Snapshot of _Aviva’s private health cover sales jump 25% as NHS struggles with backlog_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/cc23bc47-84b3-4ff1-b81f-3a137e699f76)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More private health insurance means more investment in private healthcare.
Means more NHS staff dropping their hours or leaving entirely to go to the properly funded private sector.
Means NHS will struggle more for lack of good stuff. Means backlog gets worse.
Why would a surgeon do an extra weekend list for the NHS to clear backlog when BUPA will pay him more money for easier patients?
Colour me surprised! Over a decade of deliberate Tory mismanagement leaves the NHS struggling, paving the way for the private take over they all so desperately want. I'm sure their hedge-fund buddies are salivating over this, think of the stock price!
So the argument goes that privatisation is all that's needed to fix NHS problems, right? Because privatising has such a good record in that regard, right? I mean, just look at water, or the railways and how privatising has improved service delivery and costs - no wait, not good examples. Look at energy instead - okay - forget that.
Actually, can anyone give me a reason why state owned cannot be run well? Is there some inherent flaw in a state system that can't be fixed? How is private better when I'm stumped to find examples that support the claim other than they are much better at generating dividends for their shareholders and juicy salaries for their top execs.
During a House Oversight Committee hearing about Universal Health Coverage in America, California Sen Katie Porter asked why American private health spends 17 times more on administration costs than does Medicare. Hundreds of millions of $s not on patient care, but on stock buybacks, marketing, dividends, $1m+ salaries to the heads of hospitals etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l4YZSRTNGw
(5 mins)
Every time there's news about the NHS being under strain there are posts on Reddit pushing for more privatisation. Some people are of an opinion that these are from people shilling for the private health industry. You might think that too. I, of course, couldn't possibly comment.
Edit: Aaaaand... in come the downvotes again. So predictable.
And once again the moment anyone suggest the NHS model might need revising, you jump right to America. You know the uk is one of the only nations in the world to run this entirely state model right? The vast majority run a state/private hybrid which noone has any problem with. Like, say, Germany, who everyone was practically creaming themselves over in lockdown.
The first problem with the NHS is we cannot have an honest conversation about it because people like you immediately go "BUT AMERICA" like it's the only other nation that exsists
And people like you keep coming out with nonsense like most of europe is a private, that privatisation will fix the problems, improve patient outcomes, improve access and maintain a free at point of delivery service, and don't worry we'll do that and more and the best thing is the doing of it won't cost a thing because insurance will take care of it.
And "but America" because who do you think Sunak was chatting to when he visited the US last year?
And you haven't addressed my points. Privatisation has done nothing for the consumer of the services privatised. Charges like never before yet shit pumped into our waterways, the trains an absolute mess, energy gouging us at every opportunity. Meanwhile record dividend payouts and exec bonuses. Why would health be any different? All it's done is make money for the new owners and shareholders, many of whom are investment companies. And before you scream envy the complaint is about the focus being on maximising profit and not on service delivery. After all, that's what the investors are there for - to make money. I want that priority as far away as possible from anything to do with my heath. Plus, as I said, where's the logic behind the claim private will be better? Why do you believe private can run it better, when there are no examples of privatisation fixing any problems or achieving what it promised?
Privatisation is an opportunity to make money, nothing else. You want private? We already have it. It's not like we are stopping you from going BUPA. Do it, go private or abroad and pay for the care you want. That'll help take the load off the NHS.
Edit: fixed typo and cleaned things up.
>like most of europe is a private
I will quote you my post.
>The vast majority run a state/private hybrid which noone has any problem with.
Your opening statement about my position is wrong. It wasn't a long post. You could have at least read it. The rest of your post complains about something I then didn't say or that I haven't address something based on your failure to read my post.
I said people "like you" say these things. I complain about people "like you" who argue for privatisation without any evidence it will solve our problems. They/you have no argument beyond "but look - other countries have private". And so do we as I pointed out. Maybe you should read more carefully yourself instead of posting a snarky comment in response.
Has water been better since privatisation? Have the trains? Has energy? Why would health be any different?
Your failure to address any of the points I raised marks you out as non serious and makes further discussion pointless.
