Save the Economy? SCRAP the NHS!

lavandergirl_2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

This would make the company I work for VERY happy indeed.

Are we really the only country with an NHS?

No. Other countries do have universal healthcare but call it in different names

bendix

I find myself in the invidious position of agreeing with dervish, for once.

Like all public sector activities such as the benefits system, it was a good idea done for the right reasons but it failed to take into account one key issue - human nature.

After it started in the 1940s, doctors commented that rather than fix health issues, it created them. Bored housewives trundled up daily with imaginary complaints because - well, it was free, wasn't it, and they got attention.

I'm convinced the rise in such things as incapacity benefit payments is directly related to the NHS - it's so easy for a doctor to issue a prescription for a bad back, depression or god knows what, and so the burden on the taxpayer increases. When people had to pay for 'sicknesses', they were amazingly healthy. When it became free, the state of our national health plummetted.

For the life of me, I can't work out philosophically why an individual's health is the concern of the state - it makes no sense to me. Health is a private concern, and a matter for me to look after. Only I know what is best for me and as a rational human being, I think I can take care of my anticipated health issues (through insurance) better than a well-meaning mandarin anyday.

Graham_Devon

Some serious misunderstanding of how much doctors get paid on this thread.

70-140k for a GP, depending on seniority, qualifications, responsibility etc is more the norm. Not 200k.

Anyway, the NHS has a lot of wastage in it. The waste comes because it is so big. Theres been a lot of wastage for instance in my part of the NHS that I work in, IT. Since the government decided to pool IT assets instead of the individual surgeries implementing and buying IT, I believe the wastage has been phenominal. Any cost saving you want to do, you can no longer do. Big contracts with big companies means you have to pay the going rate for the latest stuff, you can't look at alternative solutions and alternative costs.

Some of the costs im involved in have trebled in the last few years, simply because we are forced to use one solution.

As for the NHS itself. I always wonder why I'm one of the 20% who have to pay for their prescription.

If I lived in Wales I wouldnt pay at all. In Scotland almost half. But because I live in England, and have no entitlement to benefits, I pay the full going rate.

Although this is much less than the possible cost of the drugs, I am unsure why I am subsidising other people to have aspirin on prescription and why, although I have an ongoing problem (asthma) I have to pay, whereas someone with an ongoing problem of Diabetes, does not have to pay....and if they have asthma, they don't have to pay for their asthma either, though I do.

Think that system has just evolved into this very unfair system of who pays and who doesnt. And prescription charges certainly seem to beat inflation each year!

I personally feel that the NHS is such a huge resource, that we are missing a hell of a lot of opportunity to cut waste and improve service at the same time.

If it ever does go privatised, it will be run by the likes of drug companies and tescos.

JonnyBravo

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for the NHS itself. I always wonder why I'm one of the 20% who have to pay for their prescription.

A far larger proportion of the population have to pay for their scripts than that.
But you're right in that less than 20% are paid for.... but this is due to the majority of scripts being written for the exempt, especially the young and the elderly.

Graham_Devon

JonnyBravo wrote: »

A far larger proportion of the population have to pay for their scripts than that.
But you're right in that less than 20% are paid for.... but this is due to the majority of scripts being written for the exempt, especially the young and the elderly.

Yes, thats true, depends how you say it. So I'm one of the 20% of the prescription buying population

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

I've been on eight different prescribed drugs a month,all that I pay for.
We also have health insurance but I still don't mind paying into the NHS.
I'd rather it was run more efficiently but we can't have everything I suppose.
I would'nt like to see anyone suffering because it was'nt there.

vivatifosi

I think the problem is the NHS the way that it is structured now, not the concept of public healthcare per se. I'm with julieq and lostinrates on that one. A friend of mine in the States has run out of insurance having lost her job following MS. She can no longer access the same level of care that she used to get and is frankly petrified of what that means for the future.

However, the NHS is held on a pedestal and I don't think that's where it belongs. There are plenty of other state systems, some of which involve part payment, which appear to work better than ours. We need to acknowledge that other countries do things better and adopt best practice (including low scale charging if necessary) to make the system better.

An example. My cousin is a nurse in Australia. At her hospital they have a pre op check list so that everyone on the professional team and the patient sign and know exactly what the procedure is. That way there's no excuse for carrying out the incorrect procedure. Meanwhile, my DH goes into hospital in the UK for a routine op and walked out (fetchingly dressed in gown), when about to be anaesthetised the surgeon mentioned in passing to a colleague they were about to remove his gall bladder. It's not rocket science.

Microstar_2

I have private medical insurance with probably the best known provider in the UK. Its 'ok' but there are a fair number of exclusions - they don't offer 'open ended' cover like the NHS does. To provide the same level of cover as the NHS, private premiums would rocket.
Around 60% of NHS spending goes on patients in the last 6 months of their lives. I am happy with this because although I have private cover I know that ultimately I may well have to fall back on the NHS at some point in my life.

I have a relative living in the US who lost his job earlier this year. This meant he also lost his corporate medical cover. He has a neurological condition which means that no insurance company will cover him as a new patient for that pre-exisiting condition. He is in a desperate position and is attending what is called a 'volunteer clinic' (basically seeing doctors and trainees who 'voluntarily' see patients in order to gain experience). It may be 6+ months before he can get to see the volunteer neurologist. Seeing a neurologist privately in the US costs around $1000 per consultation and tests etc on top of that. He was telling me around 2m people a year are bankrupted in the US by their medical bills. He is now looking at returning to the UK simply to get treatment here on the NHS.
If you think doctors in the UK earn a lot you should enquire as to the earnings of their US counterparts!!

chewmylegoff

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

lets hope you dont ever need a 100k drug treatment program then.

you didn't read my post - under the system i suggested there would be a cap on the maximum payment each year. the finnish system is that the most you can pay is €600 a year, after that all of your treatment is free. so if i needed a £100k drug treatment program, it would be fine, as i would only have to pay £500, or whatever the cap was.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I personally think private health insurance is an abomination. It is run as a business, for profit, and like all insurance businesses the profit comes from denying a certain number of claims. Therefore people (including doctors who took the Hippocratic oath and should be ashamed of themselves) are employed to deny life enhancing or life saving treatment to those in need. Not filling in the form right, not fitting the right stats for a disease (I recall in the Sicko film a woman saying she had been denied treatment for cervical cancer because her insurance company had said she was "too young" to have it), having doctors disagree over a diagnosis etc etc can all mean your claim is turned down. It is just wrong.

I know there is plenty that needs fixing with the current state of the NHS, but the principle of providing free healthcare to all who need it is one of the best things about Britain IMO, and I have no problem paying for it. In our society, those with a family history of serious illness that can be hereditary (ie breast cancer) are selected for earlier and more regular screening in an effort to stamp out the disease. In a society with no NHS or equivalent, they would face prohibitive insurance preumiums and would effectively be condemned. Who on earth wants to live in a world like that?