Which is the best private healthcare?

BananaRepublic

Pollycat wrote: »

Actually, I say the 'NHS is brilliant' because that's my own personal experience.

Do you have evidence that there are 'many' people who don't want to be informed about their condition?
I find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't ask their GP questions about their own health conditions would describe the NHS as 'brilliant'.


Have you asked your GP/practice nurse what your blood pressure results are?
Have you asked them to explain them?
Asked what you could do to improve them if they're not good?

On the occasions I need to visit my GP I always ask lots of questions - and they are answered.
If I had a GP that brushed me off, I'd be looking to move to a different practice.
But maybe that's not an option for you living in London.

I think that’s the right approach. They are busy, but if you ask them to explain, then they should. Sometimes they give you an information sheet, or suggest you look online, which might be okay depending on the condition.

coachman12

I know we can all argue about the rights and wrongs of private healthcare insurance. Personally I think everyone earning over a certain amount ( £75,000 pa......or whatever ) should be made to pay health insurance and be treated privately ( in private hospitals which would need a large private building programme----helping the economy

---

and made to include A&E , which is not covered by any private hospital at present). The NHS could then, assuming adequate funding by Govt , meet all the targets that the 6th richest country should offer free to the whole population
who require it ( under my idea, that means all those whose income is less than £50,000pa, £75,000pa, £100,000pa....whatever). I can see arguments for and against this idea but it's time, given the state of the NHS, that we look at such radical ideas instead of the same old cycle of giving the NHS more money, finding it's still not performing well enough, giving them yet more funding, then NHS still doesn't meet targets, more money, and on and on and on.......
Please feel free to comment

---

I know there will be many views. And so there should be with this vital question of a failing NHS.
In my next posting, after this one, I go on to the question of

---

if private health insurance is wanted by anyone ( and we all should all have the option of having private health insurance if we wish and can afford )

---

I will comment on healthcare insurers and give my own ratings.

coachman12

Personally, I believe in private health insurance if you can afford it. Given the state of the NHS, I think private health is as important than paying for a mortgage if you can afford one.
I have tried several health insurers over the years. The best I have found is " The Exeter " which is my current insurer. I can afford the reasonable premiums if I manage my finances carefully and I have full comprehensive cover for everything except A&E ( which no private insurer covers at present----see my last posting on this site), including all consultations with consultants, all outpatient treatment, all tests and scans, procedures, operations, hospitalisation, good food and menu for all tastes, private ensuite room, visitors at any time at all etc etc. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND The Exeter.
The WORST health insurer I have been a member of is CSHealthcare, which are really good at convincing the public that they are wonderful. THEY ARE, in my opinion, THE WORST.
CSHealthcare is supposedly a mutual friendly society ( thus, owned by all its members) , yet it is ruled with a fist of iron by a ruling elite of "old school tie" top ex-civil servants ( who were on as much as £100,000 pa and whose pensions are more than most of us could ever earn in a couple of years currently; there are also "outsiders" whose background is in financial management, usually with no previous experience of working in the health sector---the sort who earn high salaries and pensions and the infamous "bonuses". Together , these Board Members ignore all ordinary members' opinions and wishes. CSHealthcare's AGM is always in London and was attended by less than 0.5% of its members !!!!! Membership of CSHealthcare has fallen so low that they are now hardly viable, so their latest idea has been to open up their membership criteria to include non-public servants ( for the first time since its formation). So this is a good time to warn anyone who may be taken in by great reviews and great TrustPilot ratings, that CSHealthcare manipulate these figures very cleverly and are , in actual fact, an awful health insurer which ignores members, wishes and goes to huge lengths to bolster positive comments and completely stifle poor reviews, so that the latter are rarely seen in public. STAY WELL AWAY FROM CSHealthcare.
For lower cost insurers that virtually everybody can afford ( £10-15 per month) , I recommend Benenden Health, which in effect provides private treatment in cases where NHS waiting lists are just too long and unacceptable.

