论文部分内容阅读
It is mentioned that the NHS has an ambivalent position in the public mind.（Oakland，J.（2011）.British Civilization： an introduction.7th Edition.London： Routledge.P216）.It is，now，one of the most concerned social questions in Britain.The possible main controversies of it are following.
Foremost，one of the controversies could be whether we should spend more money on the field.Although the government has spent a certain amount of money on it，but the wealth of money does not occupies a lot in GDP.As being estimated，the NHS and health care cost 122 billion pounds of total government spending in the 2010 budget and is the biggest single employer of labour in Western Europe.Yet，its percentage is only 8.8 per cent of the gross domestic product and lower than in other major Western countries.（Oakland，J.（2011）.P212）.From data published by the government，expenditure growth has been remarkably slow compared with the trend in other EU Member States.（Summary of European Health Care Systems，no date，p1）.The improvements are obvious and could be seen by citizens，nevertheless，there is still shortage of money and resources.Some people argue that the government should spend more money on the NHS，but that kind of action is likely to lead to increase in personal tax （a certain people claim that they are willing to pay more only if they can get more benefits from it），while probably not achieving a favorable expected result.
Moreover，the other one could be whether the NHS is gaining good effect or not.The NHS does be praised for meeting customers’ needs，improving the standard of living and medicine，getting better diets，and grabbing greater health awareness.Actually，the NHS is also criticized because of its inefficiency，inadequate standards，treatment discrepancies throughout the country，scandals and bureaucracy.For example，with few 27 exceptions，the system copes well with serious and urgent illness，but less well with a minor （although no less distressing for the patient） conditions.（Summary of European Health Care Systems，p1）.Thus，if we should continue this healthcare system or do some reformations are in need of further thinking.
Combining it with the recent news （President Trump： NHS going broke and not working（2018） BBC News），it is not difficult to see that in the UK，the NHS is funded out of general taxation，so people do not have to pay when they get treatment.But in the US，when people get treatment they have to pay，most often through health insurance providers.The strong response of British politicians shows that the NHS is a kind of system covering all the citizens regardless of the size of their own bank balance.What’s more，they are proud of the NHS.
Anyway，it is said that individuals are become interested in a closer evaluation of its controversies to make a brand new or continuing way of health care reform in the UK.
Foremost，one of the controversies could be whether we should spend more money on the field.Although the government has spent a certain amount of money on it，but the wealth of money does not occupies a lot in GDP.As being estimated，the NHS and health care cost 122 billion pounds of total government spending in the 2010 budget and is the biggest single employer of labour in Western Europe.Yet，its percentage is only 8.8 per cent of the gross domestic product and lower than in other major Western countries.（Oakland，J.（2011）.P212）.From data published by the government，expenditure growth has been remarkably slow compared with the trend in other EU Member States.（Summary of European Health Care Systems，no date，p1）.The improvements are obvious and could be seen by citizens，nevertheless，there is still shortage of money and resources.Some people argue that the government should spend more money on the NHS，but that kind of action is likely to lead to increase in personal tax （a certain people claim that they are willing to pay more only if they can get more benefits from it），while probably not achieving a favorable expected result.
Moreover，the other one could be whether the NHS is gaining good effect or not.The NHS does be praised for meeting customers’ needs，improving the standard of living and medicine，getting better diets，and grabbing greater health awareness.Actually，the NHS is also criticized because of its inefficiency，inadequate standards，treatment discrepancies throughout the country，scandals and bureaucracy.For example，with few 27 exceptions，the system copes well with serious and urgent illness，but less well with a minor （although no less distressing for the patient） conditions.（Summary of European Health Care Systems，p1）.Thus，if we should continue this healthcare system or do some reformations are in need of further thinking.
Combining it with the recent news （President Trump： NHS going broke and not working（2018） BBC News），it is not difficult to see that in the UK，the NHS is funded out of general taxation，so people do not have to pay when they get treatment.But in the US，when people get treatment they have to pay，most often through health insurance providers.The strong response of British politicians shows that the NHS is a kind of system covering all the citizens regardless of the size of their own bank balance.What’s more，they are proud of the NHS.
Anyway，it is said that individuals are become interested in a closer evaluation of its controversies to make a brand new or continuing way of health care reform in the UK.