Save the Economy? SCRAP the NHS!

lavandergirl_2

In America, most people get their insurance through their employers and what is ironic is that we don't get our car insurance from our employers why would health insurance be employment based.

The problem is when people get sick, they have bigger chances of losing their jobs. It becomes a vicious cycle - no job, no insurance. Imagine you're sick and not earning money. Surely, worrying for the medical bills would just aggravate your condition.

Bodies wear and tear - eventually we will all need medical care. Healthcare is a gold mine for private medical insurance companies- they try to get the people in their policies but not everyone will get pay out when they get sick. People have gone into bankruptcy just because of high medical cost. Unpaid hospital bills are sold to third parties who will use tactics for payment. If you search for the FH Brit's post regarding travel insurance going to the US, you can see how expensive it gets in the USA. Healthcare is good in the USA if you have the money.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w3.237v1/DC1

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp203/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794291/

I say the NHS, though not perfect, is one of the best things that has happened in the UK and I'm glad we have it.

bendix

Arcaine wrote: »

I suspect that the people who are arguing against the NHS are the ones that either have had a bad experience or have not really made use of it so they feel they are "not getting their monies worth". Well I am happy to pay my tax and pay for the NHS, so there is one against (and against the road building, 0 for 2 so far in my book). I get private healthcare through my work which is nice but as yet not had to use it, in fact we cover every employee of the company as a benefit, however my family doesn't benefit from that. My son was born with a cystic kidney, and my wife while pregnant had obstetric cholestasis which can cause serious problems for mum and baby. In both cases we had the problem diagnosed and treated effectively by the NHS, no messing with insurance companies, no having to justify every little expense and having to divulge quite personal details to some person who is just looking to turn the claim down. That was several years ago and my lad is now 2 and a half and going on great no further treatment required, however the NHS is figured in our lives again when my wife’s smear came back abnormal. She is currently undergoing treatment, however it look as if it hasn't worked properly so she may have to go for some more. My sons operation took place in Bristol Childrens hospital and I for one would like to thank the staff there, they were all great, but the thing that strikes me was that there were some really sick kids there who may not of got the treatment they deserve if their parents didn't have medical insurance cover and I for one wouldn’t like to tell them that just because someone else’s parents have a little more money they can't have the treatment. However I am the first to say that I am sure the NHS wastes money and can probably do a better job of running itself, I am thinking of the failed IT expenditure in particular. But in my opinion, we would miss the NHS if it goes, especially if it is replaced by an American style insurance system. Would you like to pay more to an insurance company because you failed to go for a health check? Would you like to pay more insurance because your family has a history of heart disease, or cancer? Would you submit a DNA sample to an insurance company so they can check it and set your premium accordingly? (I know they don’t do that at the moment, but it’s certainly within the realms of possibility). Just to end on another thought, as wasteful as the NHS is this is at least partially offset by the fact the insurance company will seek to make profits on the premiums we pay.

I'm against the NHS for the simple reason that I fundamentally believe in individual responsibility. I'm sure I have used the NHS in the past on long-forgotten school visits to GPs in the 1970s, but I certainly haven't used it since then and have absolutely no intention of doing so.

As for being prepared to pay higher insurance premiums if my family has a history of illness, well - yes - of course I would. Where is the moral and philosophical dilemma in that? It's entirely appropriate. What i object to is paying through the nose for other people's healthcare who maybe have a history of illness - since when did their health become my responsibility? I also object to paying excessively for healthcare for people who abuse themselves, who fail to take care of themselves.

Why should that be my problem?

I was called selfish earlier in this thread, but at the moment the current situation is that I am being absolutely saintly by financing other people's health issues. Why is wishing to stop that, selfish?

Next I will be called selfish for not wishing to pay for other people's holidays, or meals or trips to the pub . . . .

An individual's health is NOT a social issue. It is a personal issue and should be dealt with accordingly.

vivatifosi

dervish wrote: »

In the good old days they could have been persuaded to go to the Dominions or the colonies. We would have been rid of the riff-raff and their status would have been increased by being in a new country.

Everyone wins.

However the loss of Empire has reduced this opportunity to deport people to overseas territories that we control.

Hang on a minute, haven't you complained here in the past that you went to the colonies and got sent back? Oh yes, here....

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=21778313&postcount=118

setmefree2

bendix wrote: »

I'm against the NHS for the simple reason that I fundamentally believe in individual responsibility.

Trouble is, it doesn't end up as being a cost for the individual but a cost to businesses. The burden of healthcare in the US makes US businesses uncompetitive as their healthcare system is much more expensive than, say, Europe.

Who pays for your healthcare insurance? I've had private healthcare insurance through my work for decades (and never used it once). So has Mr SMF2. The cost isn't bourne by us but the companies we work for.

vivatifosi

Another problem with medical insurance is that only 12% of the population has it (Ipsos MORI 2007). So if we were to introduce fees for healthcare now, there would be an awful lot of the population that couldn't get cover for pre-existing conditions or for whom cover would be prohibitively expensive.

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

As for being prepared to pay higher insurance premiums if my family has a history of illness, well - yes - of course I would. Where is the moral and philosophical dilemma in that? It's entirely appropriate. .

Because if you are unlucky enough to be born without the skills to earn a higher income, with out the health to pursue long hours to pay insurance from a lower income you are scuppered.

If people don't seek help for problems that could be contagious, for example, it could have a decised impact on the workforce, regardless of the health of the individual.