Undervalued

coachman12 wrote: »

I know we can all argue about the rights and wrongs of private healthcare insurance. Personally I think everyone earning over a certain amount ( £75,000 pa......or whatever ) should be made to pay health insurance and be treated privately ( in private hospitals which would need a large private building programme----helping the economy

---

and made to include A&E , which is not covered by any private hospital at present). The NHS could then, assuming adequate funding by Govt , meet all the targets that the 6th richest country should offer free to the whole population
who require it ( under my idea, that means all those whose income is less than £50,000pa, £75,000pa, £100,000pa....whatever). I can see arguments for and against this idea but it's time, given the state of the NHS, that we look at such radical ideas instead of the same old cycle of giving the NHS more money, finding it's still not performing well enough, giving them yet more funding, then NHS still doesn't meet targets, more money, and on and on and on.......
Please feel free to comment

---

I know there will be many views. And so there should be with this vital question of a failing NHS.
In my next posting, after this one, I go on to the question of

---

if private health insurance is wanted by anyone ( and we all should all have the option of having private health insurance if we wish and can afford )

---

I will comment on healthcare insurers and give my own ratings.

Why??

There is an argument that unless someone earns at least that sort of salary they are unlikely to be a net contributor to the national purse over their lifetime. Obviously it depends a bit on what value you put of public services and whether that should apply equally to all.

So higher earners already significantly subsidise the majority of the population despite people on modest wages beating their chests and saying "I pay my taxes so I'm entitled to XXX"!

To what extent that should happen and whether it should increase or decrease is the biggest political question of all.

An alternative argument to yours is that if someone opts of have a medically necessary operation or procedure done privately, they should be able to claim from the state what it would have cost the NHS to do it and only have to pay the difference?

The same argument could be applied to private schools. There is no restriction on how many children you can have. If it costs the state say £10K per year, per child, to provide a school place and it costs say £25K per year in fees at a private school, then why shouldn't the parent that opts for private education not be able to claim £10K from the state each year towards the cost?

If I opt for private dental treatment and pay, say, £75 for a checkup plus £300 for a couple of fillings shouldn't I get at least the £59 I would have paid towards the same NHS dental treatment?

coachman12

Thx Undervalued. I understand exactly what you are getting at and I appreciate the arguments. In particular, I agree with what you see as the dominant political question of our time regarding healthcare in Britain.
Where we differ is that your idea of someone who "opts" to receive private care , pay difference etc.
It is the "opts" that concerns me. There has to be a mandatory cut off point ( IMHO ) at which a patient HAS to have private medical treatment ( usually via insurance

---

tho I doubt Sir Mick Jagger didn't use private health insurance for his heart valve operation! ). In that way, the NHS can provide a top class service at it was intended to

---

to all who earn less than a carefully worked out amount; whilst people above that calculated income do not "opt" but , instead, have to use medical insurance and have private treatment.
There is also my important point that my proposed systems would involve a massive boost to building work to enable private A&E facilities, a massive boost for the NHS as amended which would be treating far less people, and a massive boost to the economy above and beyond the health sector.
Also, under my idea, the prime directive must be that there should be no difference in quality of actual treatment as between NHS and Private ( though the latter is probably bound to include better "hotel" facilities, as indeed it most definitely does now.
Thank you again Undervalued for your thoughtful and erudite posting. I am hoping more people will join in

---

I think it is one of the biggest domestic issues in Britain today.
I also hope members of this Forum will help others by sharing their experiences relating to my second posting dealing with the vexed question as to which are the good health insurers ( like The Exeter) and
which are the worst ( like the dreaded CSHealthcare ) and whether cheaper policies with less cover are more necessary or whether the more expensive fully comprehensive policies are what the majority prefer, if they are fortunate enough to be able to afford private insurance at all.
Looking forward to long debate to try and solve a massive subject that no Govt has the guts to tackle, but which desperately needs tackling urgently. Thx.

ryanbest

Hi everyone, I'm new here. Thanks for your post.

pickledonionspaceraider

I think the NHS is great if you live in the correct postcode.

It must be nice to sit on your high horse shouting praises of a service that you are receiving great care from, and telling other people it is as simple as 'just changing doctors'............ or shouting folk down, based on the fact that you received great care.

