Mister Bump UK

Fandango’s Provocative Question (28 June 2023)

Prompt image for the Fandango's Provocative Question prompt

Today, Fandango provocatively asks:

From your personal experience with the health care delivery system where you live, how would you rate it over all? How about from the specific perspectives of accessibility/availability, the costs to you, and the quality of those health care services you’ve received.

It’s not really how I’d rate it. There are objective league tables which compare things like the amount invested in our health systems, number of health professionals, survivability of certain major diseases etc, and the UK is consistently among the lowest in all of these.

So what’s the answer? More investment? Well, underinvestment has certainly been a problem here, but there again, people consistently vote for politicians who promise lower taxes, so the majority of people are obviously happy with this underinvestment.

Not so long ago ambulances made the headlines here. One could wait an hour or more for an ambulance, even with serious illnesses like heart attacks or strokes. It hasn’t abated. One of my ninety-something Age UK clients waited eight hours for an ambulance after a fall. That’s a brilliant example, because while we all tut, things should be better, not many of us actually need ambulances. Bunker mentality. As long as it’s not affecting me, I don’t care enough to do anything about it. Or to elect someone who will.

It’s the same with the health system as a whole. Most voters don’t use the health service much, especially when younger, so aren’t prepared to pay for something they don’t use. It’s ironic because when they finally need the health service, it’s too late to do anything about the standard of care they’ll receive.

27 comments

  2. A guy at work had a heart attack, waited six weeks for bypass surgery. Hubby need his hernia fixed. Got in after two weeks. Just have to find the doctor who is bypassing the system here

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    • Healthcare is a bottomless pit, though. However much a government (and therefore taxpayers) gives, it will not be “enough”. Because there are always more things to treat.

      But I fo think it would be appropriate to discuss the scope of the care health systems provide, i.e. we will treat X but not Y. That’s how health systems already work, but it is a case of being open about it and discussing it. Especially with publicly-funded systems. Should the public cover things like smoking-related conditions, where arguably the person has brought the condition upon themselves?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. Don’t get me started. America’s “health care system” is built around the insurance companies and only exists to make the top tier wealthier, while the poor and middle class go bankrupt and homeless because we can’t pay the premiums.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • But it’s not just funding (we basically pay insurance too, but it’s to the government). That you do pay for it directly should mean you get better health services, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. No American I know is happy with your system.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  7. Very true. The amount of people I’ve heard say: “things need to seriously change,” who also don’t believe in voting or doing any kind of advocating to make a difference is crazy. Sometimes it takes a tragic accident like waiting nine hours for an ambulance for people to actually start fighting for change (which it shouldn’t).

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment