Save the Economy? SCRAP the NHS!

Jennifer_Jane

cowbutt wrote: »

Sounds a bit like the current mixed system in the UK so far...



Ouch! Presumably that was for something that wasn't life-threatening? Even so, I would hate to see NHS hospitals turning away anyone just because they had the means to be able to contribute to a private healthcare scheme if they've contributed to the NHS as well (via NI contributions and taxation).

On the other hand, it might discourage the practice of private hospitals performing profitable work (e.g. elective cosmetic surgery) but not doing a proper job of the profit-reducing aftercare (e.g. an infection caused by said elective cosmetic surgery!)

There's been talk in the UK of allowing those who pay for private health insurance to be able to get their NHS contributions refunded or use them to pay for part of their private insurance; is that how it works in SA?

It was life-threatening and I needed emergency treatment. By the time I got to the Private Hospital the Doctor at the state hospital had phoned them, said I was on my way and given the diagnosis, and an emergency surgical team had been collected. It was fine. Of course the state hospital couldn't look after me, that would have been taking the resource away from people without the medical aid.

The payment for medical aid (ie the private treatment) is via contributions by employer and employee, you can choose your cover and it includes chiro, dentists, acupuncturists etc (doesn't cover sangomas or other witch doctors, and certainly doesn't cover cosmetic surgery!). The contributions are tax-deductible. The point is that if you aren't working or your company is, say, too small to afford to be part of a medical aid, then you have to pay for it yourself. So, when you leave a Company you would then join the medical aid scheme which the new Company belonged too (possibly with a 3 month wait). So, while it is non-elitist in essence, it is helpful to receive those employer contributions.

There is no contribution to the State Health system - it comes via taxes.

It's also not a perfect system! But I've had super treatment there in spotless hospitals and great dentistry. I did fear, however, for what would happen when I retired and perhaps was not on a medical aid system (or not well enough to get on one!!!)

You do have to pay a contribution towards doctor's fees and so on. (If you cannot afford this, you queue at the State hospital to see the doctors there, and may not get to see the doctor that day. Not good if you're feeling terrible).


Jen
x

Gorgeous_George

If the true figures were known they would show:

Unemployed people spend more time at the doctor's surgery than employed people.
Retired people spend more time at the doctor's surgery than employed people.
Healthy people spend more time at the doctor's surgery than sick people.

Right or wrong, employed people cannot afford to take time off work. Maybe, if they have kids, they can swing the lead a bit.

GG

Jennifer_Jane

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

If the true figures was known it would show:

Unemployed people spend more time at the doctor's surgery than employed people.
Retired people spend more time at the doctor's surgery than employed people.
Healthy people spend more time at the doctor's surgery than sick people.

Right or wrong, employed people cannot afford to take time off work. Maybe, if they have kids, they can swing the lead a bit.

GG

I am sure you're right, GG, and it is common sense that that is so, (NO I'VE JUST REREAD YOUR POST: Healthy people spend more time at the doctor's than sick - do you mean that?)
but my purely anecdotal experience of people at work needing NHS treatment over the last year, is one person having a baby; one person going for regular treatment for an eye problem, and for catarhh; and me at 62 - no I don't know who my doctor is and haven't been for years, although I do have an on-going prescription for migraines (which I don't expect to need once I retire!).

Oldernotwiser

bumpoowee wrote: »

I'm not backtracking.. it sounds more like people have misinterpreted or took out of context what I said. I gave an example of my first hand experience where I have seen resources being wasted that would have been helped by the suggestion I commented on.

How has your statement "I rarely go to hospital or the GP, but whenever I do it is rammed with oldies who are clearly there just to get some attention. If they were charged even £1 for an appointment (with a yearly cap as mentioned) you can bet suddenly a lot of them would find something better to do." been misinterpreted or taken out of context?

It might have made more sense if you'd suggested that EVERYBODY paid an additional £1 when they went to see the doctor - they do this in France to help shore up the health service there - but to single out one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society and hope that a levy might stop them seeking out medical attention is inhuman and unforgiveable.

bumpoowee

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

How has your statement "I rarely go to hospital or the GP, but whenever I do it is rammed with oldies who are clearly there just to get some attention. If they were charged even £1 for an appointment (with a yearly cap as mentioned) you can bet suddenly a lot of them would find something better to do." been misinterpreted or taken out of context?

It might have made more sense if you'd suggested that EVERYBODY paid an additional £1 when they went to see the doctor - they do this in France to help shore up the health service there - but to single out one of the most vulnerable sectors of our society and hope that a levy might stop them seeking out medical attention is inhuman and unforgiveable.

It's been misinterpreted right there.

Where have I suggested that only people over a certain age should pay £1 (or whatever amount)? You know what - I haven't suggested it anywhere. You've taken an area of ambiguity, made an incorrect assumption and gone off on a rant based on an idea that nobody had!

Thanks for finally making some attempt to reply to my original point, however in the 10-15 posts you've all been having a go at me, you've only made the one attempt to reply to it, and shown that you've misread the original text.

I'll leave you and your clique to convince each other that I am wrong because you outnumber me, but I'd like to think you'll make an effort to understand what people are saying before jumping to conclusions in future.

baileysbattlebus

Pennywise wrote: »

Comparing the current UK private hospitals, private health insurance and private treatment generally is not really any use.

It is because we have the NHS that the private alternatives and insurance have evolved in the way they have.

If there was no NHS, or a severely reduced version of it, there'd be a much more vibrant private sector. There'd be more competition, so costs, quality and services would vary.

If, for example, BUPA's policy didn't cover Radiotherapy, then the other insurers would see that as an opening for them to gain more trade by including Radiotherapy in their competing products.