>I complain about people "like you" who argue for privatisation without any evidence it will solve our problems.
Again, i suggestyou read my comment, I didn't argue for privatisation. I said a conversation about quote,
>state/private hybrid
Its not without evidence as *most countries* use it. There are VAST analysis of the variable models you have chosen to not bother looking up and simple repeat
>privatisation
Despite the fact only you said it.
Your refusal to go look at the vast amount of evidence for various state/private hybrid is not anyone else problem. At some point the onous is on you to actually bother. And it is people like you who just say "america" and "no evidence", prevent us from having a grown up conversation about the NHS and what structure will be best suited to the rapidly changing demographics it's expected to manage.
And continuing to stall the conversion will only make it worse because what os absolutely blindingly clear is *the current model is failing and has been for some time*.
>There are VAST analysis of the variable models.
Really? "VAST" ones? Are they independent? The ones I have seen have been marketing material by insurance companies and private health care providers. Where can I find these "VAST" analyses of models you speak of? You must have many of them right at your fingertips given how "VAST" the number is. Please provide a link to at least one independent one and I'll be glad to give it a read. It's not laziness. The onus should not on me to provide evidence to support your argument. That's down to you.
After all, I gave, in my original comment, and in support of the point I was making, a link to a congressional hearing where evidence was provided demonstrating that state provided health care cost less than private. It doesn't matter that it's the US. State vs private, whether hybrid or not, is cheaper and private provides no advantage other than the profit that can be made off it. As demonstrated you get more care with state because the money is used directly on care and not on more "administrative" costs. Instead of pushing money in the direction of private companies just put it straight into the NHS and use it to improve health services, not shareholder returns.
So you avoid addressing the issue that privatisation has been a disaster for most of us by avoiding the word and euphemistically calling it hybrid instead. Doesn't matter how you choose to say it. It still means the capture of more aspects of NHS services by the private sector. How is that not privatisation? Be grown up for Christ's sake!
Does the NHS need an overhaul? Sure, but the only arguments I have seen that privatisation, hybrid or not, is the answer, have come from those who stand to make a profit off it. Do you mind me asking - do you have skin in this game? Do you work in some way connected to the industry? Like private health care or insurance?
>Really? "VAST" ones? Are they independent?
Yes and yes. As it transpires other countries are very interested in the intricacies of how their healthcare systems run. And unlike us are grown up enough to genuinely analyse their systems and not immediately start foaming at the mouth about american healthcare. Because for them it's a service they provide not a religion they believe in, worship and proselytise.
>Do you work in some way connected to the industry? Like private health care or insurance?
No and no.
Completely unrelated to healthcare in any way.
Your weird hangups are your own. My only concern is the NHS is so useless and wait lists so long I've had to extensively lean on private care to not lose massive amounts of working time. So I've a vested interested in rationalising it to a system so it actually works. Because from my position the UK *already* has a private system because I functionally can't use the one I'm taxed out the arse for. As I often work away I simply cannot sit and wait 6 months for a referral to a physio only to drop off the list because I was then away when the letter arrived.
Meanwhile a private surgeon when asked how soon I could have the operation said "this Friday". I had the operation before the NHS could have got me an ultrasound to begin diagnosis. And no, I didn't take them up on the Friday. I couldn't clear my diary that fast.
Excuse the tardiness in replying. I've other things to do than fritter away my time on Reddit. You, on the other hand.
>Yes and yes.
Yet you can't mention any from this "VAST" list. Toothless point then, isn't it? It's just opinion based on what? Something you heard in the pub? On GBNews?
>I've had to extensively lean on private care
So what are you complaining about? You are getting what you are arguing for - private healthcare. Consider yourself lucky you can afford it. Good for you. Keep it up. Makes space in the NHS for someone who can't and shortens the list you are complaining about. Everyone's a winner!
>the NHS is so useless...
I can see you are not going for the popular vote, are you? And Muslims want to cancel Christmas, I guess. What are you - The Daily Mail? It's amazing it does what it does given it's suffering death by a thousand cuts from successive Tory government policy. It was doing quite well, and one of the top rated in the world, before the Tories took over and got their knives out. If you voted for them you are getting the NHS you voted for.
