Imagine life without the NHS?

Baggs

Thanks, Dickens. Where is that Rishi stuff from, please? I'd like a link to the original if possible.

inews.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-met-private-us-healthcare-firms-uk-social-care-market-health-nhs-1702556

There are other reports, interpretations, etc but they were heavily biased (both ways) so I chose this as I thought it the most objective one.

Health tourism is thrown in as a distraction and accounts for very little. It's amazing how many people know someone who knows someone whose neighbour works with someone who had a relative who flew into UK just for medical treatment Perhaps I live a sheltered life

HousePlantQueen
I am certain Karmalady doesn't mean new born babies, no doubt you knew that aswell ... health tourists come over not paid in & use the NHS ... yes my daughter told me people at her work they come here, then their relatives just pop over for operations their relatives ... this is surely wrong ... also years ago ladies didn't work as looked after their families it was men that worked , sure she didn't mean this either ... saying that I am not getting into a debate or argument, as people will or won't agree

Baggs

MayBee70

Baggs

Several geographically European (so not just EU) countries have systems that seem to work pretty well so I imagine that if we didn't have the NHS we'd have sorted out something similar. My optimistic side thinks we could still do this.

So what happens to those of us that have paid into the NHS throughout our working lives? Will that money be transferred to the new system. Also, most of the talks regarding NHS privatisation seem to have been with US companies so I would assume that any new system will be based on theirs. We seem to follow them in most things. Someone’s husband was in talks with the US regarding NHS privatisation recently but I can’t remember who it was? Was it Dido Hardings? It was someone like that.

My post was in the past tense, MayBee, and then the hypothetical. I've no more idea about possible future details than anyone else – probably less idea than most people.

My point was that there are lots of health care systems in other similar countries that seem to work well. I can imagine that gradual changes could give the NHS some similarities to them.

The thread did appear to be asking for what people imagined. Sorry if my inadequate imaginings weren't doom-laden enough or political enough for you!

I envy you being able to find some sort of optimism about any plans this government have for me. If that’s doom laden sobeit.

karmalady

we all pay for the nhs, it is certainly not free but is used and abused by people who have never paid a penny into the system

Do you mean new born babies needing help karmalady or perhaps people like my late grandmother who like many of her generation did no psid work after she married and had her family? Or people who were born with conditions that left them unable to "contribute"?

Perhaps you could clarify your point?

Thanks, Dickens. Where is that Rishi stuff from, please? I'd like a link to the original if possible.

karmalady

we all pay for the nhs, it is certainly not free but is used and abused by people who have never paid a penny into the system

We don't 'pay for the NHS'. The state, with our mandate (that is, the government that we chose, democratically, to run the country) invests public money, which is mostly created by the state, in public services.

So, if you vote for a government that proclaims it wants to limit or cut state spending on the NHS that is what you get, less spending, with the resulting decline in the quality and quantity of the service it offers. You have given it a mandate to reduce NHS funding.

You also get a declining domestic economy because there is less money available to pay salaries and buy goods and services..

State spending is limited by what is available to purchase, not by how much money it takes in taxation. If voters could understand that we might have much better national decision making

(Though, TBH, most countries subscribe to the taxation myth...)

Baggs

*But is this the model that the current government have in mind? We seem to be talking to US healthcare representatives, namely "Grail" owned by "Illumina" (David Cameron is, or was, a paid advisor).*

seem is very vague. I'd love some solid evidence.

Are we 'talking' to anyone in Europe?

Nobody seems to know. It would seem silly not to.

Oh heck, more seems.

"seem" is very vague. I'd love some solid evidence.

So would I (and probably lots of other people) but there is none at the moment.

So one can only go by what scant evidence there is. And that is we have been talking to US healthcare providers. At least, Rishi Sunak has.

Having searched, I cannot find any evidence that we are talking to our European-wide neighbours.

But - I'm not into hype or scaremongering, so here is the most unbiased report I can find on Sunak's Californian visit. Which does, to some extent, negate my assumptions, but in the interests of objectivity, here it is...

Rishi Sunak’s overture to US healthcare companies is likely to raise the alarm to many who have vehemently opposed American-style healthcare privatisation.

