Talk:National Health Service

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment

Note: To discuss the article National Health Service (England), please see Talk:National Health Service (England). this article is about the general concept of National Health Service.
Then it should appropriately described as such and not written as if there is a single NHS in the UK which there never has been. The Scottish NHS has always been separate, not just organisationally but also in legislation. This article has returned to its previous erroneous state of of imagining a single NHS in the UK; something that was corrected when separate articles were created for the Welsh and Scottish NHSs and the Northern Irish health system (not known as an "NHS").--MBRZ48 (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History

I notice a lot of the history of the NHS and the motivations behind its creation - which equally applies to the rest of the UK - is displayed on the NHS England page, with scant information provided on, for example, the NHS Scotland page - and even less here.

I would like to gauge approval for expanding this article to cover the motivations behind the creation of a national health service in the UK, whilst providing a summary 'main article' link on each of the four NHSs' pages. --Breadandcheese (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a very sensible approach. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to give a differing view, but the claim "which equally applies to the rest of the UK" is not entirely an accurate picture of the history. I think a better idea would be to add links from this article to the articles 'History of NHS Scotland', History of the NHS' etc Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise for giving a divergent opinion! It is just that neither the NHS Scotland page or this general NHS page makes mention of, for example, the Beveridge Report, the role of Bevan or the motivations behind the creation of an institution which has been so significant in UK history. One shouldn't have to go to the NHS in England page to find out this information, which is relevant across the UK. --Breadandcheese (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manx NHS; ending of reciprocal rrangement with UK NHSs

What’s inappropriate about including the Manx system and expanding the topic to include all British Isles NHS systems? It’s topical (was in the news recently) and relates to territory within the Common Travel Area affecting potentially up to 70 million visitors. A traveler could visit there without even a passport, and find out that the NHS while looking like the others isn’t available nor does their EHIC card work if they’re ill. I think that makes the changes appropriate and useful, and I’d be happy to hear the reasoning why it’s not. Zagubov (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I would not use the phrase 'British Isles' - better to just list the countries or say 'the United Kindgom and the Isle of Man'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks- found out more now- the cancellation of the agreement is postponed until October 2010, so will amend the info. Will choose a suitable reference when I get a moment. Zagubov (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What this article needs

What remains unclear about this article is whether the NHS is an insurance scheme or outright government-owned (nationalized) health care -- meaning the state owns the providers (hospitals, doctors, etc.) If it's universal insurance (like Canada's Medicare), then who owns the providers? Are they largely private? If the NHS is a nationalized system, then is there any need for insurance per se? Wouldn't the system be funded primarily by taxes and supplemented by what Americans call "co-pays"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgay88 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This lack of clarity is the actual situation. It isn't a fault in the article.Rathfelder (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a bit of a mess. Pleasetry (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no insurance. The system is funded by taxation and is run directly by the governments of each country. Pjaymes (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of NHS websites

There are a lot of NHS websites scattered about and I think it would be a good idea to have a main list on this article detailing them. Pleasetry (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that why we have categories? there must be at least 1000 articles on various aspects of the NHS. Rathfelder (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A section on the differences between NHS regions

It could also do with a short section briefly detailing the differences between England,Scotland and any other regions.Pleasetry (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not regions, they are separate national systems.--MBRZ48 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prescription Charges

The statement that "most patients in England have to pay charges for prescriptions though some are exempted." is not technically true because anyone under 16, over 65, on welfare benefits or staying in a hospital does not pay. In practice this means that most *patients* don't pay charges, although it could be said that most "working adults" or something like that do have to pay charges. Pjaymes (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might better to say most patients dont pay - even though most people are liable. And "on welfare benefits" is so vague as to be misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism section?

