 population estimates show that the UK population was 64.6million
The population of Ireland was only approx 4.6 million. In other words, the population of the UK is 14.04 that of Ireland ....but the NHS budget only is / only costs the taxpayer 8.83 times what the HSE budget is!

Plus in the NHS there are not thousands of people waiting a year to see a consultant

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

Its a fairly good indicator as they say themselves...

They said it is not?

maryishere wrote: »

Let me explain further, as you did not grasp the above the first time around. The mid-2014 population estimates show that the UK population was 64.6million
The population of Ireland was only approx 4.6 million. In other words, the population of the UK is 14.04 that of Ireland ....but the NHS budget only is / only costs the taxpayer 8.83 times what the HSE budget is!

Eh, you're comparing two different currencies there? It's impossible to make meaningful comparisons when using different currencies, which is why such analyses usually involve converting to USD on a purchasing power parity basis.

maryishere wrote: »

Plus in the NHS there are not thousands of people waiting a year to see a consultant

It's been pointed out to you several times now that long waiting times are a serious problem in the NHS, much the same as the HSE.

djpbarry

As if to illustrate the point...

My wife's not feeling great at the moment - she had pretty severe cramps last night. So, she called our GP this morning to make an appointment. She was told there was nothing available until next week, which, to me, begs the question of what's the point in having a GP service at all if it is so inaccessible? Assuming the issue is nothing serious, it will have cleared up by the time the appointment comes around. In the unlikely event that it is serious and her condition deteriorates, we'll go to a hospital, again rendering the GP appointment pointless.

We never had any trouble getting a GP appointment at short notice in Ireland. Granted, we had to pay for the privilege, but I'll take the option of having to pay for treatment over inaccessible "free" treatment any day.

maryishere

djpbarry wrote: »

t's impossible to make meaningful comparisons when using different currencies, which is why such analyses usually involve converting to USD on a purchasing power parity basis.

And when currencies converted, nhs still costs less to run per head of population than the HSE. And medication in pharmacies are considerably cheaper abroad than in Ireland.

djpbarry wrote: »

It's been pointed out to you several times now that long waiting times are a serious problem in the NHS, much the same as the HSE.

Its been pointed out to you several times now, with links on at least one occasion, how waiting times for consultants are much longer in Ireland. There are adds in the Irish media now advising people who are fed up waiting on long waiting lists on how to get their procedures done in other countries.

Anita Blow

maryishere wrote: »

And when currencies converted, nhs still costs less to run per head of population than the HSE. And medication in pharmacies are considerably cheaper abroad than in Ireland.



Its been pointed out to you several times now, with links on at least one occasion, how waiting times for consultants are much longer in Ireland. There are adds in the Irish media now advising people who are fed up waiting on long waiting lists on how to get their procedures done in other countries.

The UK has far greater economies of scale than Ireland given how much greater its population is. There's also a number of other factors which make it difficult to directly compare the costs in running the NHS vs the HSE- population density for one (UK is far more dense so can save money by having a few large centres while Ireland has a far lower density, requiring a larger number of small hospitals)

Also medication prices aren't directly comparable either. The likes of Spain may have cheaper medications at the point of paying, but that's because the government applies their subsidy directly to each medication price but also a lot of their antibiotics are available over the counter which drastically lowers the price. Ireland still applies a subsidy, but in a different way- the drugs payment scheme. So the likes of Spain's system favours people who are occasionally sick, while Ireland's favours those with chronic disease. One way isn't necessarily better than the other. They both have their merits.

Anita Blow

maryishere wrote: »

And when currencies converted, nhs still costs less to run per head of population than the HSE. And medication in pharmacies are considerably cheaper abroad than in Ireland.



Its been pointed out to you several times now, with links on at least one occasion, how waiting times for consultants are much longer in Ireland. There are adds in the Irish media now advising people who are fed up waiting on long waiting lists on how to get their procedures done in other countries.

In general its very difficult to compare waitings lists between countries because all countries use different parameters. For example England, Portugal publishes mean wait times, while Ireland publishes max wait times & Scotland publishes 90th percentile wait times etc etc.

