Surely we must pay more taxes!?

Your choice escaped.

* my children were delivered privately by
(not conceived)!

Boz
Big Corporations use Private Medicare to facilitate the workforce. My son had a minor shoulder op. within a week of diagnosis to get him back to work; six months to a yr. wait on NHS.

True.
If you are self employed, or the sole proprietor of a company, then private medical care is pretty necessary. Faster diagnosis and faster access to consultants leads to faster access to treatment, which means you can get back to work faster, and the business won't suffer.
Also, sometimes superior medication than the NHS prescribes is given, so recovery is speedier.
The downside can be the aftercare and follow-up once discharged.
DH & I have had private insurance for over 40 years. It was expensive, but it was for our own peace of mind. I've not cost the NHS a penny in investigations or procedures, even my children were privately by the consultant because I had the money and the choice.

The NHS must find it equally as difficult as private companies to keep up with the ever increasing cost of modern medicine. That's why private health care fees keep rising inordinately too.

BevSec

Doodledog

For the record, I don't envy anyone either. I could afford basic private medicine - few could afford things like transplants even if they were available, so it's the routine stuff that has queues that get jumped. I'm not even saying I would never do it. I have arthritis in my knees, and was offered a transplant but then Covid hit and since then I haven't gone back on the list as I can manage and the physio suggested I put off as long as possible so I don't need a second one in older age. I'm not in constant agony, and if I were, who knows what I would do?

The assumption that all objection to unfairness is based on envy says more about those making the assumptions than the objectors, IMO.

What is it based on other than envy?

My partner is one who could have afforded private healthcare while he was working, but he has never used it because he has very strong principles - nothing to do with envy.

We have to pay more tax - and tax the very rich a lot more. Many of the super rich are publicly saying they would like to pay more tax.

Many people are public spirited BevSec, and care about others who are in less fortunate circumstances. Many also have ideological objections to private medicine for that reason, because they don’t believe in queue jumping.

The NHS still picks up the complex cases, and those who are treated privately initially when things go wrong too, so it’s a fallacy to suggest that private medicine saves pressures on the NHS. If consultants who work in both the NHS and privately could not work privately they would automatically have full time NHS contracts, thus increasing NHs capacity.

Doodledog

For the record, I don't envy anyone either. I could afford basic private medicine - few could afford things like transplants even if they were available, so it's the routine stuff that has queues that get jumped. I'm not even saying I would never do it. I have arthritis in my knees, and was offered a transplant but then Covid hit and since then I haven't gone back on the list as I can manage and the physio suggested I put off as long as possible so I don't need a second one in older age. I'm not in constant agony, and if I were, who knows what I would do?

The assumption that all objection to unfairness is based on envy says more about those making the assumptions than the objectors, IMO.

What is it based on other than envy?

For the record, I don't envy anyone either. I could afford basic private medicine - few could afford things like transplants even if they were available, so it's the routine stuff that has queues that get jumped. I'm not even saying I would never do it. I have arthritis in my knees, and was offered a transplant but then Covid hit and since then I haven't gone back on the list as I can manage and the physio suggested I put off as long as possible so I don't need a second one in older age. I'm not in constant agony, and if I were, who knows what I would do?

The assumption that all objection to unfairness is based on envy says more about those making the assumptions than the objectors, IMO.

Has anyone suggested that they opt for private medical treatment out of altruism Doodledog? People have said that it takes pressure off the NHS and that’s one person fewer on a waiting list but I haven’t noticed anyone claiming that that was the reason they did it.

Spot on, BevSec.

M0nica

I had privat medical teatment recentky because a young very clever NHS doctor misdiagnosed my problem and once that wrong diagnosis was pinned on me, no one wanted to take any notice of all the other symptoms that pointed to a completely different diagnosis.

In the end, in despair I saw a private consultant who confirmed that the first diagnosis was wrong and he treated the problem I really had. I knew what the problem was because I had had it before.

I am glad you got sorted. Its so important that we should have a choice. Its immaterial whether I can personally afford something or not, I certainly do not envy those who can, whether its private healthcare, bigger houses, cars, holidays etc. its rather sad that some on here seem to want to see those with money get it taken off them and given to the government to waste.

I understand why people go private. I just object to the suggestion that they are doing it out of altruism.

