NHS

Savings from the forced sale of my house, but that's not going to last until I reach state pension age. Yes, I am seriously worried and often consider ending it all. So I'm not impressed with people, who don't have a clue, telling me to prioritise.

Back to topic anyone? Links and all!

Thanks for answering - what a terrible position to be in.

No excuse for bullying though.

I am talking generally. I thought this was a thread about the NHS not individuals. If we had no NHS and planned how to set up a comprehensive health system what would we do? That might be a more positive approach.

I fail to spot any offence in what jane10 has said, but it clearly touched a nerve.
Paying for prescriptions is a problem for many people but before he was 65, DH used to buy an annual prepayment "season ticket". Given that he averages 12 different drugs 2 or 3 times a day, I think it paid for itself with his repeat prescriptions alone within the first 2/3 months of any year. And of course it was available for "one offs" as and when he needed them.
It is possible to go for a hybrid system of payment for some things with reductions for "season tickets" or exemption for those on benefits and I know I (and others) have commented before on the nonsense of having prescriptions for cheap as chips over the counter drugs such as paracetamol which can cost mere pence at Boots.
Sadly the reorganisation of GP contracts had exactly the opposite effect to that desired, effectively reducing GP services and passing the buck of "out of hours " treatment to A&E services already stretched to breaking point.
We lay people can see how a non-urgent out of hours service could alleviate the pressure and at our local hospital as part of a redevelopment they are moving their walk-in centre to beside A&E with combined triage which will then allocate accordingly. Seems so simple, but there are probably a million reasons (most of them £££) why this cannot be implemented everywhere.

Yes, it is Ana. However, I do my best and I know for a fact that that there are many people in a similar situation, so I won't tolerate comments which blame the poor for their own misfortune by suggesting they prioritise, or thinking that just because they can pay, so can everybody. If I thought I were the only one, I would put it down to experience and bad luck. It's all very well dismissing me as an individual, but there are thousands, maybe millions, of individuals like me and I find it offensive when the least fortunate/most vulnerable are ignored.

Yes, Jane, it would be a positive approach and I was hoping for an answer from you, based on your father's observations.

If you scroll back, you'll see that all seem to be agreed that more money is needed and I outlined the dilemma. The question is whether people pay as individuals (when some people just can't) or whether the money is spread by funding from taxation, which is the very crux of the matter.

Yes, Alea, it did touch a nerve.

Alea,

Have you considered that there are some people who can't even afford an annual prescription season ticket?

daphnedill Thank you or those figures, I will have to check with my local private hospital, but I did think you still had to be refereed by your own GP, and I do not want to take up his time. If I were to see my GP privately, it would be outside his NHS surgery hours and would not therefor affect other patients, The very point of going private was not to take up NHS time.

What about a combination of both those things: people paying as individuals if they can (as well as paying the usual taxes) and people who can't pay just paying taxes (again, if they can/are eligible to pay tax) and getting NHS services feee at the point of receipt? I think that's what jane10 might be getting at.

Sliding scale, bit like the theory behind income tax.

thatbags,

That kind of system was considered a couple of years ago, but the conclusion was that it would cost more to administer than it would save. There would still be people who would fall between any kind of scheme, just as there are now for all sorts of benefits. Sadly, there are people who won't go to their GP, because they've been made to feel guilty about wasting time, leave problems too long and charging wouldn't help.

Hmm, sounds good, but as everyone will have paid in via income tax, how would you feel when you see those that can't be bothered to work getting treatment for free. Very difficult to target the help to those that need and deserve it.
The great thing about the NHS is that it is free for all. We all have the option to go privately (yes I do appreciate that not all can afford it, which is why the NHS should be free)

If it's on a sliding scale like income tax, how about charging more for income tax and ring-fencing the extra money for the NHS?

We looked at a load of alternatives a while back.