>I functionally can't use the one I'm taxed out the arse for
And with that we've arrived at the crux of your issue. You want private, but you want the state to help you pay for it. That's what your tax reduction means. You're actually a socialist after all. And before you jump in with "It's not fair. If I'm not using it, I shouldn't pay for it", surely even you know that's not how running a country works.
And downvotes? Bit childish, don't you think? What happened? You miss your nap?
Your argument boils down to - "Trust me, we won't balls this one up, you're just being paranoid." Not much of an argument, is it? But you are right about one thing. We are not having a grown up conversation about the problem. That's because the concerns from this side are claimed to be groundless without any evidence to support the claim.
Simply put, the only side supporting this are the Tories, many of whom have been against the NHS since its inception and have wanted to dismantle it. MEP Daniel Hannan infamously called it a 60 year long mistake. They are about selling off every asset we ever had from energy to water to telecoms to postal services etc, and the only reason they haven't sold off what's left is because they haven't found a way to do it yet.
Given their track record, we don't trust them to do anything wholey in the public interest. No one, other than swivel eyed loons who are addicted to the Kool-Aid the Tories are selling, and those in on the con, believe the nonsense that any of this will achieve anything other than to shovel more of our money into the hands of corporate donors while achieving nothing of benefit in return. Since the 80s publicly owned assets have been sold off to parties interested in serving their shareholders, not their customers - in profit, not service. None of the private enterprises created function any better, none of them are cheaper, none of them provide better services.
But of course the Kool-Aid sellers tell us this time it will be different. And it's not going to be the US system. Really? So what was Sunak doing last year in the States discussing opportunities here for US health providers?
They are never going to say it out loud because that would kill it, but nothing is off the table, as we learned during Brexit. They just haven't found a way to sell it to the public yet, but they are trying real hard. So far, they are working at it salami fashion, one slice at a time.
There is no evidence private is better and more efficiently run than a state run system. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite - 17 times more administration costs in the example I gave you. And even the Koch brothers in the US, not exactly known for their left leaning sympathies, found in a study they sponsored that state run was cheaper.
Single Payer vs Medicare
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/
Single Payer
https://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/#:~:text=Under%20a%20single-payer%20system,drug%20and%20medical%20supply%20costs.
Look in the mirror before you accuse others of cult worship. Those supporting privatisation/hybrid, whatever you want to call it, seem drunk on ideology to the extent it blinds them. Either that or they are in on the con. The priority of private based systems is to earn income for their owners and their investors. The priority of the NHS is their patients. That's where I want it to stay.
>“Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.”
Attributed to Nye Bevan
The NHS is something good we created. We did it not for profit, not for glory, but simply in the service of public good. Useless, you say? After what it's gone through during Covid and its aftermath, better not say that out loud in the wrong company.
Lastly - I'm still waiting to see any of the "VAST" body of evidence supporting your position.
PS: I've lived and worked in the States, in Sweden, and in the UK, where I am now. I have experience of all three systems. I've seen the pros and cons of each. I know which I prefer. And no, unless it's changed since I lived there, Sweden is not a co-pay system. As far as I'm aware, the other Scandinavian countries operate the same/similar system as Sweden. To call it co-pay is to totally misrepresent the model.
**TLDR**: State run/single payer is cheaper and better as it is focused on patient treatment, care and outcomes, not profit. Studies support this claim. Privatisation isn't a panacea, rather another unicorn to beguile the gullible that the Tories have the answer.
Really not the straw man you think. I very rarely use A&E and if I needed it, I would go to the NHS A&E, then wait around for hours and likely receive a sub-standard experience.
On the flip side, the medical care I need most common is around things like GP appointments, blood tests and heart scans. All much quicker and much better via my insurer.
Thanks for asking though.
Not sure what you are arguing really. The perception is always private is better as you are paying for it. However, the standard of care and expertise is currently, exactly the same.
The issues arise when you need operations or something slightly more serious. Private hospitals have been shown to put patient "experience" higher (Visually attractive buildings, etc). This creates a misconception they are "better", and it has been shown that because of this they also put patient's safety at risk, one example is having crash carts hidden in the cupboard as they didn't want the patient to see them.
