Talk:Healthcare in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject National Health Service, which attempts to organise and bring clarity to the vast number of articles on Wikipedia related to the United Kingdom's National Health Service. If you would like to help, there are some suggestions at the project's How to help page. For more general information on editing Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

An appalling article. Going to take a long time to fix this! 81.159.14.106 14:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

I've just restored a WP:MOS compliant lead, but I'm a bit concerned about the layout of the article. I think we need a section (or two) outlining certain (historical?) commonalities of healthcare in the UK (i.e. it has a shared heritage of free healthcare, a system of regional ambulance services, common policies, practitioner standards and management organisation). Then, I think we need to organise the rest of the material according to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with links to the daughter articles. We might want to finish (or at least insert) a section on certain differences within each system. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Jza84. I also don't see the point of this article in its present form - I have been trying to make some changes but it needs a lot of work. However, I think you have to be careful with your suggestion. Firstly the 'shared heritage' of free healthcare is misleading - the situation prior to 1948 was very different to that south of the border. Similarly, separate acts of parliament set up the NHS which has always been organisationally separate despite being called NHS throughout the UK. I don't know where you get the idea of common 'management organisation' - nothing could be further from the truth! My suggestion would be that we take a leaf out of the 'Education in the UK' article, and produce an article that provides some comparison between the different systems. 86.157.202.40 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree will you both - in parts! I like the current lead, and as Jza84 suggests, separate sections on each country now makes sense. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you two guys (who share very comparable editting patterns) please stop reverting my changes without discussion and proper summaries. Every time I look, we have some rather silly wording restored:

• "the NHS " - isn't the title of the article and shouldn't be enboldened
• "However, since Health is a devolved matter, considerable differences are developing between the systems in the different countries" - since when is "Health" a word that deserves capitalisation?
• "countries, countries, countries" - yet more of this splitting of the UK by any means possible in language.
• "Though", should be "although".
• publicly-funded health care deserves a link.

I'm reverting back to the befitting version. Please note that the WP:3RR applies, and using muliple accounts/ips to circumvent it is forbidden. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I will assume good faith on your part as I would hope you would assume on mine. If you check back to other occasions when we have disagreed, I have been persuaded by your arguments (I think, for example, of when you removed the subheadings in the United Kingdom article under healthcare and education.) However, you seem to regard the use of the word 'country' to describe Scotland as somehow a threat to the United Kingdom - you should not let your personal feelings affect your editing. If even 10 Downing street describes the UK as a 'country made up of countries', I think you have to accept that country is a valid description, even if you don't like it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I add my ten pennyworth? I initiated this article because the other original main article on the NHS is rather focussed on organization and history and did not give a good picture of how health services operate from the point of view of the end user. I edit (for my sins) another article entitled socialized medicine which (under some definitions) is an American term for systems such as exist in the UK or in Finland where I live today. The original socialized medicine article gave an extraordinarily distorted picture of health services in the UK. It has been improved but there are still certain US based editors determined to paint a negative view of publicly managed health care, and the NHS has for a very long time been a target of pressure groups fighting against more democratic control over health care in the U.S. of A. The NHS is painted by right wing pressure groups there as ineffective, gripped by shortages and queues, with users suffering in pain for lack of treatment etc.. Mostly bollocks of course, but there you are. The NHS article was rather technical, and therefore not very readable to an outsider and did not really give an understanding how health care operates in the UK. So the current article was started´to provide a different perspective describing the system from a user perspective. The concept of no billing for services for example is completely out-of-this-world for most Americans.

The purpose of the article I started was to give someone not familiar with health care in the UK a better insight of the service from the user perspective. Therfore it would not really repeat information that was in the NHS article but rather give information that was not there. aSince the article was started, it has of course changed. I know that fishiehelper is keen to emphasise that there is no single NHS, but in reality, the services are very similar in the big scheme of things. I don't mind the mention of differences, but I think it has become a bit overblown and IMHO they now make the article cluttered because frankly, people outside the UK will not be interested in the minutae of differences from one region to another. I think those can be mentioned in the other main articles, or else put together in one small subsection at the end of the current article.

I also want the article to mention private health care which, although small, is part of the wider picture. I have not added much myself on private medicine because I am not overly familiar with the subject area, even though I have had private medical coverage (and occasionally used it) when I was employed in the UK and have occasionally used the services of specialist therapists outside the NHS.--Tom (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)