Most had some sort of insurance. The ones I preferred were those that kept government at arms length. They can't be kept entirely out of it - unless you are a laissez faire supporter - because we need to ensure that the system is both comprehensive and affordable. Those on the lowest income generally do not pay. There is a dedicated tax for a safety net.

daphnedill I have no intention of getting into your personal circumstances, but at the time DH had been made redundant, he subsequently had a liver transplant and several return stays in hospital (50+ miles away, so visiting was expensive) and follow up appointments at a minimum of £30 in travelling costs each time, , he was unable to work and unable to claim any benefits, we had 2daughters at university and a mortgage to pay.
To say we were poor is a massive understatement.
The prepayment certificate at that time was around £6oish a year I think, I don't know what it is now, but averaged over 52 weeks would cost less than a pint of milk a day.

Thanks thatbags that's exactly what I was getting at. We are not a homogeneous population and neither are our healthcare requirements or pockets. A simple one size fits all approach patently doesn't fit in 2016.
Alea's description of their local hospital's way of addressing the A&E problem sounds good. Why not replicate it? If it means selling advertising space in the foyer to fund it why not? Sponsorship of specialist nurses could be a project for eg local Rotary clubs. I know this is wild blue sky thinking and also a bit 'back to the future' but I'm really trying to imagine how things could be done differently. (Local charities often seem to sponsor specialist nurses and therapists already.)

Whatever system you opt for must be comprehensive, fair for all and affordable. Bit like the NHS really. All we need to do is bite the bullet, tell government hands off, and pay more, perhaps a dedicated insurance.

Ahhhh! Those pesky, feckless scroungers! Let's kill 'em all off! What a great idea!

Yes, the NHS is free at the point of use and should remain so. There will always be people who are seen as less deserving, but it's not a doctor's job to decide.

Once we start deciding who is most deserving, it's a slippery slope deciding whether a 45 year old with a family is more deserving than an 80 year old with deteriorating health and no responsibilities.

Lateral thinking (which I approve of, why should nurses and doctors not advertise their sponsors like football players? ) does however mean jettisoning the "cradle to the grave" "free" health care which the NHS promised, and for some people that is beyond the thin end of the wedge.
However this is already the case with dental health -many dentists no longer take NHS patients and I know while our children had free check ups and treatment, we now pay Denplan (which is an absolute rip off ) or take the risk of going completely private. Similarly with Opticians, free eye checks were only available to me from the age of 40 because my father had glaucoma and in any case it is not the eye test which is ruinous, but the cost of the lenses in my glasses.

Before you go any further look at the different systems in Europe.

It seems to me that in a decent society we should look after the most vulnerable, which includes the elderly, poor and ill. We can afford to do this as we are one of the richest countries in the developed world. It is political ideology that is causing shortage of funding. If we do not have a universal health system it will develop into a two tier system, where those that can pay get the treatment, and those that can't join the long queue. Do not be fooled into thinking that if you are on a moderate income you can give up luxuries to pay for GP appts etc. If you are unfortunate enough to develop a chronic illness, or an expensive to treat cancer I wonder how long private funds would last? This is what happens in US when patients run out of insurance money and have to go untreated. I do not think NHS is a sacred cow, or could not do with improvement, but it is one of the most efficient in the world for the money that is spent on it.

DH has some friends in the states, one has recently had to sell his house to pay for heart surgery, as he couldn't get insurance.

We must all agree on the basics I would have thought.
Sufficient to eat
Warmth
Housing
Education
Health.

That is what is called a civilised society.

I think we most likely need some sort of mix 'n match system. National insurance plus top up as can be afforded? 'They' know how much we all earn via HMRC. Can those on higher rate of tax be required to pay 1% extra health levy? Can certain charges be payable for certain items if a lower rate tax payer? Or similar. Plus hospitals can sell advertising - there's plenty of us likely to be around in them to see it. I'm still trying...

"Ahhhh! Those pesky, feckless scroungers! Let's kill 'em all off! What a great idea!"

I asked how people would feel about those that abuse the system, didn't imagine anyone would consider going that far, I do hope you are joking. (OK I'm sure you are)

I am sure that Doctors would never select who they treat.

However, I had an experience of the ambulance service that appalled me. I was a St. John's Ambulance member at the time and on the way to a business meeting in Brighton, stopped to help a down & out who had collapsed in the street and everyone was ignoring. The ambulance was very reluctant to carry him even though he was unconscious, as he was soaked in urine and covered in fleas.