Free at the point of use?

Unfortunately, I don't agree that we have the best healthcare system in the world. My own experience of being in hospital has been appalling.
If I had the funds I would go private next time I need treatment.
The health service needs an overhaul, and although I would be sad to see it go, I can't see the "free at the point of use" principle surviving for much longer.

My mum has to pay for the podiatrist because the NHS where she is doesn’t cover it. Getting appointments for that seems to vary. Our I asked our GP if he would be able to recommend one he said yes, but we would need to pay.

This is why I limited my examples to the ones I did, as they lie right on the boundary between NHS and optional feel good therapies. All of those therapies have been shown to be efficacious for some mainstream problems; migraine, pain relief sciatica and several have been the subject of research and peer review. pying for them comes perilously close to being paying for private medicine.

I don't see a way round that, though, for the reasons I've mentioned. The NHS can't fund things that are not regulated, so they remain outside of its remit.

I understand what you're getting at - that people in your situation without the funds wouldn't be treated - but there are so many alternative therapies, some of which could be harmful, or might not cure an ailment in the same way as drugs would, and the NHS can't refer people to all of them.

There are also therapies that would be nice to have, but are not essential to a cure, so they would be considered in the same category as, say, a spa day - they might help to lift a mood, and make someone feel better, but they won't cure anything, so they remain an optional purchase.

Some therapists (eg sports masseurs) can get referrals on the NHS, but treatments such as aromatherapy or reiki can't, and I think that's fair enough.

Would they though? Osteopathy, acupuncture and chiropracture all can be shown to help people, with peer reviewed studies to show it.

they would have approved the ones that actually work...

But would they?
Back in the 1980s, DS and then I saw a therapist who diagnosed us both with something then called OBS, organised body syndrome and the exercises we did were very helpful for both of us. The NHS, or the relevant experts within it, considered the whole thing to be fringe medicine for a non-existent problem. It is now mainstream, recognised, children can get SEN's for it. It is now called dyspraxia.

Those who could pay could get the therapy, even though at the time, the NHS hadn't approved it. Those who could benefit but not afford it, were still cut out.

The only way to get a system where private medicine or private education wither away is to make the state system so good, nobody bothers with going private. Frequently this doesn't require vast quantities of money, just good management.

My thoughts M0nica - if the NHS haven't fully tested and approved something then its not an accepted treatment, so you could (should?) pay for it.

Remembering that we're talking about a perfect world so they would have approved the ones that actually work...

But the query Doodledog is a question of paying. In a perfect world with no health private sector because the state one is so good. Would be allowed to pay for alternative treatmnts if that was the path we wished to travel.

Would be allowed to pay for any other treatment that the NHS would not/could not fund?

M0nica, I answered the alternative therapy question in my post above yours .

I think it's too wide a category for all of them to come under the NHS, and the ones that do work would need to be fully tested and regulated before the NHS could refer patients, so I can't see it happening.

I paid to have my cataracts done because I had a bad experience when I cut an eyebrow in a fall and the hospital refused to note that any liquids used for any purpose near my eyes must be preservative free because of mu allergy and then someone I know was half blinded by a botched cataract operation at the hospital I would be going to.

I am sorry, but my eyesight is too precious, to risk a botched operation.

I see no one has been willing to grasp the nettle of paying for alternative therapies, some of which are known to work.

Would that be acceptable or, ideally, should no private treatment of any kind be encouraged?

Sorry - my last post was to Alegrias1

As was I. As I said, only a saint would put their eyesight before a principle.

The point is that nobody should have to make that choice, and they wouldn't have to if private healthcare were not an option.

I agree that the NHS could save a lot of money, and that taxation should be higher to ensure that everyone has the right to timely care when they need it.

As regards alternative therapies - I think that they are a complicated issue, as before they could be available on the NHS they would need to be accredited, which would be a massive task. Whilst I believe that some alternative therapies are very helpful, there are others out there that could do more harm than good, and some that would be a waste of money.

As you say we shouldn’t have to make the choice, we should all benefit using the same system.

What really was a joke was DH receiving a letter after 14 months of waiting for his eye treatment, without even having seen a consultant at that point, asking him if he still needed to be seen.

As I said above LadyGracie I'm not criticising anyone who posts here about the decisions they make for their own or their families' health. I'm criticising the system that makes this necessary.

I’d rather DH kept his sight rather than think of others who can’t afford to pay for treatment.

I actually also paid for a private MRI scan to jump the queue for a back operation to get me out of a wheelchair, I’d already waited 2 years and there was no end in sight.

I was selfishly thinking of No. 1.

You're probably right Mollygo.

But the best answer is still that nobody should be using their good fortune or wealth to get better healthcare than anybody else.

If you asked, “Do you think that people who can’t afford to pay DO matter?”
The answer would be, “Yes of course they do.”
If you asked, “Should we not pay for anything because others can’t?” the result would probably be less conclusive.

I was in B.U.P.A. as a perk of my employment once. I seem to recall that all aspects of treatment are charged, not simply the consultant's fee. Drugs, ward accommodation, nurses' time, etc. My daughter had a tonsillectomy under the cover of B.U.P.A. and the real benefit was to be able to choose when the operation is performed which, in school time, is ideal. We chose half-term. If a patient's condition gets really critical they tend to be dumped back in the NHS system because there's all the hi-tech equipment on hand. Quite how that is charged I don't know, but if it isn't it ought to be!
Private schooling, it might be argued, relieves the state system of the extra pupils while the parents still pay for the LA schools through taxation.

And what about the people who can't afford to save their eyesight or legs? Don't they matter?

Oh, for goodness' sake!

The whole thrust of my post is that I do not approve of private medicine, precisely because people who can't afford to pay DO matter.

The fact that I can understand why some people pay to jump the queue just because they can, and others feel that they have no choice because of the nature of their condition does not mean that I approve of the system.

Only a saint would allow themselves to go blind so that someone else could have an operation, but a one-tier system wouldn't force people to have to make that choice.

I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but my understanding of private health care is that if you have for example cancer, despite seeing a consultant privately and getting your diagnosis, you are not prioritised for the treatment needed to treat your condition.

Private health cover doesn't prioritise you for life saving treatment.

Mr. S. needed routine surgery a few years ago and this was done privately, under the NHS due to extensive waiting lists.

I was lucky enough to have my first hip replacement done in a private hospital at the NHS's expense - it was lovely, superb treatment, meals brought on tray to bedside . Then the following year I got pushed on to a cobbled road in York and ended up in York District Hospital with a badly shattered femur, and my hip had to be done again!!

I’m not sure Prince Philip’s heart procedure prevented anyone from having their cataracts done!

growstuff
Why are you claiming I said people don’t pay onwards the NHS if they don’t pay income tax. I actually said

We all contribute via VAT to the tax take in this country

and

Tourists..........pay VAT on services or things they buy.

Stop looking for something to pick fault with in other people’s posts!

OK, of course you are under no obligation to share anything. But you do have an interesting take on these things so I thought it was worth asking.

Not really Alegrias, 'enlightenment' is not often at the top of the agenda on GN. Why incorporate new information when entrenching is so much easier.