Vote winning party policies

Private medical insurance excludes pre-existing conditions.

Imagine there is no NHS and your long standing condition, e.g. arthritis, heart disease, bunion or diabetes, requires treatment.

Your insurance will not cover that. What would that mean for you?

I object to private health insurance because it does precisely what further privatisation of the NHS will do, it provides a two tier health system. It also only provides certain levels of cover. So if you have suddenly substantial health care needs then your insurance money will run out and you will be bounced back onto the NHS. The NHS meanwhile has trained all the professional staff dealing with the private patient. If you suffer a major trauma whilst undergoing treatment in a private hospital you will probably be shipped back to an NHS ICU. You see private health care isn't a completely closed system it uses the NHS.
As for the cost of private health care one of the biggest causes of bancrupcy in the US is medical bills. Even if a patient dies his next of kin inherit the medical debt.

It's not so long since people were clapping on their doorsteps for NHS staff. Let's fund a proper system wich pays decent wages and cares for all. I'd vote for that.

I do think that the NHS needs a radical makeover as opposed to being privatised. I totally agree with the concept of cradle to grave care, free at the point of delivery.

Since the NHS inception over 70 years ago medicine/surgery/diagnostics and basically everything has evolved from the original vision.

It will take an extremely brave Government to tackle the NHS root and branch and in my opinion in England there is no one with the balls to do so. (I have little knowledge of how the NHS works in the other three Nations if the United Kingdom other than that Healthcare is devolved)

I see absolutely no reason to eradicate private health care or education for those who choose to use these services.

EllanVannin

Millions are ploughed into the NHS every year, and it's down to management how it's spent.
I don't think any of us would grouse about any past/ present treatment from the NHS and I certainly can't fault the education I got----non-private.

Those who object to private health/ education, what exactly is the objection ?

Oh, FGS, EV. do you know nothing about the US privatised health system?

That's what the market obsessed tories are after..

Alegrias1

Mind you my education obviously never meant I learnt to spell because...

Big Elephants Can Always Understand Small Elephants!

(though if you can't remember how to spell 'because' how on earth are you supposed to remember that ridiculous nmemonic )

Millions are ploughed into the NHS every year, and it's down to management how it's spent.
I don't think any of us would grouse about any past/ present treatment from the NHS and I certainly can't fault the education I got----non-private.

Those who object to private health/ education, what exactly is the objection ?

^Those who can afford private health/ education also have whopping tax bills too which go into the coffers of institutions such as the NHS help to keep the cogs of the country going.
Without those with wealth how would the country be financed ?^

Don't get me started, EV

No, I'll bite.

Firstly, those who pay for private education and healthcare don't have 'whopping tax bills'. They generally try to evade as much tax as they possibly can by using tax avoidance schemes, tax havens, and any method they can to minimise the tax they pay. When I looked into this a while ago it turns out that the poorest paid among us pay the largest percentage of their income in tax.

Secondly, I'll keep repeating this until I die, TAXATION DOES NOT FUND SPENDING. It hasn't done so for well over 100 years. The government is able to issue and spend as much money as it likes via the Bank of England.

Keeping the NHS short of money (and thanks for your informative post, Coastpath) is a political and ideological decision. The tories do it because they don't believe in state spending.

Mind you my education obviously never meant I learnt to spell because...

Why shouldn't there be a choice ?

Becuase EV in a civilised society it shouldn't be a "choice" about whether you have access to treatments that improve your quality of life, or even save your life, and there shouldn't be a "choice" about money buying you a better education and a better future.

Most politicians in Scotland didn't have a private education. Maybe that's the difference.

Those who can afford private health/ education also have whopping tax bills too which go into the coffers of institutions such as the NHS help to keep the cogs of the country going.
Without those with wealth how would the country be financed ?

We all pay taxes in some way but the wealthiest pay the most. I have no problem with those who choose to pay for treatments or education as it helps the economy. Why shouldn't there be a choice ?
Yes, there's a lot of greed and always will be, as much always wants more and this goes on in whatever political party you vote for, but one thing you won't see is a poor politician !

Most politicians have private health care/ education.

I worked in private medical insurance for 16 years. I think it's fair to say that I never saw anyone take out private medical insurance to ensure that those less well off can have quicker access to the NHS. They take it out because they want quicker faster treatment for their own family which is fair enough.

Once people have private medical insurance I wonder if they believe that the NHS is for other people and they care less about it. I imagine the vast majority of our MPs and other decision makers have medical insurance and so does that impact on their view of the importance of the NHS at the most critical moments of lives of ordinary people?

Add to that the fact that we know how 'connections' work at the highest level and how many MPs have shares/directorships in companies which serve to benefit from privatisation of health care. It really makes you think about how and why us less well off people, who are not the ruling class and do not serve to benefit in any way from privatisation, are being sold the lie that we overinvest in the NHS.

Nope. Don't agree. We shouldn't be beholden to the better off because it means the line in the poorhouse is shorter.

Pay more tax, support a political party which believes that everyone is entitled to the same healthcare irrespective of how much money they have. I will never expect anyone to be overjoyed because a better off person can buy something that the less well off person needs to keep them alive.

I think that what those supporting private medicine are forgetting is that not only the principle of cradle to grave has overseen better health outcomes at every age, but it is also responsible for Research, Training all our clinicians and health fairness.

How do those who want private medicine think that this world beating ( I sound like Johnson?) training and research will continue?

love0c

I certainly do not want it privatised. However, it is most definitely not fit for purpose a the moment. It hasn't been for years if we are honest. We have thrown unimaginable amounts of money at it and it is money straight down the plughole. So what is the answer?

I keep reading on Gransnet that we 'throw unimaginable amounts of money' at the NHS.

The truth is we spend less on healthcare than other countries of comparable wealth.

"the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest, with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)."

If the NHS is struggling it's because we are not investing sufficiently in it.

Lots of information here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita and here www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/articles/howdoesukhealthcarespendingcomparewithothercountries/2019-08-29

Alegrias I do understand where you are coming from. However, the people who do pay for their treatment is then allowing someone who can not pay to get their treatment earlier. I am not saying that is correct or how it should be, but the person who can not afford to pay will be overjoyed if they get their treatment earlier purely because a person has paid privately for theirs. One of our AC actually went in for an operation to a private hospital very quickly but on the NHS.

Private medicine and private education are the root of all evil in this country. Entrenches unfair privilege at every step. I'd never vote for a party that advocated either.

I think that the above are rather unjustified sweeping statements. We have paid private medical insurance and school fees for our children all along since our late twenties. I can assure you we have often NOT voted for a party whichis s itself out of step with the needs of the country as a whole.

I certainly do not want it privatised. However, it is most definitely not fit for purpose a the moment. It hasn't been for years if we are honest. We have thrown unimaginable amounts of money at it and it is money straight down the plughole. So what is the answer?

So tell me (tongue in cheek) which party do those with no empathy tend to support?

boat

I think you're right about that.

But would any party that said they wanted to privatise, "Our wonderful NHS", ever be in power again?

Surprisingly enough, when the subject of the NHS comes up on GNet there's significant support for privatisation. Presumably from the comfortably off who could afford the insurance policies and the massive bills for health care and don't have sufficient empathy for those who can't.

I think you're right about that.

But would any party that said they wanted to privatise, "Our wonderful NHS", ever be in power again?

Conversely, if they would support things they thought were right, they might prove to be vote winners.