Images of US-style hospital bills have gone viral on social media in recent years, with life-saving treatments plunging patients into a future of debt.

While it is tempting to catastrophise – and political opponents will no doubt seize on the perceived threat to public healthcare within the UK – the meeting should be viewed in the wider context of health and science investment.

Mr Sunak’s “lines to take” (the talking points you often hear repeated by politicians) were based around investment into the UK life science sector, which has been a key tenet of championing Britain’s post-Brexit success around vaccines, with Cambridge-based AstraZeneca proving a success story exiting the pandemic.

It’s likely that the meeting was more of an encouragement to tempt investment, rather than a Machiavellian sell-off of the NHS behind closed doors.

Four out of five attendees of the meeting work in or around the social care market, which is already dominated by the private sector.

Four Seasons, one of the biggest operators in the UK, is owned by Terra Firma, a private equity firm founded by former EMI chairman Guy Hands.

It’s no secret that the Government is trying to reform the social care market and has been trying for years previously – Theresa May’s attempt to remedy the issue in 2017 with the “dementia tax” was considered to be the first step of her downfall as prime minister.

Chris Thomas, principal research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research, told i: “The evidence is clear – relying on big business and private equity to deliver social care services has failed.

“Publicly funded care is better quality for those who draw on it, more cost-effective overall, and means better pay and conditions for care workers.

“Health and care are in crisis. Millions are languishing on waiting lists – or going without the social care they need. Having failed in a bid for private investment from abroad, it’s time for the Chancellor to bring forward Government funding and a plan to revitalise these cherished public services.”

A Government spokesperson said: “We have a strong track record of promoting overseas investment to the UK to boost our economy and level up the country.

Somewhat reassuring. But I personally would prefer they (government) would also look at European models of health and social care.

One of the big differences between the US and UK business culture is the way that each defines "success". The US is noted for its love of capitalist enterprise, and this tradition affects the way Americans view and understand "success".

It's purely personal, but I'm not wedded to that ideology.

ExDancer

I can't help asking Glorianny what happens if you can't, or don't, pay?

You die. ?‍♀️ Look at where the US is on the life expectancy charts. Given that they spend a massive amount of money on healthcare, the results are not good. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Karmalady
I agree 100%

Grammareto
No matter how miniscule still eating into our NHS that people have & still paying into though

I would guess that number is miniscule karmalady
Most of us pay NI and taxes which I like to think pay for health care and education for all.

we all pay for the nhs, it is certainly not free but is used and abused by people who have never paid a penny into the system

My DM told me of the horrors pre NHS. How, mostly mothers, put up with things which nowadays would be seen to right away, because they daren't call the doctor unless the condition was life threatening or if a child was very sick.

Recently American friends were involved in a dreadful car crash far from home. They all survived but their medical insurance did not cover the air ambulance or the weeks of staying in a hotel so that the family weren't separated. The mother had the worst injuries and she was breastfeeding.
This couple are well off by most standards but they were very frightened by the huge bills.

I agree that our NHS is underfunded and could be much improved but please let's not throw it away.

My husband has been a type 1 diabetic for many years and we have a granddaughter with very specific chronic physical disabilities for which she receives treatment both locally and in a national childrens hospital. Thank goodness the NHS is there to support them when their need is greatest.

I'll get on my hobby horse and remind you, again, that taxation doesn't fund spending and that state investment in the NHS is probably better for the domestic economy than a privatised service as no money is taken out of the economy by the way of profit.

And, while we're at it, the current dire state of the NHS is entirely due to tory governments since 2010 cutting its funding on ideological grounds.

What happened pre NHS was that you paid for doctor's visits and for medication. I have no doubt that there would be a number of charities which would help the poor but on the whole, the less well off struggled, probably going through a shortened life with conditions which would have been treated by the NHS and given them a better quality of life.

To those who think the US system is fine, just remember that the US population has lower average life expectancy than does than that the UK.

And that 10% of a population of 335 + million is an awful lot of people.

Baggs

*But is this the model that the current government have in mind? We seem to be talking to US healthcare representatives, namely "Grail" owned by "Illumina" (David Cameron is, or was, a paid advisor).*

seem is very vague. I'd love some solid evidence.

Are we 'talking' to anyone in Europe?

