'The people I hung out with while there were bitter towards the required TV licenses and "religion" for NHS in public discourse. Curious how widespread this attitude is.'
No, agreed. The NHS is very popular amongst the majority:
- Seventy-seven per cent of the public believe the NHS should be maintained in its current form. This level of support has remained consistent over almost two decades despite widespread social, economic and political change.
- Around 90 per cent of people support the founding principles of the NHS, indicating that these principles are just as relevant today as when the NHS was established.
- A clear majority (66 per cent) of adults are willing to pay more of their own taxes to fund the NHS, underlining growing support among the public for tax rises to increase NHS funding.[1]
Absolutely, but at least when I lived in England everybody was also very opinionated about how CurrentGovernment ruining it, how it used to be so much better and how you need to to X right now to fix it.
I have met a few people who ranted about the NHS and TV Licenses - a very small minority but they definitely do exist. Often the type who live abroad because the UK has, in their opinion, too many immigrants.
Edit: I'm not suggesting that either the BBC or the NHS are above criticism - far from it. But I'd rather criticism was based on facts and not what the Daily Mail reports.
Not always - have heard those views from people back in the UK from their tax-exiles as well.
Mind you - I'm only talking about a handful of people but the ones I did meet who thought that way were at such a level of foaming at the mouth lunacy I can't really forget them. I did memorably try and explain to one crowd why I was quite happy with not being able to shoot trespassers on my lawn but I think I was regarded as a dangerous communist after that.
NB Not had any conversations like that for 10+ years...
Thee is a wing of UKIP who want usa style gunlaws or a return to the pre 1930's rules or lack of - there is a reason the Shelby's in peaky blinders can own SMG's and LMG's
Dropped in to say that too - that's pretty unusual. The vast majority of Brits think the NHS is a great thing, don't really care about the TV license and love the BBC.
I get that the NHS has this 'sacred cow' thing going on, where it's almost impossible to criticise and even proposing much change must be done tactfully... but this is because we think it's great, if underfunded.
'The people I hung out with while there were bitter towards the required TV licenses and "religion" for NHS in public discourse. Curious how widespread this attitude is.'
I think its fair to say that a person's views on public service broadcasting and public healthcare, i.e. the TV Licence (which funds the BBC) and the NHS, correspond to where they are on the political spectrum - the further right are openly critical, the moderate right are insincerely supportive, and the centre and left are openly and genuinely supportive. Based on this, it sounds like the author was hanging out with some people from the far right, in which case this would not be hugely widespread in the UK as a whole.
Not sure if you'd call them "far right" exactly, but the tech-bro super-libertarian (think "taxes are theft") types also tend to complain about the TV licence fee and the NHS...
They hope they don't need it, but if you're getting operated on in an expensive private hospital and something goes badly wrong, or if you just fall down the stairs while you're there, guess what they do: they dial 999[1] and an ambulance comes round from the real hospital. And you won't be charged[2] for that service. Hooray for the NHS.[3]
[1] You can dial 112 instead if you prefer.
[2] Unless the private hospital charges you an admin fee for calling the ambulance for you, which I wouldn't put past those bastards. If it was profitable to slowly torture you to death that's exactly what they'd do to you. Personally I prefer to be treated by someone on a fixed salary who just wants to do the best they can with the resources available to them while earning the respect of their colleagues.
[3] This has turned into a bit of a rant, but I suppose it gives people a feel for the British NHS "religion".
The issue with British NHS religion is not that "the national healthcare shouldn't be free", it's that 95% of British population don't even want to discuss what's wrong with the NHS in the first place.
You were the first to have it and now you messed it up, compared to most of the european countries.
Believe me we know what's wrong with it, we're just careful to criticise it. The root of all those problems is a lack of cash. The current govt. is de-funding it to breaking point so they can bring in private contractors.
Of course, that private health insurance will generally dump them straight back onto the NHS as soon as they can describe an issue as “chronic” or it gets too complicated for them to want to pay for. Good quality healthcare plans (vs health insurance for acute events) doesn’t exist in the U.K.
Often it's the same doctor who will refer you to themself in the NHS after an initial private consultation if they work out that the insurance company isn't going to pay enough for your treatment to make it worthwhile.
They got rid of the TV licensing in NL a while ago, since most people have cable, sattelite, or none of the above. We still have (and, imo, need) public channels and broadcasters, but they're paid from regular taxes now.
For political reasons the UK's TV license is collected by (a third party contractor on behalf of) the BBC, but the money doesn't actually go directly to the BBC, it goes to central government, they carve it up and send some to the BBC.
Lots of odd things are funded with this money, including for example local newspaper reporters at for-profit newspapers (!) but the name and forcing the BBC to actually collect it mean in the public consciousness it's all blamed on the BBC.
Now, Public Service Broadcasting is _distinct_ from having central government revenue funding a broadcaster as happens for the BBC. All UK terrestrial TV is "Public Service Broadcasting" and so are the old US TV networks. PSB means you're using up some finite public resource (radio bandwidth) and so you need to "give back" to the public. It's pretty common to require a daily news broadcast and to have other constraints "for the good of the public" e.g. a non-English country might require at least 10 hours per week of the local language even though viewers would really just prefer wall-to-wall imported soap operas in English or whatever.