In other areas, people are suffering for long periods of time, unnecessarily - and can not move doctors as GPs have such arbitrary boundary rules, and the others GPs the area may not be accepting new patients

Honestly I think some people have outed themselves as completely blinkered individuals - ignorant to what is going on in the rest of the country beyond their own nose!

If you live in the wrong postcode - it is wise to be taking out private medical, if you can afford it

People have every right to say the NHS is crap, if they cannot access the same level of care as others - as it is in some areas and for some health conditions. This is what highlights the problems, exactly that, people complaining.

Some health conditions are massively underfunded, some areas get more ££'s for certain services..and sometimes those areas are only two miles apart. If you move two miles down the road, suddenly you cannot gain access to a service anymore....even though your health condition remains. (True story, this happened to someone I know - I helped them put in a complaint through NHS England, and they with-held the withdrawal of the service based on 'you are now out of their area, having moved two miles')

It is not like this is a free service. It is paid for out of our taxes. And we all pay the same. So we all have a right to a voice.

I am pleased some people are receiving a great service, but it should be like that for everyone...not just the lucky. Every person should be be getting the same standard.

This thread is obviously on an old one, but the content is as relevant, well - more so now, than when it was started

Undervalued

coachman12 wrote: »

It is the "opts" that concerns me. There has to be a mandatory cut off point ( IMHO ) at which a patient HAS to have private medical treatment ( usually via insurance

---

tho I doubt Sir Mick Jagger didn't use private health insurance for his heart valve operation! ). In that way, the NHS can provide a top class service at it was intended to

---

to all who earn less than a carefully worked out amount; whilst people above that calculated income do not "opt" but , instead, have to use medical insurance and have private treatment.

That would be, in effect, be an additional form or taxation. OK they would get some additional benefits for their additional "tax" such a treatment in a private room , better food and nicer surroundings. However many better off people may prefer to "put up" with NHS facilities or perhaps choose to pay for certain private treatments on a pay as you go basis.

The biggest difference though is that virtually all insurance premiums, including medical ones, depend on your assessed risk and past claims history. So a wealthy person who has had lots of medical problems may find insurance enormously expensive or even impossible to obtain.

Ultimately it comes down to accepting that if as a society we want ever more extensive medical treatment, which at least partly leads to longer life expectancy, we have got to be prepared to pay far more for it than we do at present. Or, are we happy for shorter and maybe happier life (on average) and spend the money in other ways?

newatc

Not read through everything on this thread but I've never thought that I would ever use Private Health. But after some connected health issues last year which lead to be hospitalised on three occasions and suffering greatly in between I would now consider it in similar circumstances. On two occasions I was discharged far too quickly after operations for management of the local surgery who were totally useless (in dealing with my particular issues). Within hospital it was very mixed with some excellent care and some disappointing.
To a degree this will always be so as it is very much down to the individual care staff. But there is little tie-up between the different elements of the NHS which can leave patient illnesses not being managed as in my case.
So next time (hopefully never) if I can pay to get the right treatment/care then I will. Sad but that is the reality of the NHS today and will be for the forseeable future.

coachman12

Thx to pickledonion, newatcand, once again Undervalued. I find all the points raised to be of interest in this debate about the NHS and private health insurance. BTW, Undervalued, most of the people who must take out private insurance under my proposals would not be affected by pre-existing conditions----as I propose the scheme should cover them from an early age as part of their parents' scheme if appropriate or as soon as they are earning sufficiently above average themselves. In other cases, pre-existing conditions' difficulties would need to be subsidised in some way so that well-off people with history of illness do not have to pay too much more than others. I take pickledonion's point about where you live making a huge difference to health needs----it is a disgrace in the 21st century. And, I sympathise with newatc's experiences and agree that private health care has to be considered due to such experiences ----for those that can afford it; and the best way to be able to pay for private care via health insurance companies.
I hope for more discussion to try and find a radical way in which the failing NHS can be revived for the majority of the population by making the use of private health insurance by people who can afford it mandatory. Thx all.