Ditch the NHS for private health care

[Daven]

So all the people who are too ill or disabled to work should be denied health care. Brilliant.

 

Mind you, that's how a private insurance system would work too. Anyone with a pre-existing or unfashionably chronic condition would be least likely to get a good insurance deal, or even rendered uninsurable altogether.

 

This is the issue - those who would need medical insurance the most wouldn't be able to get it or afford it. Survival of the fittest only - perfect solution.

[JFKvsNixon]

In the USA private health insurance is usually offered as part a of your employment contract. So who then who really pays for this insurance as the businesses wont pay for it out of their profits.

 

The answer is obvious as it's the customers of the businesses. So the reality is that a premium is paid by every one who purchases a product or a service for that companies private health care. What difference is this really from a tax based health care apart from the obvious draw backs of that healthcare not being democratic or universal?

 

Interestingly the big car manufacturers in America wanted a national health service to be brought in, as they say that having to provide the healthcare for their workers is stopping them being competitive, they estimate that the cost of healthcare averages into thousands per car sold. So in effect this is a flat tax paid at the same rate by rich and poor.

 

This mantra is addressed by Warren Buffet who says that said that the high costs paid by US companies for their employees’ health care put them at a competitive disadvantage.

 

He continues by stating that despite the US spending roughly 17% of GDP compare with 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world, the U.S. has fewer doctors and nurses per person, and said, “that kind of a cost, compared with the rest of the world, is like a tapeworm eating at our economic body.”

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62022120100301

[GrooveArmada]

Ditched it many years ago the NO Help Service went down the toilet a long time ago

[Rupert_Baehr]

Many of these mysterious treatments ARE available in the UK but the NHS does not believe that they are safe or worthwhile. It sickens me when the vulnerable are exploited .

 

Note the word in bold. Health care is a scarce resource. If you increase the (money) supply or reduce the (service) demand, a number of treatments suddenly become 'worthwhile'.

 

I was told by a friend who was a British doctor (many years ago) that a patient with renal failure who was under the age of 7 or over the age of 57 was likely to die. The waiting list for kidney transplants was very long, the supply of kidneys was inadequate and the number of dialysis machines available within the NHS was insufficient to meet the demands. - Harsh perhaps, but a fact of life. I've no idea what the supply of dialysis machines is like nowadays, but at that time there can be little doubt that patients who might have responded to treatment were dying. Presumable somebody somewhere felt that spending more money on dialysis machines (and thus spending less money elsewhere) was not 'worthwhile'.

 

I remember reading (a year or two ago) about a cancer patient who took a Regional Health Authority to court to obtain treatment. - The RHA had declined to provide a drug/treatment and she sued (successfully) to obtain the (rather expensive) treatment. She was treated. Good for her!

 

Presumably the money used to provide her treatment came from money which would have been spent on treating somebody else (or perhaps a number of other people.) They had to do without.

 

Hard choices. - I'm glad I don't have to make them.

[Daven]

Note the word in bold. Health care is a scarce resource. If you increase the (money) supply or reduce the (service) demand, a number of treatments suddenly become 'worthwhile'.

 

I was told by a friend who was a British doctor (many years ago) that a patient with renal failure who was under the age of 7 or over the age of 57 was likely to die. The waiting list for kidney transplants was very long, the supply of kidneys was inadequate and the number of dialysis machines available within the NHS was insufficient to meet the demands. - Harsh perhaps, but a fact of life. I've no idea what the supply of dialysis machines is like nowadays, but at that time there can be little doubt that patients who might have responded to treatment were dying. Presumable somebody somewhere felt that spending more money on dialysis machines (and thus spending less money elsewhere) was not 'worthwhile'.

 

I remember reading (a year or two ago) about a cancer patient who took a Regional Health Authority to court to obtain treatment. - The RHA had declined to provide a drug/treatment and she sued (successfully) to obtain the (rather expensive) treatment. She was treated. Good for her!

 

Presumably the money used to provide her treatment came from money which would have been spent on treating somebody else (or perhaps a number of other people.) They had to do without.

 

Hard choices. - I'm glad I don't have to make them.

Just to clarify - when I said not 'worthwhile' I meant 'hopeless' - despite the trauma that the patient would go through in receiving the treatment, the result would be the same as if they didn't receive the treatment at all .

[truman]

Just to clarify - when I said not 'worthwhile' I meant 'hopeless' - despite the trauma that the patient would go through in receiving the treatment, the result would be the same as if they didn't receive the treatment at all .

 

If you take that to the limit then all treatments are "hopeless"....

[mj.scuba]

Just to clarify - when I said not 'worthwhile' I meant 'hopeless' - despite the trauma that the patient would go through in receiving the treatment, the result would be the same as if they didn't receive the treatment at all .

 

At least by travelling to the US they get that option, which simply may not be available to them here.

[Daven]

If you take that to the limit then all treatments are "hopeless"....

 

But I didn't.................

[Daven]

At least by travelling to the US they get that option, which simply may not be available to them here.

 

But to give people false hope and take their money is cruel and immoral.

[mj.scuba]

But to give people false hope and take their money is cruel and immoral.

 

What makes you think it's always false? Are you saying for everybody that gets sent over to the US (usually with charitable donations) for treatment, the treatment is a failure? Those dodgy yanky doctors, they just don't know what they're doing do they and they just want your money