As well as the internationally famous BBC, Britain also has "Channel 4" which owns the Film Production company Film4 that made or co-made films you've probably enjoyed (e.g. "Trainspotting", "12 Years a Slave"). Channel 4 is a PSB, but more importantly it's publicly owned. It operates more like a for-profit television company (e.g. advertising) except the money goes back into making TV and it has a publicly controlled mission to be er, challenging. So e.g. the BBC went "Hey, half the population are women, so it's crazy to have all these panel discussion shows with 6 men and no women. From now on, if your show has a panel discussion it needs either a woman or a sign-off explaining why there weren't any women" but C4 is the kind of place where they go "Hang on, there totally must be Muslim lesbians, right? Let's do a show about the Muslim lesbian dating scene, so there's this whole tolerance angle but also it has hot women kissing each other".
The NHS is fine to criticise.
But if someone says the solution to its issues are to sell the profitable parts to the friends and family of conservative politicians.
[Immigrant in UK] I'll never forget at one party/gathering where in a conversation I proposed that some base charge should be applied to those who book appointments with their GP and don't show up. I suggested a fiver (which I think is very low tbh). I was then subject to the most unexpected arguments, accusations and outrage! I truly got it then that the NHS is the real state religion in Britain.
Because when you start charging, the price will only go up.
University used to be free in the UK.
Then tuition fees at University started at £1000ish a year, went up to about £3000, and is now £9000. All in about 10 years.
Also small fees like these affect the poor more than the well off. If I miss an appointment and it costs me £5, I wouldn't miss the money.
A quick search apparently shows that a quarter of British households have less than £100 in savings. [0]
When that's 5% of their money that's just punishing the poor.
I'll say "Well they shouldn't miss the appointment, they can cancel if they can't make it"
To which you'll reply something about people and last minute, completely unavoidable things which prevent appointments being made.
To which, I'll reply that blah blah and on and on.
I've learned there's no point. I don't think fees for that are abnormal (have seen them and their handling of scenarios in operation in other countries to no big alarm) but it's against NHS dogma! Don't get me wrong, I like the NHS but there's seriously zealot-esque thinking towards it from many corners. It's not a case of "totally free" or the USA.
But as said, I'm an immigrant and have learned to keep quite on such matters.
First off, apologies. I mean more of a rigid, defensiveness in general among British people? Do you know what I mean? No offense meant and I withdraw that.
And the incident I described what started due to one of the girls, a receptionist in a GP, bemoaning how many missed appointments they have and what a backlog it begets. People agreed. Just now I checked my doctor's online portal and I can't get an appointment for over two weeks (they advise to ring up at 8 on the morning if it#s an emergency and they'll try to fit you in). Unfortunately recently I had cause to have 6 appointments over a two week period, I saw a lot of names being called and no-one attending.
> If someone doesn't show they move onto the next person.
This presumes that people without an appointment, just hang around the waiting area... As said the backlog grows.
Yeah, there's a real .. bimodality? to NHS service users. A small fraction of people, usually elderly and/or disabled, with essentially infinite health problems, take up most of the time. Everyone else has to fit in around them.
Often their inability to keep appointments is inextricably linked to the medical condition, too - either physical or mental. Often it's linked to poverty or insecure living too.
We could start trying to price them out, which will at the margin result in someone dying of a preventable condition. This seems to be becoming more politically acceptable (see benefits system, food banks, refugees etc), but it's also something people are right to be squeamish about.
I can see your argument, although while £216m is a lot of money it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the NHS's total budget (about 0.2%).
Personally, I think the situation can be improved by more education. I think a fine would unfairly affect the less well off, not only because it would be a much more significant amount to them but because those are the same people who are more likely to have unforseen circumstances that mean they can't make an appointment, such as a job where they might just change your shift with little/no notice.
I think the actual booking system could fix a lot of these issues at most surgeries, too. My last surgery held back 75% of appointments such that you couldn't book them until the day of the appointment. This meant that you could almost always get a same day appointment as long as you called at 8:30am, and also meant you probably had a much better idea of whether you were going to be able to make that appointment or not. People who needed to get an advance appointment could still do so, and would have to wait a couple of weeks usually but that's no worse than most other places. It really did seem to fix a lot of the problems I've seen - I don't know why more places don't do it.
> but it's against NHS dogma...there's seriously zealot-esque thinking towards it
It's not dogma but yes it could be classed as zealotry, and not in a derogatory way. There are worse things to be a zealot about than public health. I cherish one part of our country that actually has written, founding principles.
They shaped what the NHS has been for over half a century, and what many people still want the NHS to be.
It's funny because they already pay a prescription charge (small fixed fee regardless of the contents of the prescription) at a pharmacy and there aren't enough dentists taking NHS patients for everybody to avoid paying for private dental services. So it isn't as if it is all literally free. I guess the difference is the NHS logo on the door.
