Why should healthcare be 'free'?

LydiaJ

I think this might be an interesting addition to this debate, from Max Pemberton in the Telegraph. It's long, but worth reading, IMO.

There are few pieces of legislation that have caused such debate, furore and confusion as the Health and Social Care Bill. Since I started writing about it more than a year ago, I have received many letters and emails about it. Readers are concerned – but also deeply confused. They are not alone. Fellow medics, managers and nurses have cornered me in the hospital canteen and quizzed me about it. I have even been invited by members of the House of Lords to meet and explain it to them.

I am not surprised that people are confused. I’ve spent many hours immersed in the Bill and in the subsequent amendments, drafts, briefings, notes and critiques and I can attest that it is a particularly complex and obtuse piece of legislation – and about three times the length of the 1946 Bill that brought the NHS into existence.

But if this Bill is passed, it will lead to the most extensive reorganisation of the NHS ever undertaken, so I think it’s vital that everyone understands it so they can decide for themselves if this is what they want for the NHS.... To help Telegraph readers assess the implication of the Bill, I am devoting my column this week to highlighting my main areas of concern:

ash28

Generali wrote: »

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.

It must be some sort of drain on companies as the number of companies providing healthcare insurance to their workers is falling.

General Motors, for instance, covers more than 1.1 million employees and former employees, and the company says it spends roughly $5 billion on healthcare expenses annually. GM says healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes.

If nothing else it can make them less competitive.

Some analysts say the healthcare situation affects the ability of startup companies to find the best workers, impeding U.S. innovation. "In the cradle of American innovation, workers are making career choices based on co-payments, preexisting conditions, and other minutiae of health insurance," writes David Leonhardt in the New York Times." They are not necessarily making decisions based on what would be best for their careers and, in turn, for the American economy."

http://www.cfr.org/health-science-and-technology/healthcare-costs-us-competitiveness/p13325


I worked for a large US corporation for a long time (I've worked both here and in the US for them) - I know the second quote is very true...I knew a number of workers in the US plant who only stayed with the business because of the health benefits provided, especially if a member of their family had an ongoing illness. Some were really fed up and probably would have done better else where but they felt they couldn't change jobs. Not having health insurance for yourself or a member of your family must be frightening.

When I decided I'd had enough I could and did walk away.

LydiaJ

ash28 wrote: »

I worked for a large US corporation for a long time (I've worked both here and in the US for them) - I know the second quote is very true...I knew a number of workers in the US plant who only stayed with the business because of the health benefits provided, especially if a member of their family had an ongoing illness. Some were really fed up and probably would have done better else where but they felt they couldn't change jobs. Not having health insurance for yourself or a member of your family must be frightening.

When I decided I'd had enough I could and did walk away.

I have some American friends. They came to the UK so the husband could do a PhD. The wife was working for a multinational company and got transferred to one of their UK offices. When he finished his PhD, he looked for a job. He said he was happy to work here or back in the US, but he'd have to do the job search from here, because he couldn't go back there unless he had a job to go to, because of the health insurance issue.

olly300

Pennywise wrote: »

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!

The reason why everything is free is to stop the condition impacting the diabetes.

Otherwise there is a risk that you would only fill a prescription if you could afford it or could be bothered.

In the case of your high blood pressure the diabetes means you will suffer worse complications than someone who just had high blood pressure alone. (Though from my personal experience you will actually get more medical attention then someone who just has high blood pressure and so shouldn't if you follow the advice properly.)

olly300

1jim wrote: »

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?

It's not worth doing it as it wo.uld make people hate the NHS

The reason being is that someone could be a "healthy" person one day who goes to see their doctor about something they consider minor, gets sent for a few tests and find they fall into an exempt category.

There are lots of undiagnosed diabetics in the UK. I've also heard personal horror stories from people who were later diagnosised with cancer whose GPs sent them away the first few times.

lkate

To be totally honest, a lot of nhs money is spent on the rent for the hospital that was built by a private company in the first place.
It would be nice to have an opt out system. Where you could opt out of paying national insurance for nhs and just pay for private health insurance instead.
I would go private.
No offence to the nhs staff. The process of going through the nhs is just sooooo slow!
Is there anyone with experience of the healthcare system in countries such as Switzerland, Germany or Sweden?

lkate

But what's more is I don't agree with what the government have in plan for rearranging budgets etc to be in the hands of the gps.
I feel it would be like nhs dental treatment.
Dental is two options. Go nhs where they rarely do anything cosmetic because of their budgets (I'm worried doctors could work out the same way) or you go privately and all they want to do is cosmetic because they want to get more money from you.....

lostinrates

lkate wrote: »

To be totally honest, a lot of nhs money is spent on the rent for the hospital that was built by a private company in the first place.
It would be nice to have an opt out system. Where you could opt out of paying national insurance for nhs and just pay for private health insurance instead.
I would go private.
No offence to the nhs staff. The process of going through the nhs is just sooooo slow!
Is there anyone with experience of the healthcare system in countries such as Switzerland, Germany or Sweden?

I have had health care in other countries.


But, the problem with opt out,is that private simply could not cope in uk as things stand. I have been an 'urgent case' in both private and nhs system this year and my opthalmologist and neurologist have both refered me back to them selves as nhs patient, because outside london at least, facilities just do not exist. In london i have to admit, private was more up to it. A and e would be nhs exclusively in uk though i think.

I don't resent paying for nhs while using private, i resent that it does not treat my illness satisfactorily.

lkate

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't resent paying for nhs while using private, i resent that it does not treat my illness satisfactorily.

It's almost like you read my mind there.
My mum just found out she has been misdiagnosed for 6years.
Told she had one mental illness and given a cocktail of drugs when she actually had another mental illness. Which only psychotherapy can he, not medication.
Oh and to add to that Two of her prescriptions are toxic when taken together...... Sometimes fatal!

Loughton_Monkey

lkate wrote: »

.....It would be nice to have an opt out system. Where you could opt out of paying national insurance for nhs and just pay for private health insurance instead.
I would go private.....

... just before you do....

It might be wise to check where the nearest private ambulance service is based - from where you propose having a road accident.

Us taxpayers would end up picking up the bill to clean up all that blood you spilled over the road during the 3 hours after the NHS Ambulance found out you're private and left you there.