The limited studies out there show that Ireland is not the worst when it comes to elective surgery wait times. We have the same wait time (75 days) as Norway (75 days) and less than Portugal (86 days). For Total Hip Replacement, our wait time (90 days) is less than Australia (100 days) and significantly less than some Canadian provinces (178 days).

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

And when currencies converted, nhs still costs less to run per head of population than the HSE.

That doesn’t automatically make it better.

maryishere wrote: »

Its been pointed out to you several times now, with links on at least one occasion, how waiting times for consultants are much longer in Ireland.

You’ve scarcely supported anything you’ve said with links. But anyway, I imagine waiting times to be seen by a consultant vary substantially depending on area and consultant’s discipline, both in the UK and Ireland.

Regardless, you keep missing the main point. Both the NHS and HSE have their respective pros and cons. The NHS will score better in some areas, the HSE in others. But the take home message is that, relative to healthcare systems in other developed countries, they’re both pretty average, so, getting back to the question in the thread title, I really don’t think the NHS is anything to aspire to. The fact that there is yet another doctors’ strike today should underline that.

maryishere

In any case, I showed you other info too, which support the above
eg

"The gross current budget for the Health Sector for 2016 is €13.175 billion.

http://health.gov.ie/blog/speeches/b...tatement-2016/

For 2015/16, the overall NHS budget was around £116.4 billion

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/.../overview.aspx

Consider the difference in population size between here and the UK and the taxpayer here is having to throw much more money at healthcare, even though half the population here has private health insurance in addition."

Let me explain further, as you did not grasp the above the first time around. The mid-2014 population estimates show that the UK population was 64.6million
The population of Ireland was only approx 4.6 million. In other words, the population of the UK is 14.04 that of Ireland ....but the NHS budget only is / only costs the taxpayer 8.83 times what the HSE budget is!

djpbarry wrote: »

That doesn’t automatically make it better.

The point there was that the NHS costs the UK taxpayer a lot less than the HSE costs the taxpayer here, even after taking exchange rates in to account. You were already shown evidence than the NHS is better than the HSE, as if anyone would doubt that, what with the waiting times here, the scandals about people on trolleys etc.

Anita Blow

I don't think he was contradicting the fact that the NHS budget is only 8x higher despite having a population 14x that of Ireland. The reason that is so is because the NHS can avail of economies of scale that Ireland cannot, and it can benefit from a more centralised structure owing to the higher population density.
Also, that simple correlation is deceptive. The UK still spends more per capita than Ireland on its healthcare (7.6% of government spending, compared with 6% in Ireland)

maryishere

Anita Blow wrote: »

Also, that simple correlation is deceptive. The UK still spends more per capita than Ireland on its healthcare (7.6% of government spending, compared with 6% in Ireland)

7.6% of government spending is deceptive though. ...the UK government for example has a huge defence budget, which is probably reflected in total government spending.


Here is an example of cost differences between UK and Ireland:
‘It’s €2.65 versus €71.97…That’s Just Extraordinary’
Quote: There was another psychiatric drug called [Anti-depressant] Seroquel, the brand name I’m not even going to attempt to pronounce it but the Irish price is €34.80, in other words what the HSE is paying. The NHS is paying €2.9
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/07/28/its-e2-65-versus-e71-97-thats-just-extraordinary/

Anita Blow

maryishere wrote: »

7.6% of government spending is deceptive though. ...the UK government for example has a huge defence budget, which is probably reflected in total government spending.


Here is an example of cost differences between UK and Ireland:
‘It’s €2.65 versus €71.97…That’s Just Extraordinary’
Quote: There was another psychiatric drug called [Anti-depressant] Seroquel, the brand name I’m not even going to attempt to pronounce it but the Irish price is €34.80, in other words what the HSE is paying. The NHS is paying €2.9
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/07/28/its-e2-65-versus-e71-97-thats-just-extraordinary/

% of government spending is the standard comparison used. What they spend on defence is irrelevant- they have a higher tax burden than Ireland to fund their extensive healthcare out of both the NHS & Department of Health budget. If people want a similar health service then they need to accept that we have to pay more tax to fund it.

