Non-political Save our NHS

Though thinking about it a bit more, they are not promises. More like ideas.

True.

Not very democratic at the moment, soon. Have you seen how many election promises the government has broken?

I will read part of that link durhamjen. I do read parts of some of them.

I would want a fully funded NHS. But in what year did that last happen?

I am not at all sure that you can say that the government want to follow the US in healthcare.

We do not know for sure what an insurance scheme will look like.
But we know that politicans of all persuasions want our vote. They also know that the British are extremely fond of a good health service.
The problem could come if we were ever an undemocratic country. But I cant see that happening anytime soon.

I think Anya has left the building - and I don't blame her...

I bet you will not read it, soon, but here's a link to what the NHA think about Jeremy Hunt, with lots of links to what other parts of the health service, including doctors, think of the government's ideas of privatising, which includes going the insurance route.

nhap.org/nhs-fighback-iminworkjeremy-weneedtotalkaboutjeremy/

No need to say it, Anya, here we go again.

But we do not know, do we, soon, and I'd rather not find out.
Most people in this country want a fully funded NHS still, despite what you imply.
The government want to follow the US in healthcare, because the head of NHS England used to be the CEO of the biggest private healthcare company in the US.

I presume that older people who say they are uninsurable because of all their health issues, are covered in some way under all these schemes [not counting the USA], else we would hear about it wouldn't we?

Also (this has to be quick grandchildren duties!) The idea is that the insurance is not for profit - they are permitted to make their money on other stuff. The hospitals are privately run not for profit and bill the insurance companies. The premiums are highly regulated by the government and an agreed amount. The poor are subsidised and receive exactly the same care.

janeainsworth, from what I understand of the Australian system (not a lot) you either pay a minimum percentage privately or, if it's not on your tax return, they tax you for that amount. Might that work?

Here we go again ( sigh)

It's not possible for the government to take politics out of the NHS as they are the ones who want to privatise it, and are doing so.

Sorry, suggests.

ITV tonight at 10.40. NHS out of hours undercover.
An investigation into a privately run NHS out of hours centre examining evidence that suggets some doctors are not fully trained and targets are being manipulated.

Both uphold principles of universality and equality by mandating individuals to purchase health insurance on the private market, providing financial assistance to those on low incomes, and regulating the insurance market in order to protect those with poor health (from your post about the Swiss and Dutch model)

Presumably medical and nursing staff are employed by the private companies, Whitewave?
Presumably there would have to be reductions in tax/NI to compensate individuals for having to pay premiums to the insurance company?

Where do aspects of public health like epidemiological surveys and research fit?

I'm a little sceptical about insurance companies I confess. They tend to put their own restrictions on things, like what treatment options they will pay for, and which practitioners patients can see.

Jane what I have been banging on about is the idea that whilst the government uses its power to regulate, the Health provision is in effect privatised. Before anyone throws up their hands in horror bear with Me!!!!!

Look at the Swiss and Dutch model. Here the not for profit insurance industry is strictly regulated by the government, ensuring a universal, comprehensive and equitable health service, but and here's the thing the financial contract is between the provider and user, cutting out the government entirely. So we would have the benefit of a privatised but highly regulated health system - free to all at the point of use but gloriously no interference from government after government.
Discuss!!!!

You can take the politics out of the NHS.

You could take the politics out of the NHS

Not you personally though....that's not possible!

151,000+ signatures on the parliament e petition to get rid of Jeremy Hunt.

There should be a debate when parliament returns.

You cannot take the politics out of the NHS if all the NHS boards are headed by political appointees.

You cannot take the NHS out of politics as it is a public service funded through taxation, of one sort or another.

But you can take the politics out of the NHS.

I think that all the leaders of the NHS bodies have been changed since this government came in.
The previous head of the CQC is in the House of Lords and is the one responsible for the idea of paying for the NHS. Before being head of the CQC he was a Tory MP.
The head of NHS England, Simon Stevens, is also on the board of United Health, an American private healthcare company.

How is it possible to take the NHS out of politics?

What regulation should the government have a role in, Whitewave?

Do you mean regulation of the professionals, or regulation of requirements issued by NICE (which is supposed to be independent) such as everyone with a more than 10% risk of developing cardiovascular disease must have their arm twisted by their GP to go on statins?

(The above is an example only, and not intended to spark another heated statins argument.)

The healthcare professions are self-governing, and arguably the NHS might be in a better position today were it not for the numerous, almost annual top-down reorganistaions foisted on them by successive governments.

I wish someone would bash around the idea that governmental roll should be strictly regulatory with the financial contract out of their hands. It seems a good way forward to me but there are probably problems that I am not understanding?

Please lets return to the non-vituperative version of this thread. Casting blame on one party or another is not what it was about, was it?

Non-political is quite clearly in the title. It is about What we want not about whose fault it is we are likely to get what we don't want.

I suppose some people just like getting het up though. How they tick. Hey ho.

My dad always used to tell us to aim for the top. Getting there was unlikely, he said, but we'd achieve more than if we aimed lower. Good advice. So I have no issue with any government aiming to make aspects of the country it governs the best in the world.

Whether I agree with any such government's methods or ideals is a separate issue. I don't think it's worth getting het up about verbage in such situations.