Same with costs of private consultations, operations, etc. Without the NHS, there'd be loads more different firms offering similar services, so the laws of supply and demand would kick in and prices would become more competitive as each competing business fought for the custom.

I'm not saying that such an open market would be the answer, but that is what would happen and why it is nonsense to compare the existing private alternatives against the NHS.

Or you would get what has happened in the USA, where the cost of health care has rocketed since 1980.

The US spends the most per capita ($6,096 in 2007) in the world on health care. We spent $2,560 per capita in the same period.

And for all the money and fabulous treatments available in the US they were 37th for health care in WHO rankings.

The Uk was 18th, top was France, then Italy, San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria & Japan.

Infant mortality Uk 5 deaths per 1000 live births - US 7.

Life expectancy Uk 79.01 ranked 36th - US 78.11 ranked 50th - from CIA figures.

The only people to profit from health care in the US are the insurance companies and their investors.

I have had experience of health care in the US - I was on holiday with my grandson and he became ill, - sickness, a high temperature and a sore throat. The doctor came out to our villa - complete with a pharmacy on wheels - examined him, took his temperature, did a strep test and gave him antibiotics - the cost $800, I nearly fell off my chair!! That was 3 years ago. I had thought it would be a couple of hundred dollars. We were insured. I had to give her the excess for the policy by credit card and give her the details of a different credit card incase the insurance company refused to pay. Just as well I had more than one card with me - and she wouldn't take cash for the excess.

I am in favour of the NHS and would like to stay free at point of use. Yes there are better systems about - I wouldn't mind if the NHS became more efficient and got rid of some of the pen pushers and paper sifters.

moggylover

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

You know, this is an excellent idea. I was watching the recent documentary based in a hospital where it showed all the drunks rolling about in reception, abusing the staff, throwing up everywhere and generally being a complete waste of time and resources. If we charged these people a set fee, then I'm sure a lot of them would just go home to sleep it off.

But we don't need to get rid of the health service, or put charge services on the sick for this: we just need to have zero tolerance in place for drunkeness and those admitted for treatment for drunkeness should be charged for it.

moggylover

bumpoowee wrote: »

This has got to be the way forward, the NHS in it's current form is unsustainable. I rarely go to hospital or the GP, but whenever I do it is rammed with oldies who are clearly there just to get some attention. If they were charged even £1 for an appointment (with a yearly cap as mentioned) you can bet suddenly a lot of them would find something better to do.

Before anyone starts, I'm not suggesting all old people in medical establishments are faking it, or that only old people waste NHS resources, but it's certainly one area where tax money is wasted.

But lets just point out that many of those "old" people have been paying into the system all of their lives and may well not have used the services at all during that time. Apart from diptheria and scarlet fever during her childhood my mother hardly ever saw a doctor until the last five years of her life when she suffered from COPD and only once went to the hospital for a broken collar bone after a car accident.

However, she worked from 14 to 67 (apart from 5 or 6 years when I was a wee one) at least part time, she also nursed her own father and mother in their old age (saving the state lots of money;)) AND all of that time her taxes were being "wasted" on the education of the extremely selfish younger generation who then object to paying tax when it becomes their turn:D. Of course, you WILL one day, become old:D (if you are lucky:D) and despite all the planning in the World things can go pear shaped and you may well need the tax monies of MY children to support your care then. Wonder if you would have the courage of your convictions to refuse that support because you messed up along the line or even to remember your harsh judgements on MSE 25 years or so ago;)

Certainly I have paid tax at higher levels than are currently in place, both at the lower level and on higher rate tax - I never objected to that at all: but seeing the repeated bleatings of some on this thread whose education I probably contributed to I begin to wish I had taken advantage of some of the loopholes I certainly could have found had I wished to:D.

moggylover

bumpoowee wrote: »

What's your point? I'm a bit confused as to why it's being suggested I have anything against old people; they are just young people who got old, I don't really care - my frustration is with those who waste limited resources in the NHS. Less of the drama please.

I suspect that far more is wasted on the drunken antics, and the car accidents of the "young" (across ALL of the classes) than is "wasted" on those who have already paid in for years and earned their medical care whilst doing so!;)

Pennywise

Generali wrote: »

That the NHS is completely 'free' leads to half its problems.

Totally agree, but also from a different angle. Some of those working in the NHS seem to have adopted a peculiar attitude that because the patients aren't paying at point of delivery, they're somehow entitled to lower standard of basic services, i.e. helpfulness, politeness, efficiency, etc. Worst still, because people aren't paying at the point of delivery, they don't kick up a fuss enough when they're treated no better than cattle.

StevieJ wrote: »

To be honest i don't think my GP is worth a fiver :eek: I went with what I thought was a frozen shoulder (left it to long) he said it was a torn rotor, he could refer me £100 for private consultation which I did, the specialist asked what I thought and what my my GP thought, he said I was correct.

I once had an equally useless GP to whom I went with excrutiating thumb pains. He never offered any advice or tried anything - simply referred me to a "consultant". After waiting six months and still no appointment in sight, but with the pain now needing me to be permanently on painkillers, I went back to the GP and asked to go private instead. A couple of days later, I saw the same consultant I would have seen on the NHS, but at a cost of £150 for a 10 minute appointment. He was astonished that my GP had done so little and told me to go straight back to the GP to get a wrist splint which is the first thing to try apparently and should have been done by the GP - so back I went, splint organished - immediate relief and pains completely gone after around 4 weeks of wearing it, and never returned since. In the current system, there's no incentive for that useless GP to improve his services - if people had to pay, then people like me would happily go elsewhere (and keep going elsewhere) until they found a GP worth the money rather than having absolutely no choices nor competition in such a monopoly.