It isn't if you have the certificate saying you proved you can't afford this sort of thing. Most NHS dentists have the paperwork and posters advertising it if you are somehow unaware those exist. Everything is free if you're both poor AND fill out all the paperwork.
There is a debate to be had about whether "make poor people fill out paperwork" is a justifiable approach, but it doesn't have to cost you £20 for the check-up.
I was going to do this when I was a student and the form was so long and convoluted I decided to just pay. It all seemed just slightly designed to stop you claiming it.
I filled that form out too. It wasn't the quickest, but it wasn't difficult either. Definitely didn't get the impression that it was some kind of barrier.
If someone emits a criticism it MUST mean that they want "an American system" and "to sell the profitable parts to the friends and family of conservative politicians" because, of course, that's the only alternative to the current situation...
So it's fine to criticise as long as the criticism is limited to suggesting that perhaps the hospital's car park could be slightly cheaper, if that's not too much bother, please, sorry.
Hence why people either say that everything's great or keep quiet.
Rather like Brexit and the various "Lexit" plans, regardless of what people might want or might be better under a different system, what you're going to get in practice is some kind of privatised system. We're a very long way from being able to safely discuss progressive improvements.
(More funding would be hugely popular, as the Brexit A/B testers discovered with the "£350m for the NHS" bus...)
I live here and don't pay the TV license. I don't consume BBC content, and dislike how they try and send angry letters for not paying for something I don't use (the BBC FireTV app runs at about 6 frames a second and is frustrating to use). Imagine if Netflix was claimed to be 'mandatory' and they could enter your home to check you're 'really' not using Netflix.
The NHS is popular, and people like it, but it's also very inefficient and it can become a political nightmare for anyone who tries to address that.
Given the health results for the amount we pay I think the NHS is actually very efficient - most of the problems with the NHS seem to have come about through ideologically motivated meddling and an an unwillingness to resource it properly.
I should perhaps get some real stats, but it seems almost everyone in the UK has some story of NHS staff not caring about their own performance. I waited three hours in urgent care once when the nurse in charge said she couldn't do anything without a scan - the front desk nurse could have said the same thing. I also has whooping cough and could have killed a friend's infant due to an NHS doctor that didn't bother to read national bulletins.
> Imagine if Netflix was claimed to be 'mandatory' and they could enter your home to check you're really not using Netflix.
Poor analogy, Netflix would also have to be owned but not funded by US Govt.
TV licence people can't exactly kick in the front door and search you for broadcast reception equipment, they're not the police, more like slightly more official bailiffs. They may threaten you with all sorts of legal toil but their powers are quite limited, they rely on their reputation to scare you into submission.
> Netflix would also have to be owned but not funded by US Govt.
Well yes, that's part of the scenario. That doesnt dismiss the point there's a news and entertainment company that thinks everyone watches their content and therefore sends them angry threats
Don't bailiffs need to have been allowed to cross the threshold of the premises (ie. you open the door to them and then they prevent you from closing the door)? It's illegal for them to kick your door in.
I mean't more official in that TV licence people work for a government owned organisation. Though I hadn't realised they didn't even have bailiff powers.
1. Hardly any way to see a GP outside work hours, so you have to take time off.
2. Cannot see a GP near to where you work, it has to be near to where you live. Which, combined with point 1, is a pain.
3. If you don't use the NHS and go see a private GP instead (which makes economic sense given how much your time off costs vs a private GP costs), you still have to pay for it.
4. Hard to get an appointment at short notice; registration is a pain and very inconvenient.
5. Unless you are dying, they are unlikely to offer any real help/proper tests, but then again that depends on individual GP and is probably not that different between NHS/private.
6. No personal accountability for your health. You end up paying for all the clowns that drink too much on a Friday night and end up in an ambulance and other people that do not take care of their health. Old people seem to go to a GP just because they are lonely.
I have not had to use NHS hospitals luckily, but I am guessing if you are not dying the wait times could be bad.
But these are all great efficiencies. It’s a total waste of money to optimise gp locations for people that are well enough to go to work and can afford a private gp if they want it.
If you’re really sick you’ll be seen very quickly, and you’ll be extremely glad the doctors aren’t busy pandering to people with minor conditions.
That's not inefficiency, it's quality. Anyone who has lived in France for example will tell you that the NHS isn't that good. However, it's very cheap. Hence the efficiency
There are inefficiencies in the NHS. Mostly due to it not actually being national, but regional. NHS is split into england, wales, scotland and NI. Then in eact country a county will be split up again into Primary Care Trusts, which cover between 100k-500k people.
This leads to oddities like there is a national contract for medical staff (nurses, surgeons and doctors etc) but hundreds of different employers.
Each PCT negotiates it's own suppliers, and has a number of stakeholders who are normally GPs. Its all totally ballsed up.
It can cause problems if you have serious conditions and you are having to be treated in two or three trusts eg my local hospital cant do all my bloods.
The outsourced local Patient transport fiasco in my trust caused no end of problems people missing dialysis treatments etc.
Yeah, there's a disparate mix of up to date tech and unpatched Windows XP systems, since there's no centralised tech management - some trusts care about patient data and external threats, others don't.
Not very widespread at all in my experience.