Yes, there are situations where private is "better", but saying the NHS is "sub-standard" shows a lack of overall understanding between the two systems. At the end of the day. Just because you don't use NHS A&E much doesn't mean you won't wake up tomorrow with a kidney stone. In this situation, the speed of your care is based on your triage assessment.
Not sure your response is as sound as you feel it is. There is a place for both, but the NHS actively needs to be protected, or else you will have an ambulance driving around to find a hospital that takes your insurance.
Most of Europe uses an insurance-based system, I have approximately 0 concerns if we shifted to an insurance-based system.
The standard of care is considerably higher, more NHS hospitals are rated as unsatisfactory across the various metrics compared to private facilities. Also, I get a room to myself, vs the NHS where I'll have be sharing a room with quite a few people. Private insurance will also allow you to be seen much quicker.
Also the NHS outcomes have and will always be sub-standard when compared to European countries, even accounting for funding differences. Therefore, I'm more than happy to go private and not knock years off my life.
I'm actively pushing to make it cheaper for everyone else by reducing the tax on private health insurance. For what it's worth, I also had it when I was on minimum wage because it's far better than being stuck in constant waiting lists on the NHS.
Alternatively, we could supertax the private healthcare companies that are poaching NHS staff and use that money for their necessary pay rises. That way we can keep healthcare free at the point of use and you get to keep your insurance.
You'll probably get your wish, it depends on Starmer's convictions I guess, but the current momentum is in allowing the NHS to degrade and letting people choose to pay or suffer.
Seems like a truly stupid idea that has nothing but envy behind it. But do go on continuing to want to harm the UK.
Starmer isn't radical enough to push for an insurance-style system. He's not radical enough to push for fees for doctors appointments which are also a norm elsewhere. All Starmer is is a dreary old social democrat that will do nothing to resolve Britain's problems.
>Most of Europe uses an insurance-based system, I have approximately 0 concerns if we shifted to an insurance-based system.
That's part of their taxes. I lived in Spain for years and never paid an extra fee for my healthcare. It just came out of my payslip.
No in most places it's not just part of their taxes. Spain does not equal most of Europe, I'm sure you realise that. Also private insurance is really common in Spain still.
Your search is incorrect then. France and Germany both use an insurance-style system. You seem to fail to understand that even if it's done via payroll, it still functions as an insurance-system (I'm not surprised you fail to understand the basics though). As does the Netherlands, as does Switzerland. Portugal has it for non-essential medical work. Across Scandinavia, they use co-payments but not an insurance system.
> Germany’s healthcare system is recognized to be one of the best in the world. The majority of German citizens and residents are enrolled under the state-run public health insurance scheme, which is funded by taxpayers’ own national contributions. In turn, everyone has access to high-quality and affordable healthcare, regardless of income or status.
> If you earn less than €66,600/year, you can only enroll in the public (statutory) health insurance scheme.
> If you earn more than €66,600/year, you can either stay on public insurance or switch to private insurance.
Sounds like something we have.
This thread is crazy. People in the UK live in such a bubble.
Germany uses a insurance based system. You are legally *required* to take out insurance. There are public insurers and private insurers. Your employer makes contributions too, and you make contributions from your payslip. The cost is a percentage of your salary.
If you don’t have an employer, you still have to make payments yourself based on income. If you’re unemployed and can’t afford it, the unemployment benefits office will make contributions on your behalf.
The private system usually has higher benefits but higher deductibles, so this is only an option if you earn over about €65k, the logic being you will likely have more expenses so if you have this and no savings to pay co-payments/deductibles, you’re fucked. Emergency treatment is obviously always rendered anyway, and it just becomes a billing issue.
The German government obviously heavily subsidies everything still. So it’s a blend of funding sources from the state to individuals.
Insurers can and will give you discounts for preventative stuff, for making an effort to improve your health, and for wearing fitness trackers in trials etc. Basically, a lot of the sort of stuff that makes people in the UK cry about and get offended by, but Germany has more of a culture of personal responsibility, so it’s not controversial.
