Save the Economy? SCRAP the NHS!

RobertoMoir

Rollerball wrote: »

No, not really. You just can't pay a certain group in society x amount just because you'll get 40% of it back. That's the economics of the madhouse. Everyone I know works hard, doctors are no exception to that. Most people go to University for 3-4 years nowadays, most of my social circle have done so.The average wage is £25K per year, why should doctors get nearly 10 times as much?

Ah the old "Communism works as long as you don't call it communism" defence.

Masomnia

The NHS obviously isn't perfect, and you won't find anyone that thinks it is. I think it's a case of it being the worst system apart from all the others that have been tried.

I think as a society, contributing to overall health of the nation is fair enough. If the workers of the country are too afraid to be treated for conditions/illnesses because of potentially prohibitive costs, then that brings down the productivity of our workforce. A healthy economy is a stronger economy, in my view.

chewmylegoff

wolvoman wrote: »

That would be even worse.
Can you imagine who would be exempt from these charges? The very same people who already don't contribute very much to the tax pot.


As long as their is a Labour government either in power, or with a chance of power, we will be stuck with the fact that those contributing the least will take the least services and those contributing the most will barely use the services.

Fact: Most police resources are spent on run-down and deprived areas.
Fact: Most NHS resources are spent on poor patients.
Fact: Nearly all social security payments are spent on poor people.

yes, you would have to exempt the under 18s and probably the over 65s (or perhaps a bit higher than that) from the charging structure.

but as far as i am concerned, everyone in between can afford to pay, and would only be unable to pay as a result of their own lifestyle choices.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Oh what a good idea:rolleyes: Just as the yanks have realised that their system is too expensive and puts their businesses at a massive competitive disadvantage ( $2000 of a US car's cost is to cover their workers healthcare costs for example) and that they would be better off making like the Europeans...what should we do? Why yes get rid of the NHS!:p Priceless.



"The US currently spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, a higher proportion of its gross domestic product than any other industrialised nation. Yet in many areas it achieves worse results and the country comes 41st in the world for average life expectancy."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5309124/Barack-Obama-unveils-2-trillion-healthcare-cuts.html

"What is a growing crisis for the American people is also becoming an untenable burden for American business. ... The explosion in health care costs has put our federal budget on a disastrous path."
Barack Obarma 10th May 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/11/obama.health.care/index.html

snarffie

bendix wrote: »

The taxpayer, again, huh?

OK . no problem. I'll go and get my cheque book now. How much more would you like.

I'm delighted to have the opportunity of working 5-6 months out of every twelve to ensure that I can pay for the private health issues of other people.

Where do i sign up?

So, if you/your child/your mother/your father or somebody else that you cherish is diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, and (assuming they are all on private insurance-they are, aren't they?) their insurance company finds a clause that excludes cancer treament (let's say some family history which was missed previously), you are happy for them to march on nonchalantly towards an early grave because there is no hope of treatment. It's their problem, and not yours. Is that right?

Health is my number 1 priority for myself and those I love. Money always comes some way down the line after that. Taxes to pay for the NHS would be the last thing on your mind if you had no chance of becoming healthy enough to work again because you can't get the treatment you need.

The NHS is flawed in so many ways, and the waste concerns me massively, but as another poster pointed out, it is an enormous statement of how our society feels about providing welfare for those in need. It really is one of the few principles that we can take some pride in as a society.

Just to point out, I have always worked full time, earn a decent wage, have a mortgage, have decent savings, buy lots of material stuff like plasma tv, sky+, and ipods, I own shares, have private medical insurance, critical illness insurance, life cover and a stakeholder pension. So I pay lots of taxes and I am covered for health problems. Losing the NHS would affect me less than most, but it is the LAST thing I would want to happen to this country. Private medical insurance would be a step back for society and would make us much poorer.

snarff

Edit: Oh, yes and I agree that the OP is an attention seeking plank of balsa wood.

bendix

snarffie wrote: »

So, if you/your child/your mother/your father or somebody else that you cherish is diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, and (assuming they are all on private insurance-they are, aren't they?) their insurance company finds a clause that excludes cancer treament (let's say some family history which was missed previously), you are happy for them to march on nonchalantly towards an early grave because there is no hope of treatment. It's their problem, and not yours. Is that right?