Is the NHS beyond reproach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.64.28 (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, no article would have a dedicated Wikipedia:Criticism section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the nhs understaffed? There was a criticism section here but the title was changed. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism is now here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge: 5 users disagree, 0 support. Rwendland (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Emergency Medical Services 1939-1945 be merged into National Health Service. The former is a fairly short entry with a title that could be confusing. At first I thought that the entry would summarize the history of emergency medical services between 1939 and 1945. Since this seems to have been an important step in the development of the NHS, I think it might make the most sense to incorporate it here. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 18:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The treatement of the NHS is confusing enough already. The EMS was legally speaking an entirely separate animal. The article needs development. not mergingRathfelder (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also diagree with the merger proposal. This article covers four health-care organisations which came into life in 1948 as a result of the Beveredge report of 1942 and the subsequent establishment of a welfare state in the UK. There isn't a great deal of evidence that the EMS was a really a precursor (except in the sense of being chronologically first), it would likely have been deemed necessary in wartime whether or not a wider healthcare scheme was established later. So the EMS is really out of scope of this article. Thom2002 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - The EMS was a separate entity which existed during the war, the NHS was post war. -- CowplopmorrisTalkContribs 14:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed with the proposal, agreed with User:Rathfelder. NHS is a huge organization, they are concerned with diseases, abuses, etc. They are highly reliable and accurate. They deserve a separate page. OccultZone (Talk) 15:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if EMS is/was the name of a distinct organization, (i.e. an agency that provided emergency medical services, it should be made clear in the respective article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Separate organisations. As disagree is general conclusion since January 2014, I'll close this proposal down. Rwendland (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Lede Does Not Reflect Factual Reality As Supported By Source Material

Weasel words, misdirection at best ambiguity is the nicest thing you could say about the lede. Much that is important has been left out, seemingly deliberately to support some sort of regional agenda. When I attempted to improve the article it was reverted as though the idea that central government funded the various health bodies was blasphemous. I cannot think of even one source that breaks down the British National Health Service into such a description, no wonder there aren't any.Twobells (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NHS is currently organised by country, not region. Although some regionalisation has been proposed in part if you look at the suggestions that Manchester should control its own budget. Your own edit didn't change that you just wanted to relegate it to later in the article. I reverted because we should reflect how things are, with how they were being part of history. You didn't include any new material so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "much that is important has been left out". You also added your own commentary about the NHS always having been seen as unitary. Otherwise I don't remember any mention of blasphemy in my comments; maybe you can point out something I missed? I'm open to a change in the lede that both recognises the historical unity of the foundation and current reality but not the change you made. ----Snowded TALK 19:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Snowded's description that the NHS it is not a single organisation. When the NHS was introduced a range of services became available free of charge across the United Kingdom, although worth noting that there were separate pieces of legislation to set up the systems, with some differing governance. The major devolution of government that occurred in 1999 resulted in increasing divergence in policy between the countries. See the 2014 report of the combined work of Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation looking at this, or some of the Press coverage. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the NHS is not a single organisation its not really true to say "Each system operates independently". There is still some commonality particularly in terms and conditions of employment of staff, and I think in contracts for primary care. Its complicated.Rathfelder (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A change to reflect that there are things in common (although I think T&C can be changed?) would make sense ----Snowded TALK 04:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

England only content

Although this article is design to cover the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Health Services, it is becoming very weighted with content about only one of these, the NHS in England. The funding for this service is separate from the other three, which are funded by their own national legislatures out of their block grants. Therefore, extended discussion of funding arrangements in England belongs in the article National Health Service (England). Thom2002 (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Br Med Bull doi:10.1093/bmb/ldw034 JFW | T@lk 14:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labour spin

The NHS was going to be created whichever party won the 1945 General Election, because all three parties had agreed to implement the Beveridge Report after World War II. (109.150.55.145 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The article does now cover this quite well, but it may be worth adding that, before Willink's 1944 White Paper, the adoption of the Beveridge Plan and the NHS was first announced by Churchill in his 'After the War' radio address on 21 March 1943: 'We must establish on broad and solid foundations a National Health Service.' https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/address_given_by_winston_churchill_on_post_war_21_march_1943-en-831b4069-27e5-4cd7-a607-57d31278584d.html He offered no detail, and his Conservatives later opposed Labour's centralised model, but the establishment of the NHS in some form was a given from 1943 on. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This article is very heavily biased towards Labour talking points. Details such as the implied contrast between capital funding as at 2008/09 and the constraint on funding growth a few years later are calculated to give a favourable impression of the Labour party. Citing the opinions of medical doctors that the NHS simply needs more funding creates a very imbalanced impression. Doctors like Mark Porter do not necessarily have any special insight into financial issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.62.80.98 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prescriptions are free in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland

"NHS prescription charges have been abolished in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All prescriptions dispensed in Northern Ireland are free, even for patients visiting from England, Wales or Scotland."

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit and the NHS

I added this to the article. I can remember the promise that if we voted for Brexit there would be more money for the NHS.