Arcaine

bendix wrote: »

I'm against the NHS for the simple reason that I fundamentally believe in individual responsibility. I'm sure I have used the NHS in the past on long-forgotten school visits to GPs in the 1970s, but I certainly haven't used it since then and have absolutely no intention of doing so.

You dont want to use the NHS thats fine, you have obviously got some kind of insurance to cover yourself. As I said I suspected that people dont like the NHS are people that have never used it.

bendix wrote: »

As for being prepared to pay higher insurance premiums if my family has a history of illness, well - yes - of course I would. Where is the moral and philosophical dilemma in that? It's entirely appropriate. What i object to is paying through the nose for other people's healthcare who maybe have a history of illness - since when did their health become my responsibility? I also object to paying excessively for healthcare for people who abuse themselves, who fail to take care of themselves.
Why should that be my problem?

I certainly think it is a moral issue when the cost of higher insurance premiums may mean those people cannot afford health insurance, the ones that need heathcare are the ones that cannot have it. The question here is are we wanting to run a healthcare system that excludes people on the basis on income or the ability to pay. We all have times in our life when things dont go our way, maybe an accident, losing our job, a long term illness, pension pot not provided enough after the company you have worked for goes bust. These are all instances where peoples incomes drop and they may have to cut back on health insurance, just at a time when they may need it. Why does having an NHS system mean there is a lack of personal responsibility? I don't think the two are mutually exclusive at all.

bendix wrote: »

I was called selfish earlier in this thread, but at the moment the current situation is that I am being absolutely saintly by financing other people's health issues. Why is wishing to stop that, selfish?
Next I will be called selfish for not wishing to pay for other people's holidays, or meals or trips to the pub . . . .

Selfish? Not going to make a comment on the basis of a few forum posts, I dont know you.

bendix wrote: »

An individual's health is NOT a social issue. It is a personal issue and should be dealt with accordingly.

I happen to think that health is a social issue especially in the instance of communciable diseases, child welfare, drug abuse, drink driving and all of the other things where innocent people are caught in the crossfire of other peoples lack of personal responsibility.

baileysbattlebus

setmefree2 wrote: »

Trouble is, it doesn't end up as being a cost for the individual but a cost to businesses. The burden of healthcare in the US makes US businesses uncompetitive as their healthcare system is much more expensive than, say, Europe.

Who pays for your healthcare insurance? I've had private healthcare insurance through my work for decades (and never used it once). So has Mr SMF2. The cost isn't bourne by us but the companies we work for.

Medical Insurance in the US if you get it through your employer normally isn't free - you often have to pay a proportion of the cost yourself. Here all I had to pay was the tax due on the premium.

They often have deductables (excess) to pay too. And co payments - where you pay a percentage of the cost yourself. Cobra insurance (temporary insurance if you lose your job), doesn't cover existing conditions. And is not cheap.

Here is a very good article written by a jounalist with brain cancer and his experience of the US system and some of the costs. A scary story - one I hope will never happen here.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/13/a-personal-journey-through-the-health-care-maze/3#comments

• • Millions of workers don’t have the opportunity to get health coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2007.4
  • Nearly (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees.7 It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.
  • Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually.4
  • Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 120 percent between 2000 and 2006.8
  • Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage – not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance – the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check.9
  • Coverage is unstable during life’s transitions. A person’s link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce.10

  
  How does being uninsured harm individuals and families?
  
  

  • Lack of insurance compromises the health of the uninsured because they receive less preventive care, are diagnosed at more advanced disease stages, and once diagnosed, tend to receive less therapeutic care and have higher mortality rates than insured individuals.11
  • Regardless of age, race, ethnicity, income or health status, uninsured children were much less likely to have received a well-child checkup within the past year. One study shows that nearly 50 percent of uninsured children did not receive a checkup in 2003, almost twice the rate (26 percent) for insured children.
  • The uninsured are increasingly paying “up front” -- before services will be rendered. When they are unable to pay the full medical bill in cash at the time of service, they can be turned away except in life-threatening circumstances.
  • About 20 percent of the uninsured (vs. three percent of those with coverage) say their usual source of care is the emergency room.2
  • Studies estimate that the number of excess deaths among uninsured adults age 25-64 is in the range of 18,000 a year. This mortality figure is more than the number of deaths from diabetes (17,500) within the same age group.
  • According to one study, over a third of the uninsured have problems paying medical bills. The unpaid bills were substantial enough that many had been turned over to collection agencies – and nearly a quarter of the uninsured adults said they had changed their way of life significantly to pay medical bills.

dylansmum

bendix wrote: »

An individual's health is NOT a social issue. It is a personal issue and should be dealt with accordingly.

Fine, by that logic if an individual's health is not a social issue, then the re;ations between individuals and health are not a social issue, then society (the social) should not pay.
-so should medics' training is an individual matter and we should contribute nothing.
-If private health providers wish to have medics and charge insurance to you and me to cover medics' training so be it.
-Hope you are rich.

cocktail

nhs appears to be one of the good things that this country has left over. scrapping it will not be the answer to save the economy.
yes, perhaps it is not managed as we would like it to be.
yes, a lot of resources are spent on alcohol and drug related issues which a lot of folk do not want their hardearned money spent on.
privatising it completely would just not be possible as a large number of people could not afford it.
i have only recieved good advice and treatment the few times i have used the nhs, excellent care by the clinicians and the nurses..