Privatise the NHS

[sniffer 0]

Drug costs make up only a small slice of the pie in the total healthcare budget. It's a visible area and a vote catching topic especially in the States but really is small compared to procedures, imaging, long term care etc. No doubt though, that socialised medicine is broken but the " it's my right band " can't see it.

[Park Life 70]

Drug costs make up only a small slice of the pie in the total healthcare budget. It's a visible area and a vote catching topic especially in the States but really is small compared to procedures, imaging, long term care etc. No doubt though, that socialised medicine is broken but the " it's my right band " can't see it.

 

Ridiculous statement. It's nowhere near 'broken'.

[sniffer 0]

Of course it is but I wouldn't expect the likes of you to admit it.

[ChezGiven 0]

Some interesting perspectives in here.

 

Fop, there is a course at INSEAD in Paris run by their Healthcare management people dedicated to 'patient led services' where the individual is encouraged to take full responsibility for their health. Many Nobel prize winning commentators believe it is the only way forward for people to partake in the decision making process and pay directly for the services they use. You already do pay in the form of tax, so why not as dedicated payment from your salary? The reason why i mentioned Singapore is that they designed a system that takes the best of the insurance based systems whilst providing a safety net for the poor.

 

There is absolutely nothing stopping us from reforming the system in a similar way and the low population you mention is irrelevant. Its much harder to centralise (ie NHS) for large populations than to break it all up into autonomous, private and publicly owned institutions. Our nations size is an argument in favour for public/private mix, not the other way round.

 

You'll have noted that British Breast cancer and Non-small cell Lung cancer sufferers were denied the chance to have Avastin today, a drug freely available in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Not here though, as the system cant afford it.

 

The NHS is the opposite extreme to a pure private market. Neither work properly, the answer is in the middle.

[Fop 1]

Some interesting perspectives in here.

 

Fop, there is a course at INSEAD in Paris run by their Healthcare management people dedicated to 'patient led services' where the individual is encouraged to take full responsibility for their health. Many Nobel prize winning commentators believe it is the only way forward for people to partake in the decision making process and pay directly for the services they use. You already do pay in the form of tax, so why not as dedicated payment from your salary? The reason why i mentioned Singapore is that they designed a system that takes the best of the insurance based systems whilst providing a safety net for the poor.

 

There is absolutely nothing stopping us from reforming the system in a similar way and the low population you mention is irrelevant. Its much harder to centralise (ie NHS) for large populations than to break it all up into autonomous, private and publicly owned institutions. Our nations size is an argument in favour for public/private mix, not the other way round.

 

You'll have noted that British Breast cancer and Non-small cell Lung cancer sufferers were denied the chance to have Avastin today, a drug freely available in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. Not here though, as the system cant afford it.

 

The NHS is the opposite extreme to a pure private market. Neither work properly, the answer is in the middle.

 

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't/couldn't be better than now.

 

 

Just I highly doubt it would be as good as the Singapore model (for all the reasons I listed and probably a few more), and that it's shame that the NHS cannot function as envisioned, but the political will never be there again for that.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'm not sure what you're saying.

[Fop 1]

I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

That the result will probably also be something in the middle, although I suspect far more to a US side where people are making an awful lot of money without necessarily doing a great job or getting massive efficiency from it.

 

Also it'll be very difficult to make such changes without also changing things like the UKs benefit system (and like I said tax burden, never mind GNP etc.), again Singapore works in Singapore, but it different from the UK in an awful lot of ways.

 

Of course the current piecemeal methodology could also result in a complete and utter abortion of a health service, but either way the NHS was a wonderful idea let down in so many ways.

[Rob W 0]

Anyone who wants to go down the private insurance route should be made to live in the USA

[Guest alex]

Anyone who wants to go down the private insurance route should be made to live in the USA

I bet you've got a private pension. Don't see the difference really.

[Fop 1]

Anyone who wants to go down the private insurance route should be made to live in the USA

I bet you've got a private pension. Don't see the difference really.

 

We'd have to massively reform our benefits system, our benefits system with their healthcare system = Armageddon.

[Guest alex]

Anyone who wants to go down the private insurance route should be made to live in the USA

I bet you've got a private pension. Don't see the difference really.

 

We'd have to massively reform our benefits system, our benefits system with their healthcare system = Armageddon.

Not what I was on about but you're probably right there.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3212]

OK Here is my view. At the moment the NHS is run for the patients with a certain amount of money. If you privatise that yo then have people wanting to take money out. I do not see how removing money from any system makes it better. It is the big lie that private companies are more competitive than national ones. This is blatantly untrue and look at the power and water companies as proof.

[Park Life 70]

OK Here is my view. At the moment the NHS is run for the patients with a certain amount of money. If you privatise that yo then have people wanting to take money out. I do not see how removing money from any system makes it better. It is the big lie that private companies are more competitive than national ones. This is blatantly untrue and look at the power and water companies as proof.

 

Totally agree. The fact is most big organisations are wasteful and that to just level that at the NHS is ridiculous on one level and wholly disingenuous on another level. Insurance/fund/investment companies are trying to get their claws into the NHS having for most of the 90's milked and robbed people of their money with investment plans from hell.

 

Do private patients still get dumped back onto the NHS if they are long term sick?????

[ChezGiven 0]

OK Here is my view. At the moment the NHS is run for the patients with a certain amount of money. If you privatise that yo then have people wanting to take money out. I do not see how removing money from any system makes it better. It is the big lie that private companies are more competitive than national ones. This is blatantly untrue and look at the power and water companies as proof.

