Save the Economy? SCRAP the NHS!

perplexed.com

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.

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.

Nobody's asking you to pay for other people's holidays or trips to the pub are they? Being ill is a misfortune ( I'm not talking about self-inflicted illness, cosmetic surgery etc ). I can't understand why you don't feel any sympathy for those who suffer this misfortune, could not afford to pay for medical treatment, and who could benefit from a contribution from the rest of us who are lucky not to have to seek such treatment. I don't think, as a proportion of my income, that the amount I'd save in not paying for the health service, would amount to very much but maybe my wages are more modest than yours and you could afford to put this towards a reasonable premium for health care insurance.

bendix

Two points.

Those who say the burden of health insurance would fall on employers, rather than individuals are wrong. I get health insurance provided through my employer, yes, but it is a part of my compensation package which - logically - I earn. Employers aren't charities. If I didnt get it as health insurance, I would get it in the form of cash. Ergo, it is a cost to me.

I was being tongue in cheek when I said I don't pay for people's holidays and trips to the pub. Having watched tv programs about benefit cheats, it seems my taxes do, in fact, pay for such things.

I'm not selfish. It seems that I'm a saint.

That makes me feel much better.

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

I earn.

Yes: and if you were unable to? Born with chronic illness/disability that prevented education and/or future employment? If you weren't lucky enough to be intelligent and have good job and a good ability to earn? Or even any job?

lavandergirl_2

Medical bills underlie 60 per cent of US bankruptcies: Study

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International-Business/Medical-bills-underlie-60-per-cent-of-US-bankruptcies-Study/articleshow/4616290.cms

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-medical-bankruptcy4-2009jun04,1,4411773.story

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_policy+%2Bamp%3B+government

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2007/05/07/can-i-file-bankruptcy-just-on-medical-bills/

Thank goodness for the NHS!

lynzpower

bendix wrote: »

Two points.

Those who say the burden of health insurance would fall on employers, rather than individuals are wrong. I get health insurance provided through my employer, yes, but it is a part of my compensation package which - logically - I earn. Employers aren't charities. If I didnt get it as health insurance, I would get it in the form of cash. Ergo, it is a cost to me.

I was being tongue in cheek when I said I don't pay for people's holidays and trips to the pub. Having watched tv programs about benefit cheats, it seems my taxes do, in fact, pay for such things.

I'm not selfish. It seems that I'm a saint.

That makes me feel much better.

Do not bet on this.

My mother is a manger at the biggest health insurer in the UK.

The main reason why employers take this on, is so that if and when thier employees fall ill, they are likely to be back sooner than with the NHS. In lost productivity, most employers feel ( in boom times) that better this small outlay than what they are likely to lose in sickness downtime, when employees become ill.

Additionally, mother reports a gereat number of companies slashing thier private health covers, to keep afloat. Do you really think these employees are getting paid more? Of course not they are losing a perk.

The only reason why your employer pays your health insurance cover is because they can afford to.

What would happen in your utopia if you get told, its you all lose your insurance or jobs would be cut.

robin_banks

Is there any evidence that employees are back sooner than with NHS treatment, on a like for like basis.

perplexed.com

I don't know the figures but they probably will be back sooner in many cases as they won't have to wait as long to be seen. Unless you're talking about emergency treatment which tends not to be offered by private healthcare anyway.

mewbie_2

lynzpower wrote: »

My mother is a manger at the biggest health insurer in the UK.

Bit unfair on your mum.

Pennywise

robin_banks wrote: »

Is there any evidence that employees are back sooner than with NHS treatment, on a like for like basis.

When I was finance director of our town's largest private employer, our main reason for offering health insurance was to get our key staff treated quickly and conveniently, and back to work as quickly as possible. It wasn't a "perk", it was a business necessity. We identified the key players in the company and they got the health insurance. We offered it to all other employees, but they had to pay out of their wages if they wanted it. If a key worker wanted their spouse/family included, again, they had to pay for it, it definitely wasn't a perk.

In our case, it worked very well. We had several staff that used the private health system with excellent results for the company, i.e. they took less time off and were back in full operation very quickly.

As a comparison between private and NHS, in my department, there were two ladies who both had similar health problems relating to the womb. One was the department manager who we had identified as being "key" and who had private health insurance cover. The manager had the treatment and was back at work full time before the other lady had even managed to get a consultant's appointment under the NHS and the NHS lady was constantly off work getting the runaround under the NHS, waiting for appointments, having to constantly return for repeat appointments etc when files/records had been lost, etc. The difference in efficiency and speed of treatment couldn't have been greater!

Harry_Powell

Bendix, you mentioned that your Dad had private medical insurance past the age of 65 that was really comprehensive.

I'd be interested in looking into something similar for my folks, can you supply details of who the policy was with and how much the monthly premium was?