Why should healthcare be 'free'?

olly300

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I don't agree with stomach operations for fatties. Not when regular people are left in need.

The stomach operations are to stop them getting illnesses that cost the NHS more in the short and long term future.

The NHS is spending a lot on things like obesity ambulances which they will spend more on once even more people get obese.

Also the NHS is the dumping ground of lots of social problems. In the case of obesity measures to tax fatty food would help like they do in Nordic countries, yet this government is lobbied by the food industry so would never do that.

Desperate_Housewife_2-2

Healthcare should be free because disease and illness does not respect the boundaries of class, gender, ethnicity or age, nor does it recognise national boundaries.

Many diseases are caused by social inequalities such as poverty, homelessness, malnutrition, poor housing etc.

The evidence for this is overwhelming.

In third world countries where people have to pay for healthcare, they often buy a few antibiotics until the symptoms disappear leading to drug resistance which has a global effect in the long run. New drugs would not be tested unless healthy volunteers came forward (not all get paid, some do it purely for altruistic reasons).

Diseases such as AIDS are transmitted and disease and illness affect everyone.

Apart from this, a civilised world is one where everyone is valued and respected, not just a priviledge of the wealthy.

Call me old fashioned and idealistic, but I want to live in a world where people have free healthcare and the sick and vulnerable are cared for. Its part of being a member of society and I would fight tooth and nail to keep our NHS, its the jewel in Britains crown and we should be proud of such a fantastic institution.

uk_american

If I may jump briefly into the conversation...I am a US person who has lived here in the UK for 3 years and counting (under a UK work permit, so taxed and paying National Insurance here). Previously, I lived in Germany 5.5 years (I chose private insurance, as I was relatively young and healthy). Prior to that, I grew up in America, with blue-collar, hourly paid parents (my father was a truck driver, my mother sewed). I never, ever went to the doctor unless it was required by the school system (every few years you need to go, else you will be given a physical exam by the school nurse). Why not? Because I had almost no health coverage. My parents had purchased 'catastrophic' coverage, so if one was in a major car accident and on death's doorstep, medical coverage would be provided, otherwise not. How convenient, as my mother picked up a rare, terminal cancer.

That being said, my mother had top of the line cancer treatment, with all the newest and latest drugs.

However, all things being held equal, I think I'm on the side of the German system, where one can choose private or public insurance, and public must always take you. My colleagues on it paid something between 11-14.5% of their pay for it, automatically deducted from the paycheck, just like my private coverage. Granted I have no major life event to compare it to, however, I did fracture a finger while there, being sporty. I was majorly stressed, in the US potentially I'd be out a few hundred dollars, up to 1k, I was estimating. There, I went twice to a German specialised sports doc, digital xrays, the whole thing, it cost me 60 EUR. Sheesh. I didn't claim it in the end as I had a 500 EUR deductible and the German private system automatically gives you back 50% of your premiums if you have not claimed in a year.

One of the things I appreciate the most about working in this country is your 'free' medical coverage. Granted, I have yet to really need the system (touch wood) and I pay ridiculous amounts of National Insurance. That being said, I appreciate the safely net. It's one of the things that would deter me from easily going back to the US.

When I lived in the US, I did computer work (just like here), and health coverage is tied to your ability to work. G*d forbid, if you are carrying heath coverage for you and your spouse, and you are the one to get cancer. Next thing you know, you are terminated, and without health coverage to boot. When my mother was sick in the US, while she had catastropic coverage, the bills kept coming. You get a deductible removed (between 500-2k USD), then you're covered at 75-90% perhaps, at inflated medical prices. My father ended up being practically bankrupted; medical bills were more than 10% of his take home when my mom was sick--so he got a little tax break there. He never recovered from the credit card debt.

A few years back, a work colleague had a tumour (non-cancerous) removed from his neck, and paid, not one penny for this operations and follow-up. If you would suggest such a thing to US people, it would blow their minds, such coverage.

So I read with interest your thoughts on the issues with the NHS.

olly300

uk_american wrote: »

So I read with interest your thoughts on the issues with the NHS.

The NHS tends to be good for serious illnesses especially if you aren't elderly, but is bad for things like minor sports injuries.

In the case of sports injuries if you break a bone they will fix it immediately if it needs it however for ligaments you have to wait ages to see a consultant or even for an operation. Whether you get sent for physio afterwards seems to depend on the individual GP and their knowledge of sport.

So you are better of ensuring that if you participate in sport you can afford to pay for your own sports physio. If you are paying out of your own pocket physios will cut down the number of sessions if it's feasible.

