Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I’m on the fence, leaning towards legalisation provided the proper safeguards are in place.
That said, I’ve heard plenty of stories about the misapplication of Canada’s assisted dying policy that make me nervous.
In 2022, 4.1% of all Canadian deaths were due to euthanasia.
"The chancellor insisted there would be a clear distinction between the NWF and GB Energy, another publicly owned company proposed by Labour. While GB Energy will focus on the “production of clean, low carbon energy”, investment made via the NWF will seek to deploy £1.8bn to ports, £1.5bn for gigafactories including for electric vehicles, £2.5bn to clean steel, £1bn for carbon capture and £500m to green hydrogen."
It always makes me wonder why we don't invest in ourselves to do these things rather than paying corporations and billionaires to do them instead and then charge us a premium for the pleasure.
Is this just about socializing the losses ?
That's what it appears to be. We already socialize losses as well so this could be really bad.
Great post. I am a GP and look after a nursing home myself with a weekly MDT and it’s insane how much work comes up from there every week. The number of visits, calls and resources used up is so difficult for anyone else to comprehend
Weekly MDTs are a great idea and it looks like our GPs are moving in that direction very soon, divvying up the local care homes between them. Which makes sense, as our residents are currently with 8 different surgeries. Plus, it's a proactive measure, meaning a lot of issues will get noticed before they escalate.
We had a great initiative here, whereby an Integrated Care Team, led by a GP and a geriatric consultant from the hospital, came to review residents holistically. They looked at the residents' medical history, medications, falls history, diet and fluid intake, mobility, pressure areas, layout of their room, even their footwear. All with a view to targeting support directly where it was needed. I thought it was brilliant. But they just pulled the plug on it a month ago, saying that it didn't represent good value for money.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...at-john-bercow-tried-to-overturn-brexit-video
A little preview of what this chancer will almost certainly be doing for the next 5 years.
A little preview of what this chancer will almost certainly be doing for the next 5 years.
You've got to take those numbers into context. There absolutely should be some people put off by the cost, that's the entire point. Got a sniffle? Don't go to your GP. Scraped your arm? Stay away from A&E. There is none of that in the UK and any doctor will tell you people do turn up for those things. Being blunt in many areas the UK needs to stop disproportionately pandering to the bottom percent of society if it is going to make any progress for the rest.
And i'd be interested to know how they came to the conclusion that the cost of a completely free system put 4% of people off.
Crikey.
Yea man, feck the poor, amirite
No. They should be able not to pay VAT on private school fees. Give them something to aspire to.
I don't think you understand the relationship between healthcare and economic productivity.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...oritizing-health-could-help-rebuild-economies
Last edited:
It's not the poor I'm referring to.
I'm not sure what's that's got to do with what i wrote?
What did you mean then? Because that's what it sounds like to everyone else.
Am extra sentence or several to explain what you do mean, would be handy.
Not sure I understand the confusion. A big part of charging a nominal fee is to put off hypochondriacs or at least make people think twice about going to see their GP about a bruise or scratch.
If the fee puts off 4% from ever seeking medical attention maybe that's the price we pay. Obviously you have to ensure there are safety nets so the poorest don't neglect help because of cost fears. You also try to educate those that don't go and see their GPs for anything now anyway -it's a problem already- about serious symptoms to look out for.
And the vast majority were old people very close to the end of life so merely had their life shortened slightly to avoid unnecesary pain and suffering. Also in the vast majority of cases where palliative care was available it was used first and of the 23% who didn't 20% declined it (3% unavailable), before assisted euthanasia, presumably right at the end. So it sounds like Canada is using it exactly as it should be. A normal way for people to die a dignified death.
For the love of God, what’s wrong with this now?
It’s simple maths - a healthier nation, able to resolve medical issues quicker, is a more productive nation. Fewer sick days, fewer health-related absences, fewer long-term absences due to chronic issues.
This is the short-sightedness of the right, thinking that crippling our only access to healthcare will somehow help people, or that they ‘just need to work through’ the pain/issues they’re dealing with.
A top notch NHS pays for itself in the subsequent financial savings made in the workplaces up and down the country.
Because poor people and hypochondriacs are also workers and consumers and needs access to healthcare. There must be other ways to stop them allegedly clogging up the system than charging a fee.
While the majority of assisted dying cases are merely allowing people to die with dignity a little earlier than they would have anyway, there are clearly some unsettling examples from Canada. Maybe that’s to be expected with any new law?
This (long) article — from someone who is generally pro-euthanasia — is what gave me pause:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-perverse-incentives-of-euthanasia
In theory, I’m in favour of legalised assisted dying. If/when I get old and seriously ill, I’d like to have the option to choose when to die rather than be forced to suffer. But I don’t want to be pressured into it.
Surely you can see how diverting the disproportionate amount of money and attention going towards those who abuse or overuse the system will improve overall outcomes.
