Time to privatise the NHS

[NotAllThere]

Does that include unfunded future liabilities? I.e. does the definition of net producer/consumer take into account retirement?

Yes. The positive fiscal impact of immigrants decreases as they age, but over full life span, remains positive. I consider fiscal arguments against immigration to be non-factual and are promoted by xenophobia. I think immigration should rather be restricted for cultural concerns - but so long as immigrants integrate into mainstream society, and live by and promote local mores, I don't have an issue with it.

Back on topic. This report out today suggests that private hospitals are more dangerous than NHS. Mainly because private hospitals are less likely to have ICUs.

[stek]

Yeah, privatise the NHS, great idea....

[billybiro]

You can 'privatise' the NHS and still have it 'free' i.e. funded by the government. Much of our infrastructure is built and maintained by private companies but they are paid by the government... it's simply outsourcing the work out on the basis this is more cost effective.

Of course it's more cost effective. Everything is outsourced to the lowest bidder.

And what we get in return is the health care equivalent of outsourcing your mission-critical application development to some cheap bobs from new delhi.

[d000hg]

All cutting services to increase profit.

Potentially. The counterargument is that nationalised services are so inefficient due to lack of motivation and over-abundance of bureaucracy, that private companies can turn a profit while reducing overall cost.

Of course the practice and the theory are different... you'd need so much policing that they didn't try to do as you say, that this alone would cost a fortune!

[NotAllThere]

Yeah, privatise the NHS, great idea....

And that's just for removing a splinter from your pinky.

[VectraMan]

How small?

EUR23, and then people reclaim 70-100% of it back. Many people also have top up insurance to cover what they can't reclaim from the government scheme.

Makes for interesting reading:

How European nations run national health services: Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden | Healthcare Professionals Network | The Guardian

1)People wouldn't go to get something checked out or chat to their GP about a worry. While this puts more of a strain on GPs, it's great they are your first port of call for anything from wanting to quit smoking to diet advice to "what's this lump?"

We wonder why we have to wait a week and a half to see a GP and then you constantly see on TV or wherever people encouraging us to see the GP for a bit of a chat and free advice. Is that really the best use of NHS resources?

2)To poorer people, even a small fee might seem substantial, or a barrier to prevent them going. Although perhaps some people are exempt in France?

There is always the argument that some people won't go to the doctor if they have to pay, but then personally I'm reluctant to go to the doctor because I feel like a sponge when I'd rather pay for the services I use. The problem with going private is you don't know how much it ends up costing; you could very quickly get up to thousands of pounds of tests, and so many people stick with the NHS when they could comfortably afford to make a contribution.

The other thing about the European style systems is that because it's deducted from your payslip you see how much is deducted from your payslip. Whereas we all pay for healthcare but don't really know how much as it's all mixed up in the black hole that is tax. Keeping it separate from all other government finances would be a good thing, and would mean the NHS is less of a political football.

[Danglekt]

Terrible idea - the problem you are ranting about is not solved by privatising the NHS.

Do you really think that getting MORE providers into already complex pathways will see the patient journey improve? and private ones, with about as much sympathy as NLUK to stuff that "isn't in my contract"...

The problem is commissioners razor slice services in a bid to save money, not understanding the pathway properly, so stuff ends up sliced from one provider, assuming it's already funded and is in effect someone else problem - issue being they don't tell (or pay) the next provider in the chain to do it either - and so the chain falls down once the providers start having to cut their cloth according to the funding which is shrinking. This only gets more complex between Health and Social care - and the needs you are describing come very close to social care...

Not saying it's right - just trying to explain that the "solution" isn't privatisation

[DimPrawn]

Assisted suicide costs about £5000 in Switzerland. I wonder how long before Osborne makes a mental cost saving connection...

[SueEllen]

We wonder why we have to wait a week and a half to see a GP and then you constantly see on TV or wherever people encouraging us to see the GP for a bit of a chat and free advice. Is that really the best use of NHS resources?

They could train and employ more specialist nurses as they are cheaper. Also as most nurses are older when they start their training they have better people skills.

Before the Tories closed and drastically limited the hours in the remaining ones, all the local walk in centres were run by nurses. Then if you turned up and were a concern, they would fast track you to a doctor either in the A&E next door or by calling an ambulance.

[d000hg]

We wonder why we have to wait a week and a half to see a GP and then you constantly see on TV or wherever people encouraging us to see the GP for a bit of a chat and free advice. Is that really the best use of NHS resources?

It doesn't need to be a fully qualified GP for loads of these things, you're absolutely right. Anything from "I want to eat more healthily" to "I think I might be depressed" could probably be handled by some other class of people, just as they have nurses to do blood tests and so on. But I DO think this is a valuable thing to offer.