Vote Leave’s most visible promise was to spend £350m more a week on the National Health Service. It bears repeating that five current cabinet ministers, along with many other mostly-Conservative MPs, looked the British people in the eye and promised them a huge funding boost for our cash-strapped NHS. They cannot wriggle out of this. Since the referendum, the Prime Minister has failed to commit to the promise, which did not provoke a word of protest from her pro-Brexit ministers.

from Here.

The broken promise is a fact and, I feel should get into Wikipedia. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was it part of Government policy? LoopZilla (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People high up in the government were involved, I don't know about government policy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the promise was only once we had left the EU, which we have not yet. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about other ways to fund the NHS, such as Scrap Trident – Fund the NHS ? LoopZilla (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, people in Government and people outside were on both sides of the Leave / Remain debate. This slogan was first of all wrong (the figure of 350 million pounds), and no Government past or present or future (manifesto thereof) had ever suggest monies from the EU payments could be diverted to the NHS when the UK left the EU. LoopZilla (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit camp abandons £350m-a-week NHS funding pledge is a previous news story, which highlights the £350 million figure may be wrong. LoopZilla (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that. But I don't think a story about promised money that didn't arrive is really about the NHS.Rathfelder (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. LoopZilla (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Britain’s plan for Brexit: bankers first, £350m for the NHS never Wheree should this go? Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphs about Brexit should be removed as not only show bias but more importantly are pure speculation. As brexit has not yet happened, polls suggesting x amount of doctors will leave etc. is not encyclopedic knowledge. When / if Brexit does happen and as a consequence the NHS is subsequently affected then and only then should it be mentioned. This is also the case with claims that the NHS will receive more money after Brexit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.226.17 (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article

Can we have a bit of discussion about which content fits best on this page and which fits better elsewhere?

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service would be the right place to do that.Rathfelder (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am unhappy with the article. May I also suggest that it can be discussed on this Talk page, rather than the Wikiproject page you suggest? LoopZilla (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very happy with it either. But there are probably a few thousand articles about the NHS, and part of the problem is that the project seems to have run out of steam.Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This is not the place for material which relates primarily to one of the four national NHSs.Rathfelder (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we do this? LoopZilla (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a wholesale removal of all the content which has been added about specific things rather than general content about the whole NHS. It seems that every article mentioning the NHS is being added, which is not really the way it should be - the article should cover things which affect the whole NHS, and specific problems should be covered in the relevant article, e.g. use of restraints should be covered in restraints#Misuse and risks of physical restraints or deleted. Thoughts? @Rathfelder: @LoopZilla: Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let us transfer stuff to articles about particular topics, and make this primarily a signposting article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree LoopZilla (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing this article.

Mental health services
The Public Accounts Committee claims that plans to improve mental health services have a doubtful future due to uncertainties over funding. Only a quarter of patients needing mental health services get them.

This is not a good start to a section. It should start with a few general statements. LoopZilla (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in fact the same is true of the Staffing section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be concise and direct people to more detailed articles, and confined to UK wide issues. The stuff about mental health does not belong here. It only relates to England. Rathfelder (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material accidentally taken out and restored

I accidentally removed material. When I realized what I'd done I restored it. The material is nothing to do with me, i didn't originally write it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Investment and efficiency

All that material seems to relate to England, and a bit to Wales. Not to the UK as a whole. The same is true of Outsourcing and privatisation. This stuff shoild all be in the English NHS article. Rathfelder (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NHS ransomware attack

Seems the NHS in England is currently under a ransomware attack. As I'm not sure which NHS article to post this to, I'm just gonna post it here and leave it for those familiar with how England's health care system works to deal with it. — Gestrid (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worthy of an article - 2017 NHS cyberattack anyone? Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly worthy of an article, but I'd say start with a section here and then it can be made into an article later if there is enough. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just England. Rathfelder (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots, Absolutelypuremilk, and Rathfelder: It's currently a current event stub. See WannaCry ransomware attack (2017)Page moved to WannaCry ransomware attack — Gestrid (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC). — Gestrid (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote about it under History, redirecting to the main page "2017 encryption terrorism". Feel free to edit it.--Rævhuld (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rævhuld: I've started a merge discussion here. Feel free to weigh in. — Gestrid (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you <3--Rævhuld (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly some hoax information was added to this article on more than one occasion earlier today. An incident where access to an unquantified number of patient records has not been possible for the period of a few hours does not appear to justify a paragraph in the history section which is covering the period of more than 65 years.Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the separate article is the best place for it, and certainly it should be a subsection rather than its own section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutelypuremilk: I think you're right. The NHS has had various IT system controversies such as this that should probably be mentioned along with this recent event. But 'mentioned' does not mean a whole section. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 07:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where the content fits in nicely into any section - I will remove it unless anyone has any objections? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Investment and efficiency section