Nobody seems to know. It would seem silly not to.

Oh heck, more seems.

Plenty of evidence linked to Trump at the time. But can't find any recent evidence, especially as we don't know who will be PM in a couple fo weeks' time.

We can but hope, but all the signs are there that those in the know in the Conservative Party are looking at some sort of US system, which is based on corporate profits, not humanism

Most European have a two or multiple tier system- but where those who can't pay have a safety net, and where all conditions, including pre-existing, and age related, etc, are covered.

The difference between different private levels should be a single room, private TV and Wi-Fi- food menus and a glass fo wine if suitable, choice of surgeon and hospital - it should never be between 'health care' or 'bad or none'. Same for education!

Glorianny

ExDancer

I can't help asking Glorianny what happens if you can't, or don't, pay?

Do you know I have no idea. The fact that someone could die and their next of kin could be saddled with a huge debt just shocked me so much. I assume it's the same process as any other debt in the US

What happened pre-NHS?
I know home visits by the doctor had to be paid for but my DM was in hospital for months when I was tiny. The family could not have funded that, I know.

SomeTory MPs have links to US health firms and some contracts have been awarded to them with no competition www.everydoctor.org.uk/blog/private-healthcare-politicians

So what happens to those of us that have paid into the NHS throughout our working lives? Will that money be transferred to the new system

I didn't think it worked like that, MayBee

We don't each pay into our own pot for NHS healthcare.
What we paid years ago funded the provision then, what we and others pay now funds current provision.

The NHS wasn’t ‘always there’. It started when I was 8. When I was 9 I was very ill with mastoiditis, operated on as an emergency and in hospital. My parents were always saying afterwards how grateful they had been for the NHS. Of course, being a child I had no idea what they were talking about. I did just take it for granted then. No longer.

nanna8

Yes the NHS is wonderful. We have a version of it but I think it is not as good as yours and we are usually out of pocket with doctor appointments and scripts. Not as bad as the USA though.

I think yours is better than ours now; my Australian family have been shocked by what is happening here with the NHS when they were over.

HousePlantQueen

*Beautiful*, the NHS is free at the point of use. I am saddened by comments such as those made by Elizabeth27, private medical insurance is all well and good if (a) you can afford it and (b) you are basically using it to queue jump/get your hip replaced/varicose veins stripped, but private medical companies only provide services which can be costed; they do not have A&E, do not have ICU, and heaven help anyone who develops a life changing condition such as MS.

you couldn't be more right Houseplant Queen. People take for granted our NHS. Another illness which private health care will not cover you for is Kidney disease or any thing related to dialysis. People who do not have have Kidney problems can develop them at any time through an other illness or even pregnancy.
Also at one time private hospitals would carry out major operations and they did not have blood banks on site and blood had to be brought from the NHS hospitals. This might have changed now but it is something to ask if you are having a major operation privately.Something we should all be aware of as well as the ones mentioned.

But is this the model that the current government have in mind? We seem to be talking to US healthcare representatives, namely "Grail" owned by "Illumina" (David Cameron is, or was, a paid advisor).

seem is very vague. I'd love some solid evidence.

Are we 'talking' to anyone in Europe?

Nobody seems to know. It would seem silly not to.

Oh heck, more seems.

Baggs

Several geographically European (so not just EU) countries have systems that seem to work pretty well so I imagine that if we didn't have the NHS we'd have sorted out something similar. My optimistic side thinks we could still do this.

We could, most definitely, in theory.

But is this the model that the current government have in mind? We seem to be talking to US healthcare representatives, namely "Grail" owned by "Illumina" (David Cameron is, or was, a paid advisor).

Are we 'talking' to anyone in Europe?

Having lived and worked under the Scandinavian model, I would not blanch if we ended up going down that route. There are 'co-payments', but they are affordable - in Norway - but then Norwegian wages are considerably higher than here in the UK. There is a ceiling for these co-payments which, once reached, ends the requirement. So no-one is penalised for having a complex or chronic condition. And, 'the markets' have a low level of influence on the functioning of healthcare systems. On a per person basis, Norwegian expenditure on healthcare is the highest in the world.

I very much doubt this type of healthcare model is the one the government have in mind. It is based on entirely different principles of government.