Would a mixed NHS / Private model work?

lostinrates

BobQ wrote: »

I agree that comparisons are difficult. I too thought the rankings for UK seemed a little generous, although on previous reports (as I recall) UK performed well overall all (but not that well). I was just trying to point out that there is an air of pessimism in some people's mind who see the NHS as unaffordable and poor. In reality it is fairly good (I accept it may not be the best) and is reasonably priced. If we spent as much as France we could have better outcomes I dare say, but equally Aus has good outcomes without spending more.

Also, there have been times where French policy makers have looked at NHs model as French model has been prohibitive. I remember this in the French news as some point in the past. ( sorry cannot date but must have been some point in early to mid nineties I guess?)

I still would prefer their health care model though. Personally. And we're buckling under the costs of NHs.

BobQ

lostinrates wrote: »

I still would prefer their health care model though. Personally. And we're buckling under the costs of NHs.

Are we? The NHS costs marginally more that Aus's system a lot less than the French.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I visited a friend in NZ recently and she was trying to explain the system there. To be honest, the mix of insurance, private and free stuff was confusing. It would be brave to the point of career suicide for a politician to try and implement such changes here, I think.

It seems there are some core weaknesses to the NHS currently:

- the disparity between the efficiency of different GP surgeries
- lack of joined up care for mental health and social services
- the strain on A&E, related to the above
- long term issues with disorders that are preventable with lifestyle changes

I'd like to think that with a bit of cross-party willpower and long term focus, the above could be addressed.

PS how does it work for diabetics in Aus, Generali? My boyfriend is Type 1 (the one where for reasons not understood your pancreas just stops making insulin, not the one l* get from eating too much sugar), meaning his insulin and all other prescriptions are free. I wouldn't want to live in a society where people are financially punished for the misfortune of these kind of life-changing disorders.

Generali

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

PS how does it work for diabetics in Aus, Generali? My boyfriend is Type 1 (the one where for reasons not understood your pancreas just stops making insulin, not the one lard-!!!!!! get from eating too much sugar), meaning his insulin and all other prescriptions are free. I wouldn't want to live in a society where people are financially punished for the misfortune of these kind of life-changing disorders.

Drugs are charged for unless you are very poor. They are subsidised and all medical bills over $1500/yr can be offset against tax.

However, wages are higher in Aus as a rule than in the UK especially for the lower paid and taxes are lower as a result of the state paying for less stuff.

Whether you have Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes is immaterial here.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Generali wrote: »

Drugs are charged for unless you are very poor. They are subsidised and all medical bills over $1500/yr can be offset against tax.

However, wages are higher in Aus as a rule than in the UK especially for the lower paid and taxes are lower as a result of the state paying for less stuff.

Whether you have Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes is immaterial here.

I think that's awful, personally, and would rather pay more tax to prevent such charges. There should be a difference between 1 and 2, because one is preventable and reversible, and the other isn't.

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

The UK performs quite well in this analysis. In fact so does everyone compared to the US (did you mean US in the above?)

Thanks for posting this. Yes I did mean the US is quoted as what we would end up like of we didnt have the NHS.

To me it see.s that with the nhs being such a large part of govt expenditure we are never going to have a sensible did ussion on long term health expe figure as a share of GDP and with it being such a political totem no party will ever be able to reform it in a sensible manner which is sad.

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Thanks for posting this. Yes I did mean the US is quoted as what we would end up like of we didnt have the NHS.....

That's not really true.

The US healthcare system is really something of an outlier. No other country in the world has anything similar. Just as the UK healthcare system is really something of an outlier; no other country in the world has replicated the NHS model.

To conduct a debate on the basis that those are the only two options available is quite absurd.

michaels

antrobus wrote: »

That's not really true.

The US healthcare system is really something of an outlier. No other country in the world has anything similar. Just as the UK healthcare system is really something of an outlier; no other country in the world has replicated the NHS model.

To conduct a debate on the basis that those are the only two options available is quite absurd.

Which was the point I was trying to make but obviously not being very clear. Where there is any debate about the NHS we are normally threatened that unless we back the NHS without question then we will get the us system....

Masomnia

The Commonwealth fund are a campaign group for reform of health care in the US, so it's not a huge surprise the US came out bottom of their study.

The study they've done does highlight some of the benefits of the NHS though such as less bureacracy (don't laugh) as people don't need to faff with insurance details, involve other companies to arrange payments etc. And obviously access to health care is easy, which is a good thing in my book.

Personally I'd prefer an insurance based system where the onus is on the individual to buy their own, but the government does provide a limited scheme to ensure universal coverage. Individuals would have free choice as to where they use their insurance, state hospitals, private hospitals etc.

BobQ

Masomnia wrote: »

The Commonwealth fund are a campaign group for reform of health care in the US, so it's not a huge surprise the US came out bottom of their study.

The study they've done does highlight some of the benefits of the NHS though such as less bureacracy (don't laugh) as people don't need to faff with insurance details, involve other companies to arrange payments etc. And obviously access to health care is easy, which is a good thing in my book.

Personally I'd prefer an insurance based system where the onus is on the individual to buy their own, but the government does provide a limited scheme to ensure universal coverage. Individuals would have free choice as to where they use their insurance, state hospitals, private hospitals etc.

It is easy to dismiss the Commonwealth Fund as a pressure group (and I agree it is) but it is not an advocate of any specific nation's system. It is trying to promote better healthcare in the US.

Most of its analysis uses reliable sources like the WHO or OECD. For example.

http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/oecd-health-statistics-2014-frequently-requested-data.htm