-
Obviously it's the most extreme eg but try paying out US levels of "private" health insurance for an average level of service, then come back and complain.
The extra waiting time for a GP appointment is eaten up by the lobby waiting times, arguing, double checking your bill and cross referencing everything with your insurances hit and miss overseas call centre.
Edit: lolz at $2,000 p/a - can't imagine what sort of 3rd world policy that buys.
-
I don't think anyone would try to claim that there are no problems with the NHS, but the outcomes of single-payer healthcare provision vs. something like the American system only have one winner.
A friend of the Mrs is a Doctor and made an interesting observation - she believes that there is enough money in the NHS now, but it's simply spent very badly. However, the way to make it be spent more wisely is not to remove it, or starve the system in the short term.
Also, the progressive privatisation that we see at the moment will simply divert tax into private hands.
-
I think I put 'ineffecient' in parentheses, because it's something people love to say all the time, but it's not actually true. I agree it's exceptionally efficient, but the system is currently failing (leading to maddening inefficiencies such as delayed discharge) due to the political choice to starve the NHS and social care of money. The other maddening misconception is that there are too many managers. I think it's something like 1/3rd of the number of managers in the NHS compared to private companies. The problem is more the calibre of managers, but hey-ho!
-
In terms of it being a widely held Tory belief - fair enough, but the people guiding policy in this area (Hunt, Letwin etc) I think do have those beliefs, it's just often not politically expedient to mention them. However, actions speak louder than words, and I think the myriad reorganisations towards a market based healthcare system with massive private-sector involvement that have accelerated under their watch speaks volumes about the current view of the Tory decision makers towards the NHS. They also know these changes are not popular, either within their own party or the general public, so have cleverly couched them in terms of 'efficiencies' and obscure language.
-
My anecdotal 2p is the same - Dr. who also doesn't believe much more money is needed, just an unfeasibly large amount of reorganisation to remove staff and buerocracy.
From reading up on it I think the US would benefit from a move to a Swiss model. The problem is health care is now basically a fiscal stimulus akin to burrying jars of money.
-
Not wanting to get stuck on semantics, but you characterised the NHS as
inefficient public services
A couple of anecdotes saying their are areas for efficiency improvements isn't quite the same. As others have pointing out compared to others our health system is more efficient.
Given the amount of spend of staff and their feed-in back into the economy, I'd say there's also an argument that any staff cuts you could make would have limited net savings.
-
You can make a good go of it by ignoring difficult points, contradicting yourself and treating anecdote as data though.
-
In the UK we do need to spend more than we currently do if we are to expect a similar level of service to our European neighbours - we've dropped behind in per capita funding levels quite significantly since the Tories came to power, and at a time when demand has increased massively. No number of reorganisations will help, and the NHS has already been made a huge number of efficiency savings. There isn't really any more fat to cut away, but the Tories are demanding it any way, and everything is falling to pieces a bit as a consequence.
-
Problem with this is that your premises are not true.
High earners are taxed less than low earners, and as GH said, taking someones wheelchair away doesn't remove as much of the deficit as taxing corporations reasonably would so do.
- The poorest 10% of households paid on average 42% of their income in tax in 2015/16.
- The richest 10% of households however paid on average just 34.3% of their income in tax
- Council tax and VAT hit the poorest particularly hard, with the poorest 10% of households paying 7% of their gross income in council tax, compared to just 1.5% for the richest, and 12.5% of gross income paid in VAT (5% for rich)
- Despite paying far less of their income in tax, the richest 10% have on average a gross income of £110,632, 10 times that of the poorest (£10,992)
- Post tax (including direct and indirect taxes and cash benefits) the poorest 10% have on average £6,370 and the richest 10% have £72,746
- The poorest 10% of households paid on average 42% of their income in tax in 2015/16.
-
Nobody wants the American system , including the Americans.
However, it is worth looking at how European countries provide universal access to healthcare through insurance systems. -
But one day you will, most probably in the last 6 months of your life.
Look upon it as a long term investment.
-
To be fair, in hindsight he might just be right about point 4.
hugo7
mespilus
Dammit
kimchi
polarbear
Dramatic_Hammer
Peter_Carter
Mickie_Cricket
amey-
Post a reply
About
That Corbyn fella...
Posted by
@pdlouche
I rate the chances of winning an argument that the NHS is not inviolably sacrosanct on LFGSS as less than zero.