This infographic outlines the key facts about the relationship between the NHS and the European Union.
The referendum on EU membership took place on the 23rd June, with UK opting for a leave vote with a majority of 52%. What happens now and what the consequences may be is a subject of heated debate. An important consideration is the future of the National Health Service.
Although “Leave” campaigners believe that the NHS will be better off now outside the EU, recent government figures suggest that Brexit will result in a loss to public services of £36bn a year, an amount that could leave the NHS with a funding black hole.
The impact of Brexit is open to debate and nobody can really forecast how the NHS is going to fare. As debate rages on, we have collected this data from a number of sources to bring you what’s important about the NHS and the European Union: The Facts.
Like this infographic? Paste the embed code below to share it!
Brexit is not about economics or the NHS, it is about national sovereignty and accountability. The infographics are interesting but just highlight what a bureaucratic monster the NHS is, begging the question that if the NHS is the "envy of the world", why have so few other nations sought to emulate it?
Sorry, Mr. de Havilland, what you are saying is nonsense. I live in America, where the proportion of the GNP spent on health is 16 per cent; the NHS costs about 8. If you want to see a bureaucracy look at the American system. It is also fraud-ridden because it is based on private profit.. France has a system somewhat similar to the NHS and the last time I had experience of it it was terrific – but then it has been funded well. There are plenty of people who want to privatise everything in sight, but mainly because they want to profit from it personally. The idea of a system designed for every citizen is morally and ethically the right course, but it has to be funded to give a good service, which is not at the moment the case.. 8 percent, it turns out, is actually under-funding the system.
I have been hospitalised once in the USA and once broke my arm in France. The US system is not a contra-example of the NHS because it is a highly regulated oligopoly, almost the worst of both world: neither truly free market not truly state run, carefully picking the worst aspects of both.
France however does NOT have a full blown socialist healthcare system like the NHS (and France is hardly a bastion of free market capitalism), it is very much a hybrid in which you pay for many aspects of what you get (hence they have better survival rates for many ailments than the NHS does and waiting times are much shorter).
And as for bureaucracy, the NHS is the world's fifth largest employer for gawds sake! It is bureaucratic beyond belief! My experiences of the NHS are it has many dedicated people, but the same is true of every healthcare system everywhere. Treatment in emergency rooms is first rate, efficient and first world. But some wards are like third world slums staffed by indifferent carers whose English is often unintelligible. That is the real NHS beyond the fond propaganda of people who *want* it to be the 'envy of the world'.
Sorry this is not bias free. Firstly why does the infographic on 'NHS Doctors where do they come from?' ignore non-EU medics such as Indians? Secondly British visitors to Spain may cost the Spanish NHS more than the other way around, but these numbers prove the case – the figures are based on the charges made make to the visitors' national government. the NHS is poor at identifying and billing for overseas visitors, the Spanish system is not.
Rhanrott is right in the most important statistic – with just 8% of GDP the NHS delivers far and away the best value for money of any 'advanced' country's health system – the US spend is virtually double the UK – and major European countries spend approximately 50% more. It is not surprising that with such relatively low levels of spend the NHS is bursting at the seams and not delivering top of the league performance in all areas – it needs more money – probably at least 2% more of GDP. That was where is was back in 2008 – remember that – pre Tory ideology – short waiting lists – highest ever customer satisfaction. Give it the money and it would still be the most efficient healthcare system in the world – and deliver the best outcomes. Yes it is an enormous organisation – yes it is a nightmare to run – that is partly because it is no longer planned and managed as a coherent entity or effectively integrated with social care – but it has been cut up into nonsensical little bits that are supposed to compete with each other (when they need to cooperate to deliver excellent patient experiences) and fight off predatory private competitors who cherry pick the bits they want – bidding to win and then operating to maximise profits – inevitably. I am not suggesting the NHS does not need major reform ( and always will) and definitely needs more money. I am however suggesting that there is no evidence that greater privatisation would lead to improved health outcomes or greater efficiencies or better access by the population as a whole. There is masses of evidence to the contrary. Though there is overwhelming evidence that it would lead to some more highly valued quoted companies on the FTSE and overseas making more profits and paying astronomically high CEO and board salaries and benefits.
Well said! The US system is inefficient and open to cheating, big time. You have to check every settlement email from your insurer carefully to make sure the doctor has charged a reasonable amount. The system is very bureaucratic; at it's best it is technically/medically excellent , but if you don't live in a big city you have a problem. The best bit of it is Medicare (for people over 62) that operates a bit like the NHS and is very efficient . They should have extended that to a wider part of the population, but the insurance companies and the doctors resisted that – too much money is at stake.
After researching "medigo", part of their funding payments come from healthcare tourism, so as with any argument or political matter, where are the figures coming from and, of course, they will be skewed in favour of their opinion, as they will benefit from the argument they are trying to make? I'm still firmly on the fence at the moment and going to need to do some more researching of my own.
my now American Wife used to visit me from America and occasionally had to use the nhs. The NHS usually doesn't charge, you actually have to ask to be charged you are at no point ever questioned or asked to see insurance, in fact we have even been told in hospital that they don't charge for the service. Actual figures the NHS charges seem made up. Doctor visit £0 – £20 depending on the receptionist. Hospital inpatient £0, A&E £0, prescriptions same NHS charge as anyone else.
The NHS doesn't make any money from foreigners as it doesn't charge them anything!