The "investment and efficiency" section seems to be a collection of every article that mentions funding cuts in the NHS, rather than a broad overview of the topic. I have added an UNDUE tag to the section. I think this section should be trimmed down significantly. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Its far too long and unstructured. Some relates only to the English NHS and should be moved to that article. Needs separating out, perhaps into Urgent care, Waiting times, rationing ..... Investment and efficiency are not the same thing. Needs some explanation about what efficiency is in health services.Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Peer review/National Health Service/archive1, TomLT said (in response to me making the same point as here) "I agree with your assessment, Absolutelypuremilk, and would support the removal of vast chunks of text... this article reads like a newspaper piece and has far too much quoting and original synthesis (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). So I support the truncation and summary of tracts of text as you propose." I will now remove a large chunk of the funding section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is A&E?

I see the abbreviation A&E in this article. Sorry, but I don't know what A&E stands for (Arts & Entertainment? I don't think so), and I don't believe it should be assumed that every reader does. NicholasNotabene (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I think I fixed it by linking to emergency department and spelling out accident and emergency. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of infobox

Since the NHS in the UK is not one unified system, I don't think it is appropriate to have an infobox on this page. Some of the parameters do not make sense (for example "child agencies") as NHS Scotland and NHS Wales are not in any way child agencies, they are independent organisations run by the devolved administrations. We should return this page to the how it was a few months ago with no infobox and perhaps just the logos of the four systems on the right. Morris Schaffer (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is wrong. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More than the info box needs removing.

1-Either the English NHS logo should be removed or the symbols for all UK public health services should be shown. 2-The page should be more in the nature of a disambiguation page for the four health systems. We should be thinking in terms of paring it down. 3-The first sentence is itself an error. It is not one UK system. Similarity does not make them the same organisation; indeed the Northern Ireland system which was never an "NHS" except in the founding legislation is now a combined health and social care system thus even more different from the others.--MBRZ48 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sale of data

Its not clear whether this is UK data or English data. Rathfelder (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of attack content

As in a previous discussion at Talk:National Health Service#Investment and efficiency section, this article has again become a WP:COATRACK for every negative story about the NHS, rather than a broad overview of the NHS. I have removed a large chunk of attack material that was WP:UNDUE. The previous edit here exemplifies what I mean. Bellowhead678 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also just for the record, Rathfelder thanked me for this edit. Bellowhead678 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The NHS is large and complicated and difficult to understand. We need to keep this article as simple and straightforward as we can. With copious links to articles about the details. Rathfelder (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bellowhead678: I agree, and was thinking of making a similar edit for similar reasons. Well done. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history, it appears most of those edits have been by User:Proxima Centauri. He has a habit of adding into Wikipedia every negative news story about the NHS and other British public services. Perhaps someone could have a quiet word with him about this? I tried in 2017 but received no reply. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't live in the UK so am not politically involved yet this was my first impression when reading the article (this revision). Much of it reads like an essay on how it could be improved. I wouldn't call it an attack page, but some of the material seems undue or too lengthy. —PaleoNeonate – 06:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statement

“The NHS is free at the point of use, for general practitioner (GP)”

If you intend to travel abroad and need inoculations, you have them done via the NHS GP and you are charged for this service. HardeeHar (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Privatisation section?

I came to this page to check the progress of the well-known privatisation of the NHS which continues apace as part of the policy of the current governing party, the Conservatives. (Celebrated examples are that the NHS owns no ambulances and that the covid test and trace system was entirely private.) This process of transformation seems to me as important a part of the NHS as the radical restructuring of 2012, and I'm rather surprised that no one has created a section for it. Summerdoor (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Category:Privatisation in the United Kingdom. Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable idea, though we might want to keep this brief and refer to other sources if they cover it in depth. I'd be careful about being too trigger happy with the word "privitization" as this is an emotive issue - it might be good to get a good sources opinion on whether something *is* privitization or not. A common form of privitzation was "public private partnerships" where certain services like construction or food production were outsourced but others are not. Might be worth bearing in mind that e.g. drug production has been privitized for a long time, and looking at the comparison to e.g. germany that if I understand correctly has a more privitized system in many ways while still being "single payer". Free at the paying for services, patient choice, internal markets, buying private services are distinct and all might be called privitization by some, but not by others Talpedia (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldnt work here - different in different parts of the UK. But as Talpedia says, there is no agreement on what constitutes privatisation, and primary care is almost all private, and always has been.Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, I'm not aware of agreement about what precisely constitutes privitization - though I can construct my own taxonomy. I imagine within the economic discipline there might be a little more concensus of the different types of privitization though Talpedia (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section should be shortened