It also amuses me that you can see exactly the same consultant in the NHS and privately. If you are lucky like I recently was then you won't be on a long waiting list.

One of the major difference also is that as an NHS patient if your condition isn't major and requires surgery any of their team will operate on you. However if you live next to a teaching hospital like I do you will tend to have two people doing everything to you and have students in your examinations asking questions.

I've also been warned about by people who do have private healthcare is that the consultants are very happy to operate on you, there as if your condition can be fixed with physio it will be over looked.

drwho2011

jamespir wrote: »

Healthcare isnt free you pay for it using national insurance
we just dont pay everytime were treated unlike other countries unless you go private

You mean like how NI pays for pensions, the welfare state and the NHS?

300bn spend vs 90bn NI paid.

dragonlily

Just a few musings from me....

I'd really recommend the WHO Report for a good overview of the different drivers covering issues such as expenditure and efficiency.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/whr/2010/9789241564021_eng.pdf

Interestingly, as a couple of others have said we are ranked 18th out of 190 countries. At the time of the ranking we only spent 6% of GDP on health care, far lower than many other countries. Personally, I think, for value for money we weren't doing too bad.

Correct me if I am wrong as this is from memory not from checking the figures... but the NHS was already facing a need to make £20 billion in efficiency savings before 2015 to meet the growing needs of the population and still provide the same level of service.

Instead of restructuring the NHS I reckon we would have done a lot better working on it's efficiency and productivity. In addition, the needs of our population are very different to those at its inception. Our population is ageing and the proportion of people living with complex and long term conditions is increasing. To tackle all of this there is a real need to implement the findings of the Dilnott Commission to reform social care funding and also to radically realign provision away from the acute hospital to people's homes and community settings.

I truly believe we need to passionately defend our right to universal health care coverage. This is particularly the case bearing in mind the increase in long term conditions. It is easy to think of healthcare in terms of somebody breaking their leg badly, going into hospital and having an operation, followed by some rehabilitation at home. The costs of this would be relatively distinct and clear. Providing high quality health care for somebody in their 60s or 70s with two or more long term conditions for example heart disease and diabetes is another ball game altogether .....

1jim

I agree with dragon,
The nhs doesn't do bad for the amount of GDP spent on it
On the whole the nhs performs really well, there will always be cases where the nhs does not meet the needs ( actual or anticipated/expected) of an individual and these can be devastating but in the context of the whole organisation it does pretty well
Why should it be free? Well bluntly it would cost us a lot more if we had to pay for private care and how we would fund care for those who couldn't pay?

Dragon is right in that the nhs should concentrate on efficiency savings and productivity, and they are doing so under the Qipp agenda, what the nhs can do without is the top down ( or bottom up if you subscribe to Cameron.cleggs rationale) reorganisation which risks destabilising this process. For the purpose of openness I should probably declare that I work for the nhs.... Or i did, now I work for a social enterprise which is contracted to provide nhs services

ash28

uk_american wrote: »

I appreciate the safely net. It's one of the things that would deter me from easily going back to the US.

.

I have a friend who is from the US, she married (now divorced) someone from the UK and is a citizen - she can't (won't) go back to the US to live because of a couple of medical conditions, she says she wouldn't be able to get insurance to cover them, or to be able to afford to pay for treatment herself, where here she receives on going treatment for them.

madeupname1

Generali wrote: »

What I don't understand is what is unique about healthcare (rather than medicine, food, water and shelter) that means it shouldn't be charged for by any cash means whatsoever when it was consumed.

Being in a family who has been on the wrong side of cancer more times than I care to recount, at least one difference is cost. Most people can afford to feed themselves, or pay for water and shelter (although I appreciate the latter is very expensive). Paying for a catastrophic illness / injury / conditions would easily bankrupt all but the richest of people in a very short period of time.

I personally don't have an issue with paying a small fee for things like GP appointments. I am also open to NHS reform. However, I think the reason that most people are so suspicious of it is that the experience of dentistry and optician services (and, away from the medical field, rail) has shown that privatisation just makes those services alot more expensive for the individual.

shaggydoo

jamespir wrote: »

Healthcare isnt free you pay for it using national insurance
we just dont pay everytime were treated unlike other countries unless you go private

How true. And in return for our NI contributions....

We don't pay stupidly expensive health insurance payments every month like they do in many countries like the USA.

We don't have a health care system that involves tons of unnecessary health checks-ups to justify the stupidly expensive monthly health insurance payments.

And we don't have businesses burdened with the health costs of their employees.

The NHS rocks.