.

You're asking the wrong person, pal.

My father died of leukaemia two weeks ago, aged 67. His entire treatment costs were covered by a comprehensive health insurance policy. There was never any hint from them that costs would not be borne through the policy.

Dithering_Dad

Our daughter has a rare genetic illness, that occurs completely at random and there is no reliable test for it in pregnancy.

My missus contributes to a forum that was set up as a support group for parents whose kids have this genetic disorder to get together and share their experiences. People contribute from all over the world and there is a really stark example of the health services in the US and those in Europe.

Many of the US contributors are struggling financially and some are on the verge of bankruptcy because their health insurances don't cover their child's issues. They also don't receive disability allowances, carer's allowances and the other assistance that we take for granted in Europe.

I have always supported the NHS, but it really brings it home how lucky we are to have it when something happens to you or your children or your parents.

While I might complain about my taxes being spent on MPs expenses, wars, pointless government initiatives, etc. I'll never moan about paying towards health care or social benefits, because there but for the grace of god....

lostinrates

bendix wrote: »

You're asking the wrong person, pal.

My father died of leukaemia two weeks ago, aged 67. His entire treatment costs were covered by a comprehensive health insurance policy. There was never any hint from them that costs would not be borne through the policy.

My condolences Bendix.

Generali

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Our daughter has a rare genetic illness, that occurs completely at random and there is no reliable test for it in pregnancy.

My missus contributes to a forum that was set up as a support group for parents whose kids have this genetic disorder to get together and share their experiences. People contribute from all over the world and there is a really stark example of the health services in the US and those in Europe.

Many of the US contributors are struggling financially and some are on the verge of bankruptcy because their health insurances don't cover their child's issues. They also don't receive disability allowances, carer's allowances and the other assistance that we take for granted in Europe.

I have always supported the NHS, but it really brings it home how lucky we are to have it when something happens to you or your children or your parents.

While I might complain about my taxes being spent on MPs expenses, wars, pointless government initiatives, etc. I'll never moan about paying towards health care or social benefits, because there but for the grace of god....

I'm very sorry to hear about your daughter DD. It's tough when the kids are sick, it must be all the more so if there is little prospect of a 'cure'.

That the UK has a better system for dealing with chronic illness than the US, doesn't make the NHS the best model for healthcare provision. The best way for the state to provide healthcare IMO is on a 'top-up' basis, that is the state will subsidise non-chronic and non-urgent treatments but you will be expected to chip in yourself.

lostinrates

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

a rare ......I'll never moan about paying towards health care or social benefits, because there but for the grace of god....

Ruthless, edit,my apologies for that. Its the grace of god thing: because despite the personal impact from rare things, which I'm sure you'll understand I appreciate and empathise with, the common things ...god has less grace iover and fires more frequently: most of us will know someone, or possibly be someone who this arrow of ''common'' but grevious illness hits.

Suffering from a rare condition myslef I do not really feel aggreived that not all the treatment rcommended to me privately is available on NHS, I was lucky enough to have something to help myself with, and receive help from a benefactor: I am amazingly blessed in that respect. I am however concerned about the lack of care for those with the very commonly held conditions that affect huge numbers of people are not available on NHS (and are not allowed to be partially funded privately). While fairness is an issue I fail to see it is fairer to deny some treatment on the basis a patient can afford some extra ...than it is to reduce there chances of survival or effectively minimalise their qulity o life by making them make this choice. Statistically the occurance of these more common illnesses is sizable. I know a couple of people who have had NHS operations to pin ears back and breast augmentation (for self esteem not disfigurement) and it troubles me these are available when some treatments for the former type of condition are not.

Its a job I do not envy: deciding in such a system what is worthy, and what is cost effective enough.