Looking at MOS:LEDELENGTH the Lede / Lead / Introduction should be no more than four paragraphs in length. At the moment, this looks a little sprawling, with information that goes beyond 'summary' and 'concise overview'. Are there any arguments for keeping it as it is? Chumpih. (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal pruning performed. Still not happy. Concepts to include in the lede:
  • Collective term
  • Founding principles
  • 4 national services
  • Common traits, including drug purchasing power, common structures
Any other suggestions? Chumpih. (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BMA and underfunding

Can we get some other sources here? Maybe by some economists or a care quality organisation or a review. While the BMA's opinion is noteworthy, they are an extremely biased source and their opinion isn't very WP:NPOV. What trade union says "No! Pay us less, also we want less resources while working". If we are going to include the BMAs opinion on underfunding it feels like we should have some others. Talpedia (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the trade union has a COI here and their view needs balancing or at least put into clear context. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Responsible professional organization." I mean sure... but it's a bit like having the prosecution appear on the jury because they are a "responsible member of the community". If you are publicly advocating for someone you are not the best source for a balanced opinion. I think having the BMAs *argument* there is good, but it's an argument and it'd be good to have some more neutral sources. Talpedia (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this looks like a good source: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/nhs-funding-resources-and-treatment-volumes. Incidentally google scholar is filled with doctors talking about nhs underfunding and getting published in journals Talpedia (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian pullitzer prize winning

I don't think the guardian is the WP:BESTSOURCE for discussing the effects of load on patient care. Nor do I think that pullitzer prize winning is necessarily linked to the assessment. The relationship between good investigative journalism and reasonable assessment of the causes of institutional health outcomes seems rather fragile. Feels a bit like WP:PUFFERY If they were reporting about instances of problems due to work load or even statistics showing prevalence across the entire sector... then it feels like a good source. Talpedia (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is totally unnecessary, even when accurately portrayed. It gives the impression of a desperate and ill-conceived attempt to try to persuade readers that this left-leaning publication couldn't possibly be biased on these political matters, even when it clearly is. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is a reliable source. The Guardian is centre left, I never denied it. Quite frsnkly I don't know of any UK newspaper that isn't biassed in one direction or another. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funding: Kind of long and a lot of people saying "not enough money" mushed together with a timeline

Do we think this should be pulled out into its own article - given the amount of content? I also might like more other sources. Talpedia (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, have a look at the article... the funding and performance section feel like a bit of a polemic. I've created Draft:Funding_of_the_National_Health_Service and I may well create Draft:Funding_of_the_National_Health_Service where I intend to create a little more structure and pending WP:CONSENSUS summarize these sections linking to these articles Talpedia (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NHS: Safe in their Hands?

Despite the promise to "Keep it Safe in Our Hands", the Govt now plans to put out yet more national health services contracts to the private sector. Given issues such as growing waiting lists, underfunding and on-going attempts to sell off the NHS to profit-driven firms, is it not time to reconsider a section called the 'Privatisation of the NHS'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.94 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medicines section

I'm a bit unsure about the relevance of this section to the NHS - there have been medicine shortages globally, affecting health systems in almost every country. The commentary in the section doesn't relate to the NHS' response, but rather just says that the NHS is affected and that clinicians should choose wisely with medication management. Unless there is something more specifically relevant to the NHS, I'm inclined to remove the section entirely. Tim (Talk) 10:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned I've now removed this section under silent consensus as there is no value to its content. Tim (Talk) 09:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change the image that appears in this article's hover-over box?

When one hovers over the in-Wikipedia link to this article from another article, the hover-over box exclusively gives an image of the NHS Scotland logo. I believe the more standardised umbrella-organisation logo would be a better representation of the article's contents. Notakeyring (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To pre-empt any opposition based on the argument that there is no "umbrella-organisation logo," I'd like to make reference to the article's own note that the white-on-blue italics logo is "sometimes used as a UK-wide logo for unofficial purposes, though the three other national health services in the UK outside England have their own logos and names." Notakeyring (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:National_Health_Service"