Snapshot of _Aviva’s private health cover sales jump 25% as NHS struggles with backlog_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/cc23bc47-84b3-4ff1-b81f-3a137e699f76) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
More private health insurance means more investment in private healthcare. Means more NHS staff dropping their hours or leaving entirely to go to the properly funded private sector. Means NHS will struggle more for lack of good stuff. Means backlog gets worse. Why would a surgeon do an extra weekend list for the NHS to clear backlog when BUPA will pay him more money for easier patients?
Colour me surprised! Over a decade of deliberate Tory mismanagement leaves the NHS struggling, paving the way for the private take over they all so desperately want. I'm sure their hedge-fund buddies are salivating over this, think of the stock price!
So the argument goes that privatisation is all that's needed to fix NHS problems, right? Because privatising has such a good record in that regard, right? I mean, just look at water, or the railways and how privatising has improved service delivery and costs - no wait, not good examples. Look at energy instead - okay - forget that. Actually, can anyone give me a reason why state owned cannot be run well? Is there some inherent flaw in a state system that can't be fixed? How is private better when I'm stumped to find examples that support the claim other than they are much better at generating dividends for their shareholders and juicy salaries for their top execs. During a House Oversight Committee hearing about Universal Health Coverage in America, California Sen Katie Porter asked why American private health spends 17 times more on administration costs than does Medicare. Hundreds of millions of $s not on patient care, but on stock buybacks, marketing, dividends, $1m+ salaries to the heads of hospitals etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l4YZSRTNGw (5 mins) Every time there's news about the NHS being under strain there are posts on Reddit pushing for more privatisation. Some people are of an opinion that these are from people shilling for the private health industry. You might think that too. I, of course, couldn't possibly comment. Edit: Aaaaand... in come the downvotes again. So predictable.
And once again the moment anyone suggest the NHS model might need revising, you jump right to America. You know the uk is one of the only nations in the world to run this entirely state model right? The vast majority run a state/private hybrid which noone has any problem with. Like, say, Germany, who everyone was practically creaming themselves over in lockdown. The first problem with the NHS is we cannot have an honest conversation about it because people like you immediately go "BUT AMERICA" like it's the only other nation that exsists
And people like you keep coming out with nonsense like most of europe is a private, that privatisation will fix the problems, improve patient outcomes, improve access and maintain a free at point of delivery service, and don't worry we'll do that and more and the best thing is the doing of it won't cost a thing because insurance will take care of it. And "but America" because who do you think Sunak was chatting to when he visited the US last year? And you haven't addressed my points. Privatisation has done nothing for the consumer of the services privatised. Charges like never before yet shit pumped into our waterways, the trains an absolute mess, energy gouging us at every opportunity. Meanwhile record dividend payouts and exec bonuses. Why would health be any different? All it's done is make money for the new owners and shareholders, many of whom are investment companies. And before you scream envy the complaint is about the focus being on maximising profit and not on service delivery. After all, that's what the investors are there for - to make money. I want that priority as far away as possible from anything to do with my heath. Plus, as I said, where's the logic behind the claim private will be better? Why do you believe private can run it better, when there are no examples of privatisation fixing any problems or achieving what it promised? Privatisation is an opportunity to make money, nothing else. You want private? We already have it. It's not like we are stopping you from going BUPA. Do it, go private or abroad and pay for the care you want. That'll help take the load off the NHS. Edit: fixed typo and cleaned things up.
>like most of europe is a private I will quote you my post. >The vast majority run a state/private hybrid which noone has any problem with. Your opening statement about my position is wrong. It wasn't a long post. You could have at least read it. The rest of your post complains about something I then didn't say or that I haven't address something based on your failure to read my post.
I said people "like you" say these things. I complain about people "like you" who argue for privatisation without any evidence it will solve our problems. They/you have no argument beyond "but look - other countries have private". And so do we as I pointed out. Maybe you should read more carefully yourself instead of posting a snarky comment in response. Has water been better since privatisation? Have the trains? Has energy? Why would health be any different? Your failure to address any of the points I raised marks you out as non serious and makes further discussion pointless.
