We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Why should healthcare be 'free'?
Comments
-
How true. And in return for our NI contributions....
National insurance brought in £96,500,000,000 in 2010-11 (employer and employee contributions).
Dept of health cost £105,000,000,000 in 2010-11
Welfare cost an additional £160,000,000,000 in that financial year.
National insurance hasn't paid for health, pensions and dole for decades.
Of course businesses in the UK are burdened with the healthcare costs of their employees, only it's via the tax system rather than via an insurance system.
The UK Government spends about 47% of GDP in total, the US Government about 38% of GDP. By comparison, the Aussie Government spends about 34% of GDP, a high figure compared to recent history.0 -
The UK Government spends about 47% of GDP in total, the US Government about 38% of GDP. By comparison, the Aussie Government spends about 34% of GDP, a high figure compared to recent history.
But there are plenty of people in the US who can't get or afford insurance and can't afford treatment. I would rather see those who need treatment treated and less spent on admin, "awareness" and, other fripperies.
I don't think our system is anything like good enough but the US system is appalling.
Out of interest - how much as a percentage of GDP do France and Germany spend?
Edited to and found us at 8.3% and Germany at 10.7% with higher premiums than us.
Even the Swiss model is cheaper than the US model.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head. Terry Pratchett
http.thisisnotalink.cöm0 -
One area where massive savings could be made is prescriptions.
It's often a matter of trial and error when doctors are prescribing drugs. They always prescribe a full course of each new drug. Often the drug causes side effects etc and has to be stopped after just a few doses, meaning most of the packet is thrown away. Why can't GP's give smaller doses of new drugs as a trial and then move onto full months' supplies if it works?
When someone has prepaid prescriptions or is exempt, they're more likely to waste a GP appointment to get a prescription for over the counter medicines free of charge rather than pay for them, even for basic things like cough medicine, creams, etc. Same when you become exempt because of a condition, such as diabetes - surely it's only the items you need because of the diabetes that should be free, not everything you'll ever need!
I speak from experience. OH and I were relatively "happy" to pay for our over-the-counter medicinal needs and occasional prescriptions. Then we qualified for working tax credits and automatically got our "freebie" card. So for a couple of years, we got our supplies free. Then I started needing blood pressure tablets (3) and bought a year's prepayment certificate to save money on them. Later I was diagnosed diabetic, and now, not only do I get the diabetic drugs free, I also get the BP drugs free, any anything else that I may need, whether or not related to diabetes. Why should I be exempt by having diabetes but not exempt by having high blood pressure?
The prescription system needs a complete re-think. Millions or billions are being wasted at the moment.0 -
The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head. Terry Pratchett
http.thisisnotalink.cöm0 -
adouglasmhor wrote: »But there are plenty of people in the US who can't get or afford insurance and can't afford treatment. I would rather see those who need treatment treated and less spent on admin, "awareness" and, other fripperies.
I don't think our system is anything like good enough but the US system is appalling.
Out of interest - how much as a percentage of GDP do France and Germany spend?
Edited to and found us at 8.3% and Germany at 10.7% with higher premiums than us.
Even the Swiss model is cheaper than the US model.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
I don't think that the US system is better than the UK's, quite the reverse in fact, but to pretend that health insurance in the US is a unique drain on the resources of US companies is wrong.
Ultimately all taxes fall on the private sector unless the Government prints money to fund her spending.0 -
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
Re your bold section, if we were talking not private but public with a small payment for some routine apps for some, it would cost THE SAME for the nation but accrued differently, surely? The promlem is, what we pay in national insurance does Not meet the expenditure we have there...so it is costing us more than we can afford now!
There is no reasona small payment for gp appts could not happen at the same time as increasing efficiency.0 -
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.
Nope, no fat related care for fatties, or treatment for any common and foreseeable fat related injury; like getting wedged into a cinema seat.
They should receive celery on prescription but that's it until they are thin.0 -
lostinrates wrote: »Re your bold section, if we were talking not private but public with a small payment for some routine apps for some, it would cost THE SAME for the nation but accrued differently, surely? The promlem is, what we pay in national insurance does Not meet the expenditure we have there...so it is costing us more than we can afford now!
There is no reasona small payment for gp appts could not happen at the same time as increasing efficiency.
I guess firstly, this wasn't my bold section, you highlighted it to quote, this aside, can I ask what happens when someone needs an apointment but can't pay for it as it is not affordable? Do they get refused or does tax payer still pick up the tab, who keep track of income from this? Will there be an increased demand for back room staff? Will the cost recovered by charging cover its costs?0 -
I guess firstly, this wasn't my bold section, you highlighted it to quote, this aside, can I ask what happens when someone needs an apointment but can't pay for it as it is not affordable? Do they get refused or does tax payer still pick up the tab, who keep track of income from this? Will there be an increased demand for back room staff? Will the cost recovered by charging cover its costs?
As suggested before....affordabiity criteria is already in place for prescriptions...and that seems ro be affordable. So remove the young, the unemployed, pensioners, long term problems, then make a prepayment deal available like the existing prescription charge available. Why not expand that current system?0 -
lostinrates wrote: »As suggested before....affordabiity criteria is already in place for prescriptions...and that seems ro be affordable. So remove the young, the unemployed, pensioners, long term problems, then make a prepayment deal available like the existing prescription charge available. Why not expand that current system?
So, we have now exempted the high users of the service from payment
Which leaves the low users of the service paying for consultations... So is that on top of what these users pay already or are we reducing NI contributions as well?
Suggestion 1 means healthy working people paying more
Suggestion 2 means healthy people paying less but more of a deficit in the budget which will then mean working people paying more
And I'm stil not sure how you would collect payments using this system or the cost of back end staffing?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards