|
|
I don't have any personal experience of healthcare in other European countries but, just looking at Germany, they have a health service that's part funded by Statutory Health Insurance and Private Health Insurance, and turns over around 11.6% of GDP (in 2010 anyway);
Healthcare in Germany - Wikipedia
The turnover of the health sector was about US$368.78 billion (€287.3 billion) in 2010, equivalent to 11.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and about US$4,505 (€3,510) per capita.[7] According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.[8] In 2004 Germany ranked thirtieth in the world in life expectancy (78 years for men). It had a very low infant mortality rate (4.7 per 1,000 live births), and it was tied for eighth place in the number of practicing physicians, at 3.3 per 1,000 persons. In 2001 total spending on health amounted to 10.8 percent of gross domestic product.[9]
According to the Euro health consumer index, which placed it in seventh position in its 2015 survey, Germany has long had the most restriction-free and consumer-oriented healthcare system in Europe. Patients are allowed to seek almost any type of care they wish whenever they want it.[10]The governmental health system in Germany is currently keeping a record reserve of more than €18,000,000,000 which makes it one of the healthiest healthcare systems in the world.[11]
In contrast, the UK is primarily state funded, and spends less per capita than other countries;
Health care in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
"The total expenditure on healthcare as a proportion of GDP in 2013 was 8.5%, below the OECD average of 8.9% and considerably less than comparable economies such as France (10.9%), Germany (11.0%), Netherlands (11.1%), Switzerland (11.1%) and the USA (16.4%).[13] The percentage of healthcare provided directly by the state is higher than most European countries, which have insurance-based healthcare with the state providing for those who cannot afford insurance.[14][15] In 2017 the UK spent £2,989 per person on healthcare, the second lowest of the Group of Seven, but around the median for members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [16]"
With regards to the OP, I think people see the NHS as such a valuable (as in personally valuable) asset because it is there for everyone, regardless of their social/financial standing and doesn't penalise those who can't afford personal private medical healthcare. As a result, it is certainly stretched and like many Government bodies is definitely imbalanced with regards to job roles and where the funding goes. As an example, my wife is a dialysis RGN working in a large hospital in the North West. The ward she works on regularly floods due to the pipework to the dialysis machines being very old and needing regular repair. Behind a number of beds there are buckets to catch the leaking water from the machines, and she regularly goes onto the ward for an early start shift to find water running down the walls from pipes in the ceiling. This has been flagged numerous times to the Hospital management as a health risk, but is only ever addressed with temporary repairs as there is apparently no money available. In contrast, the A&E department was completely rebuilt/refitted around 6 years' ago with a glass atrium/entrance and is in excellent order. When Johnson announced the new round of funding for hospitals a few weeks ago, her hospital was awarded £18m and, rather than address the wards (as there are many like my wife's), the Hospital Management have decided to renovate the A&E department again, as it is the showpiece entrance to the hospital! To me, this is an example of both mis-management of funds and the bigger problems not being financially viable to rectify with the funds available. Whilst the A&E department will look great, the other 95% of the actual hospital behind that facade will be left to fall apart. |
|
Author: GadgetObsessed
26-11-2019 00:36:38