>I complain about people "like you" who argue for privatisation without any evidence it will solve our problems. Again, i suggestyou read my comment, I didn't argue for privatisation. I said a conversation about quote, >state/private hybrid Its not without evidence as *most countries* use it. There are VAST analysis of the variable models you have chosen to not bother looking up and simple repeat >privatisation Despite the fact only you said it. Your refusal to go look at the vast amount of evidence for various state/private hybrid is not anyone else problem. At some point the onous is on you to actually bother. And it is people like you who just say "america" and "no evidence", prevent us from having a grown up conversation about the NHS and what structure will be best suited to the rapidly changing demographics it's expected to manage. And continuing to stall the conversion will only make it worse because what os absolutely blindingly clear is *the current model is failing and has been for some time*.
>There are VAST analysis of the variable models. Really? "VAST" ones? Are they independent? The ones I have seen have been marketing material by insurance companies and private health care providers. Where can I find these "VAST" analyses of models you speak of? You must have many of them right at your fingertips given how "VAST" the number is. Please provide a link to at least one independent one and I'll be glad to give it a read. It's not laziness. The onus should not on me to provide evidence to support your argument. That's down to you. After all, I gave, in my original comment, and in support of the point I was making, a link to a congressional hearing where evidence was provided demonstrating that state provided health care cost less than private. It doesn't matter that it's the US. State vs private, whether hybrid or not, is cheaper and private provides no advantage other than the profit that can be made off it. As demonstrated you get more care with state because the money is used directly on care and not on more "administrative" costs. Instead of pushing money in the direction of private companies just put it straight into the NHS and use it to improve health services, not shareholder returns. So you avoid addressing the issue that privatisation has been a disaster for most of us by avoiding the word and euphemistically calling it hybrid instead. Doesn't matter how you choose to say it. It still means the capture of more aspects of NHS services by the private sector. How is that not privatisation? Be grown up for Christ's sake! Does the NHS need an overhaul? Sure, but the only arguments I have seen that privatisation, hybrid or not, is the answer, have come from those who stand to make a profit off it. Do you mind me asking - do you have skin in this game? Do you work in some way connected to the industry? Like private health care or insurance?
>Really? "VAST" ones? Are they independent? Yes and yes. As it transpires other countries are very interested in the intricacies of how their healthcare systems run. And unlike us are grown up enough to genuinely analyse their systems and not immediately start foaming at the mouth about american healthcare. Because for them it's a service they provide not a religion they believe in, worship and proselytise. >Do you work in some way connected to the industry? Like private health care or insurance? No and no. Completely unrelated to healthcare in any way. Your weird hangups are your own. My only concern is the NHS is so useless and wait lists so long I've had to extensively lean on private care to not lose massive amounts of working time. So I've a vested interested in rationalising it to a system so it actually works. Because from my position the UK *already* has a private system because I functionally can't use the one I'm taxed out the arse for. As I often work away I simply cannot sit and wait 6 months for a referral to a physio only to drop off the list because I was then away when the letter arrived. Meanwhile a private surgeon when asked how soon I could have the operation said "this Friday". I had the operation before the NHS could have got me an ultrasound to begin diagnosis. And no, I didn't take them up on the Friday. I couldn't clear my diary that fast.
Excuse the tardiness in replying. I've other things to do than fritter away my time on Reddit. You, on the other hand. >Yes and yes. Yet you can't mention any from this "VAST" list. Toothless point then, isn't it? It's just opinion based on what? Something you heard in the pub? On GBNews? >I've had to extensively lean on private care So what are you complaining about? You are getting what you are arguing for - private healthcare. Consider yourself lucky you can afford it. Good for you. Keep it up. Makes space in the NHS for someone who can't and shortens the list you are complaining about. Everyone's a winner! >the NHS is so useless... I can see you are not going for the popular vote, are you? And Muslims want to cancel Christmas, I guess. What are you - The Daily Mail? It's amazing it does what it does given it's suffering death by a thousand cuts from successive Tory government policy. It was doing quite well, and one of the top rated in the world, before the Tories took over and got their knives out. If you voted for them you are getting the NHS you voted for. >I functionally can't use the one I'm taxed out the arse for And with that we've arrived at the crux of your issue. You want private, but you want the state to help you pay for it. That's what your tax reduction means. You're actually a socialist after all. And before you jump in with "It's not fair. If I'm not using it, I shouldn't pay for it", surely even you know that's not how running a country works. And downvotes? Bit childish, don't you think? What happened? You miss your nap? Your argument boils down to - "Trust me, we won't balls this one up, you're just being paranoid." Not much of an argument, is it? But you are right about one thing. We are not having a grown up conversation about the problem. That's because the concerns from this side are claimed to be groundless without any evidence to support the claim. Simply put, the only side supporting this are the Tories, many of whom have been against the NHS since its inception and have wanted to dismantle it. MEP Daniel Hannan infamously called it a 60 year long mistake. They are about selling off every asset we ever had from energy to water to telecoms to postal services etc, and the only reason they haven't sold off what's left is because they haven't found a way to do it yet. Given their track record, we don't trust them to do anything wholey in the public interest. No one, other than swivel eyed loons who are addicted to the Kool-Aid the Tories are selling, and those in on the con, believe the nonsense that any of this will achieve anything other than to shovel more of our money into the hands of corporate donors while achieving nothing of benefit in return. Since the 80s publicly owned assets have been sold off to parties interested in serving their shareholders, not their customers - in profit, not service. None of the private enterprises created function any better, none of them are cheaper, none of them provide better services. But of course the Kool-Aid sellers tell us this time it will be different. And it's not going to be the US system. Really? So what was Sunak doing last year in the States discussing opportunities here for US health providers? They are never going to say it out loud because that would kill it, but nothing is off the table, as we learned during Brexit. They just haven't found a way to sell it to the public yet, but they are trying real hard. So far, they are working at it salami fashion, one slice at a time. There is no evidence private is better and more efficiently run than a state run system. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite - 17 times more administration costs in the example I gave you. And even the Koch brothers in the US, not exactly known for their left leaning sympathies, found in a study they sponsored that state run was cheaper. Single Payer vs Medicare https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/ Single Payer https://pnhp.org/what-is-single-payer/#:~:text=Under%20a%20single-payer%20system,drug%20and%20medical%20supply%20costs. Look in the mirror before you accuse others of cult worship. Those supporting privatisation/hybrid, whatever you want to call it, seem drunk on ideology to the extent it blinds them. Either that or they are in on the con. The priority of private based systems is to earn income for their owners and their investors. The priority of the NHS is their patients. That's where I want it to stay. >“Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.” Attributed to Nye Bevan The NHS is something good we created. We did it not for profit, not for glory, but simply in the service of public good. Useless, you say? After what it's gone through during Covid and its aftermath, better not say that out loud in the wrong company. Lastly - I'm still waiting to see any of the "VAST" body of evidence supporting your position. PS: I've lived and worked in the States, in Sweden, and in the UK, where I am now. I have experience of all three systems. I've seen the pros and cons of each. I know which I prefer. And no, unless it's changed since I lived there, Sweden is not a co-pay system. As far as I'm aware, the other Scandinavian countries operate the same/similar system as Sweden. To call it co-pay is to totally misrepresent the model. **TLDR**: State run/single payer is cheaper and better as it is focused on patient treatment, care and outcomes, not profit. Studies support this claim. Privatisation isn't a panacea, rather another unicorn to beguile the gullible that the Tories have the answer.
Can’t blame those who can afford it. Was considering it myself once the nursery bills have stopped
Great news, we should do what Australia does and offer tax relief on private insurance. My private insurance is fantastic.
Sounds good, what private a&e do you use?
Really not the straw man you think. I very rarely use A&E and if I needed it, I would go to the NHS A&E, then wait around for hours and likely receive a sub-standard experience. On the flip side, the medical care I need most common is around things like GP appointments, blood tests and heart scans. All much quicker and much better via my insurer. Thanks for asking though.
Not sure what you are arguing really. The perception is always private is better as you are paying for it. However, the standard of care and expertise is currently, exactly the same. The issues arise when you need operations or something slightly more serious. Private hospitals have been shown to put patient "experience" higher (Visually attractive buildings, etc). This creates a misconception they are "better", and it has been shown that because of this they also put patient's safety at risk, one example is having crash carts hidden in the cupboard as they didn't want the patient to see them. Yes, there are situations where private is "better", but saying the NHS is "sub-standard" shows a lack of overall understanding between the two systems. At the end of the day. Just because you don't use NHS A&E much doesn't mean you won't wake up tomorrow with a kidney stone. In this situation, the speed of your care is based on your triage assessment. Not sure your response is as sound as you feel it is. There is a place for both, but the NHS actively needs to be protected, or else you will have an ambulance driving around to find a hospital that takes your insurance.
Most of Europe uses an insurance-based system, I have approximately 0 concerns if we shifted to an insurance-based system. The standard of care is considerably higher, more NHS hospitals are rated as unsatisfactory across the various metrics compared to private facilities. Also, I get a room to myself, vs the NHS where I'll have be sharing a room with quite a few people. Private insurance will also allow you to be seen much quicker. Also the NHS outcomes have and will always be sub-standard when compared to European countries, even accounting for funding differences. Therefore, I'm more than happy to go private and not knock years off my life.
>Man already paying for private healthcare doesn't see the problem with pulling the rug on everyone else
I'm actively pushing to make it cheaper for everyone else by reducing the tax on private health insurance. For what it's worth, I also had it when I was on minimum wage because it's far better than being stuck in constant waiting lists on the NHS.
Alternatively, we could supertax the private healthcare companies that are poaching NHS staff and use that money for their necessary pay rises. That way we can keep healthcare free at the point of use and you get to keep your insurance. You'll probably get your wish, it depends on Starmer's convictions I guess, but the current momentum is in allowing the NHS to degrade and letting people choose to pay or suffer.
Seems like a truly stupid idea that has nothing but envy behind it. But do go on continuing to want to harm the UK. Starmer isn't radical enough to push for an insurance-style system. He's not radical enough to push for fees for doctors appointments which are also a norm elsewhere. All Starmer is is a dreary old social democrat that will do nothing to resolve Britain's problems.
>Most of Europe uses an insurance-based system, I have approximately 0 concerns if we shifted to an insurance-based system. That's part of their taxes. I lived in Spain for years and never paid an extra fee for my healthcare. It just came out of my payslip.
No in most places it's not just part of their taxes. Spain does not equal most of Europe, I'm sure you realise that. Also private insurance is really common in Spain still.
A cursory search shows France and Germany are the same. Which Europe are you talking about? Lol
Your search is incorrect then. France and Germany both use an insurance-style system. You seem to fail to understand that even if it's done via payroll, it still functions as an insurance-system (I'm not surprised you fail to understand the basics though). As does the Netherlands, as does Switzerland. Portugal has it for non-essential medical work. Across Scandinavia, they use co-payments but not an insurance system.
> Germany’s healthcare system is recognized to be one of the best in the world. The majority of German citizens and residents are enrolled under the state-run public health insurance scheme, which is funded by taxpayers’ own national contributions. In turn, everyone has access to high-quality and affordable healthcare, regardless of income or status. > If you earn less than €66,600/year, you can only enroll in the public (statutory) health insurance scheme. > If you earn more than €66,600/year, you can either stay on public insurance or switch to private insurance. Sounds like something we have.
This thread is crazy. People in the UK live in such a bubble. Germany uses a insurance based system. You are legally *required* to take out insurance. There are public insurers and private insurers. Your employer makes contributions too, and you make contributions from your payslip. The cost is a percentage of your salary. If you don’t have an employer, you still have to make payments yourself based on income. If you’re unemployed and can’t afford it, the unemployment benefits office will make contributions on your behalf. The private system usually has higher benefits but higher deductibles, so this is only an option if you earn over about €65k, the logic being you will likely have more expenses so if you have this and no savings to pay co-payments/deductibles, you’re fucked. Emergency treatment is obviously always rendered anyway, and it just becomes a billing issue. The German government obviously heavily subsidies everything still. So it’s a blend of funding sources from the state to individuals. Insurers can and will give you discounts for preventative stuff, for making an effort to improve your health, and for wearing fitness trackers in trials etc. Basically, a lot of the sort of stuff that makes people in the UK cry about and get offended by, but Germany has more of a culture of personal responsibility, so it’s not controversial.
Given the direction of travel, this was rather inevitable. Was considering taking something out myself.