 

Try backing that statement up.

 

Evidence against that statement - Russia

 

Evidence for that statement - ?

 

Also, by making people take out social insurance, then individual contributions are related to income and preferences. How you can conclude this leads to less money in the system is beyond me, when systems organised like this pour 3 to 4 times more money per head into them? The problems with 'totally' private systems are ethical not financial!! All we need is a blend of the two.

 

Anyway, the thread title was deliberately provocative in the run up to the organisations 60th birthday and the forthcoming report from Lord Darzi. There will be loads of announcements and guff in the next few weeks that wont change the fact that unless we find more money, you'll be no more likely to get the CAT scan, the operation early or access to life-saving drugs than someone from Poland, Hungary or the Czech republic. Who spend far less than us...

[Park Life 70]

OK Here is my view. At the moment the NHS is run for the patients with a certain amount of money. If you privatise that yo then have people wanting to take money out. I do not see how removing money from any system makes it better. It is the big lie that private companies are more competitive than national ones. This is blatantly untrue and look at the power and water companies as proof.

 

Try backing that statement up.

 

Evidence against that statement - Russia

 

Evidence for that statement - ?

 

Also, by making people take out social insurance, then individual contributions are related to income and preferences. How you can conclude this leads to less money in the system is beyond me, when systems organised like this pour 3 to 4 times more money per head into them? The problems with 'totally' private systems are ethical not financial!! All we need is a blend of the two.

 

Anyway, the thread title was deliberately provocative in the run up to the organisations 60th birthday and the forthcoming report from Lord Darzi. There will be loads of announcements and guff in the next few weeks that wont change the fact that unless we find more money, you'll be no more likely to get the CAT scan, the operation early or access to life-saving drugs than someone from Poland, Hungary or the Czech republic. Who spend far less than us...

 

How is Russia an example?

[Park Life 70]

What your take on the Canadian system Chez?

[ChezGiven 0]

Parky, who organises the distribution of bread in Hamburg? Which one person is responsible? In Russia, there was one organisation responsible (with one person being the head of that organisation) and people had to queue to get it, why dont you have to queue in Hamburg (other than to wait to get served)?

 

Canada has 70% public and 30% private 'funding' and almost all services are 'provided' by private organisations, some of which are non-profit, some of which are for profit. What's your point?

[Park Life 70]

Parky, who organises the distribution of bread in Hamburg? Which one person is responsible? In Russia, there was one organisation responsible (with one person being the head of that organisation) and people had to queue to get it, why dont you have to queue in Hamburg (other than to wait to get served)?

 

Canada has 70% public and 30% private 'funding' and almost all services are 'provided' by private organisations, some of which are non-profit, some of which are for profit. What's your point?

 

Christ what a load of diversionary twaddle.

 

The Canadian system is 100% pubic money is my point and works well enough to take cross border hits from Americans desperate for a bit of heathcare.

 

"Canada's publicly funded health care system is best described as an interlocking set of ten provincial and three territorial health insurance plans. Known to Canadians as "medicare", the system provides access to universal, comprehensive coverage for medically necessary hospital and physician services."

Edited June 30, 2008 by Park Life

[Fop 1]

OK Here is my view. At the moment the NHS is run for the patients with a certain amount of money. If you privatise that yo then have people wanting to take money out. I do not see how removing money from any system makes it better. It is the big lie that private companies are more competitive than national ones. This is blatantly untrue and look at the power and water companies as proof.

 

Try backing that statement up.

 

Evidence against that statement - Russia

 

Evidence for that statement - ?

 

Also, by making people take out social insurance, then individual contributions are related to income and preferences. How you can conclude this leads to less money in the system is beyond me, when systems organised like this pour 3 to 4 times more money per head into them? The problems with 'totally' private systems are ethical not financial!! All we need is a blend of the two.

 

Anyway, the thread title was deliberately provocative in the run up to the organisations 60th birthday and the forthcoming report from Lord Darzi. There will be loads of announcements and guff in the next few weeks that wont change the fact that unless we find more money, you'll be no more likely to get the CAT scan, the operation early or access to life-saving drugs than someone from Poland, Hungary or the Czech republic. Who spend far less than us...

 

 

The problem is that private solutions CAN be more competitive, IF they have competition.

 

But give a private company a monopoly and it basically becomes a cash cow (you've only got to look at the UK to see this, some of the privatisation schemes worked quite well, some were [and still are] a complete rip off for anyone but the shareholders).

 

 

Initiating another gold rush and/or replicating the current dental situation in the UK (or even the current GP contracts vs opening hours/availability) would be an unmitigated disaster.

[ChezGiven 0]

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either.

 

The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.

[ChezGiven 0]

Parky, its not 100% publicly funded. I cant post PDFs of publications so here is a wiki

 

"The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

 

You know best though eh?

[Park Life 70]

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either.

 

The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.

 

 

Would have thought France would be a better debating issue personally. To use Russia as an example of state systems gone bad is a level of depravity I wouldn't expect from you Chesney.

[Fop 1]

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either.

 

The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.

 

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does.

[ChezGiven 0]

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either.

 

The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.

 

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does.

 

 

A 100% publicly funded and run system is a monopoloy you doughnut.

[Park Life 70]

Parky, its not 100% publicly funded. I cant post PDFs of publications so here is a wiki

 

"The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

 

You know best though eh?

 

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad.

 

 

France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Park Life