Like I've said, the prices of drugs differ between countries due to a number of factors. In the case of the NHS:
- A huge proportion of the population receives free prescriptions. The NHS is the purchaser for these millions of people (many multiples the numbers of people on medical cards here) so it has tremendous buying power.

- NICE is the pre-eminent pharmacoeconomics board in the world by far. Drugs companies are willing to take a small hit to get approved by NICE due to the boost in sales & regulatory approval it gets them in other countries (Ireland being one)

- Up front costs for medications are more expensive in Ireland, but the DPS caps that, which favours those chronic disease. Like I said, that's more of a subjective debate than a clear-cut right/wrong debate.

The reality is that yes, prescriptions could be cheaper here and the government should be approving more generics for use, but we will never have the same prices as the UK. A country of 4 million cannot have the same buying power as a country of 60 who is far more important in terms of the success of the drug

djpbarry

maryishere wrote: »

The point there was that the NHS costs the UK taxpayer a lot less than the HSE costs the taxpayer here, even after taking exchange rates in to account.

Depends on what exchange rate you use. Back in July last year, £1.00 would have got you €1.44. Performing your analysis using that rate makes the NHS budget about 12.7 times larger than the HSE’s – not such a big discrepancy anymore, is it?

The point is, once again, that comparing different currencies in such a manner is a bit meaningless.

maryishere wrote: »

You were already shown evidence than the NHS is better than the HSE…

Was I? All I recall is you repeating over and over that you know people who have experienced both - that’s not “evidence”.

maryishere wrote: »

Quote: There was another psychiatric drug called [Anti-depressant] Seroquel, the brand name I’m not even going to attempt to pronounce it but the Irish price is €34.80, in other words what the HSE is paying. The NHS is paying €2.9

Seroquel was developed by AstraZeneca, a major British-based pharma company. As one of the major players in the global pharma industry for some time now, there has been an economic incentive for the UK to heavily subsidise drugs, especially those that are “home-grown”.

maryishere

recipio wrote: »

Good article in the IT today by Prof John Crown ( he is sadly not standing for the Senate ) He blames our sclerotic health service on ultra conservatism in the Dept of Health and I agree. Half of the population also are afraid to do without health insurance which they can barely afford - another legacy of concrete thinking in our mandarin class. I'll bet a lot of people would answer 'yes' to the OPs original question.

Excellent point about "Half of the population also are afraid to do without health insurance which they can barely afford" in Ireland all right. But some people do extremely well out of the health system here.

dpe wrote: »

I lived in the UK for 30 odd years and never had to wait more than a couple of days for a GP appointment, and I lived in places as diverse as Hull, Manchester, London, Oxford, Marlborough. It didn't matter. Having tried the NHS and HSE, there's no comparison, certainly not at the free care stage (my wife had direct comparison of the HSE and NHS maternity systems and it costs about €4000 to get to the same base level of care as the free NHS service, and even then you don't get as many scans or a guaranteed private room).

The individual doctors in Ireland are just as good as the UK, but the support systems aren't in the same league.

Thats the general consensus among most people all right.

djpbarry wrote: »

Depends on what exchange rate you use. Back in July last year, £1.00 would have got you €1.44. Performing your analysis using that rate makes the NHS budget about 12.7 times larger than the HSE’s – not such a big discrepancy anymore, is it?

July last year was the currency peak in the exchange rates. Fairer to use an average exchange rate over a number of years.

djpbarry wrote: »

Was I? .

Yes, you were given evidence from a report a few pages back the NHS is better than our system.

djpbarry wrote: »

As one of the major players in the global pharma industry for some time now, there has been an economic incentive for the UK to heavily subsidise drugs, especially those that are “home-grown”.

I do not think "subsidy" is the reason drugs are so much cheaper in the UK, Spain, France etc compared to Ireland. I think it would be against EC rules for an EC country to subsidise its own manufacrturing base anyway.


And if seiously you think there is an economic incentive for countries which are "major players" in the "global pharma industry " to "subsidise drugs" as you claim, how come drugs are not cheaper in Ireland so? After all, Ireland has an extremely strong reputation for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing. These industries are well developed and growing strongly throughout the country – Ireland currently hosts 9 of the world’s top 10 pharmaceutical companies and 18 of the top 25 medtech companies.;)