Is there another health system that is totally free? Even the Scandi countries have co pay.
Those who take the piss one way or another. Might be poor, might not. Goes beyond healthcare and the UK is far too easy on those people to the detriment of everybody else.
You should probably edit your post so that's more clear, because it certainly does not read as people who take the piss and absolutely reads as if you're talking about poor people.
He is. He's just sort of backpedalling a bit now.
I’m genuinely confused about why so many people can’t wrap their heads round this. Classic example of ideology trumping common sense. As it stands, the NHS is so fecking busy that people are put off by how hard it is to see someone. So let’s not pretend that the current system means everyone gets the access they need to begin with.
Reading this thread I get the impression people have basically given up on the concept of getting an appointment to see their GP. Which is fecking nuts. But hey, let’s all shout down proposals which might free up GP’s time.
Last edited:
Yep, that was my read on it too.
And what's the safety net and how much would that cost to administer? Often the answer is that it costs more. Would it just shift people to A&E?
It just feels very typical Telegraph type politics, escalating an exception issue to punish the proles when the focus and fix is elsewhere.
You'd need to figure out the answer to all these questions before changing anything. Just like any other change, you need to consider costs and consequences. But something has to change. And you need to open minded about all the possible solutions. Because sticking your heads in the sand and/or coming up with ideologically motivated red lines is going to hinder, rather than help, fix a system that is currently broken.
A fee obviously won't put off hypochondriacs more than other people, because the whole point is that they think they're sick. Hypochondriacs will be put off if they're poor, just like the rest of the population.
The point of paying is to discourage people from using the service. The people discouraged will be the ones who value a visit at equal to or greater than zero pounds, but below whatever the fee is. Generalized, people value goods based on two things: 1) their preferences, i.e. how much they'd like to use health services relative to all other available goods. 2) their budget.
Getting people to pay turns away two groups, those who are just on the fence about going to the doctor, and poor people. You can try things to make poor people to show up anyway, but that's rarely politically flashy and it'll at best just sort of work.
The point of paying is to discourage people from using the service. The people discouraged will be the ones who value a visit at equal to or greater than zero pounds, but below whatever the fee is. Generalized, people value goods based on two things: 1) their preferences, i.e. how much they'd like to use health services relative to all other available goods. 2) their budget.
Getting people to pay turns away two groups, those who are just on the fence about going to the doctor, and poor people. You can try things to make poor people to show up anyway, but that's rarely politically flashy and it'll at best just sort of work.
Hmmm...
That 4% figure is the amount of people put off from seeking healthcare in the UK without charging at the point of access, I imagine it is prescription charges that worry them, so people who are living hand to mouth.
Once you start charging like say France does, that figure rises to 18%, that's almost a fifth of the population. Look at what has happened with dentistry in the UK, when people can not get an NHS dentist and have to pay https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68228322
I'm all for paying more for our health service but it needs to be through NI and taxes, not having to find the money to pay up when you need it the most.
@NotThatSoph is right though, I think. Hypochondria is an anxiety condition, it's not someone faking for the hell of it or someone using A&E for minor bumps and scratches.
The UK introduced the 111 phone line to try and take pressure off A&E and GPs and it has certainly stopped me making a couple of visits in the past. But using a financial penalty to stop people accessing healthcare seems very wrong and potentially dangerous for the very poorest who due to their circumstances often have the worst health outcomes already.
Don't know where that 18% comes from (never met anyone who won't go to a GP let alone 1 person in 5). You talk about prescription charges putting off Uk people but prescriptions are free as I said in France. Very dubious figures. Whereas a GP appointment would cost you a maximum of €8 (usually nothing) which is less than one item on a UK prescription.
Last edited:
Except that doesn't happen in any of the countries that have a co pay system. Their healthcare systems and health outcomes are overall better, not worse, and poor people are not disproportionately impacted because it's all means tested. All that happens in practice is people consider whether they really need to see a doctor or wait a day or two to see if their ailment gets better. These ideological entrenched viewpoints need to go away or the NHS will eventually collapse under its own weight.
It's from a study carried out in the US, New Zealand, France, Germany, Netherlands, Australia, UK, Switzerland, Canada, Norway and Sweden by the Commonwealth Fund. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31797770
EDIT: it's a survey from 2015, so a bit out of date, but a more recent one shows that number has gone upto 25.4% and is mainly, people who live alone, are unemployed or women. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10105192/
Of course it happens. And no, it's not all means tested. In Norway, for instance, it's capped but not means tested (some local areas have means tested policies on top of this, but they're not well-known and typically not used).
I live in one of the richest countries in the world, with extremely cheap healthcare, and I personally know several people who go without needed healthcare because of costs. It's extremely dumb to say that it doesn't happen. What you mean to say is that it does of course happen, but that it's worth it.