I had privat medical teatment recentky because a young very clever NHS doctor misdiagnosed my problem and once that wrong diagnosis was pinned on me, no one wanted to take any notice of all the other symptoms that pointed to a completely different diagnosis.

In the end, in despair I saw a private consultant who confirmed that the first diagnosis was wrong and he treated the problem I really had. I knew what the problem was because I had had it before.

Exactly MOnica. Asking for a definition of wealth brings forth no personal opinions, merely the views of HMRC or a bank. If people aren’t willing to offer their definition I wish they would stop talking about it.

those that can afford it won’t pay, the majority don’t pay enough.

You keep saying this David, but it just isn't true, Many wealthy people are more than happy to pay the tax they are due - and you still do not define wealthy, either in income or capital terms. So we do not even know exactlywho are the group that you claim will do anything to avoid tax.

Big Corporations use Private Medicare to facilitate the workforce. My son had a minor shoulder op. within a week of diagnosis to get him back to work; six months to a yr. wait on NHS.
Private is very good for the small things. But you will still need NHS for the big things, I believe.

I'm not disagreeing with your last point (that we all need to pay more tax). In fact I believe I said so in my earlier post.

David49

“As I also said (but you didn't quote) to be fair to everyone I would prefer private medicine to be abolished - at least until/unless there are no queues - but as long as both it and queues exist I can't blame people who are in pain or at risk of their condition worsening for using it. I do blame those who claim unselfish motives for their disingenuousness, however. It's a bugbear of mine.”

Then we disagree and the NHS will stay in the same state it is today, those that can afford it won’t pay, the majority don’t pay enough.

“As I also said (but you didn't quote) to be fair to everyone I would prefer private medicine to be abolished - at least until/unless there are no queues - but as long as both it and queues exist I can't blame people who are in pain or at risk of their condition worsening for using it. I do blame those who claim unselfish motives for their disingenuousness, however. It's a bugbear of mine.”

MaggsMcG

No Governnent is going to increase tax for the wealthy for 2 reasons.
Most of the MPs are in that bracket themselves and then all the wealthy will just move to a different country where they don't pay as much tax. What they should do I'd get the private companies to pay up instead of finding ways to avoid it.

What nonsense.

What evidence do you have that most MPs are wealthy? Some are, most certainly are not. An MP’s salary is just over £91k plus expenses. That may be a reasonable salary but it doesn’t equate with wealth.

‘All the wealthy’ will move to a different country - really? A mass exodus of what you deem to be wealthy people - do you seriously think so?

What are these ‘private companies’ which are avoiding paying tax? Please provide some examples.

growstuff

Norah

growstuff

How can there be needs for private medical care? I appreciate all the arguments about the flaws in the NHS. Nevertheless, I dispute that private medical care is needed when most can't afford it. Or are you saying that those who can't afford private medical care will just die - that's the logic if they can't afford something which is needed. I'm not disputing that some people choose private medical care, but don't try pretending that it's needed.

Need and choice/want aren't the same thing.

Likewise, having money will get you a nicer care home, but try kidding anyone that it's needed. It's your choice. Nobody is stopping people making that choice, but don't expect the state/poorer people to subsidise you by letting you off the tax - don't forget most people can't afford your choices - the ones you call needs.

Speed of service, (say TKR) is what is needed, and sadly lacking.

People save for their choices.

But some people just don't have the money to save. Private healthcare is a choice, but only for those who can afford it. In my opinion, needs are what are necessary to stay alive - air, food/water, means to keep warm. Just about everything else is a choice.

Universal Credit is currently £393.45 a month. The government thinks that's enough to pay for essential needs. I doubt there are many choices for people only receiving that amount every month. 50% of the population receives (after tax) less than £2000 a month. Most of them won't be eligible for any benefits, so will have to pay all housing costs out of that amount. They will have some choices, but not that many. Most of them won't have enough to save for private healthcare, or some of the things some people deem as essential.

Of course not everyone has the money to save. Spending savings on heath care and critical needs (TKR bone on bone for example) is a choice.

Many of the 50% of the population in receipt of (after tax) less than £2000 a month will be couples, I'd assume housing is affordable for those who combine at £4000 a month. I'll wait to be told I'm wrong, again.

David49

“I don’t believe for a minute that private medicine reduces NHS queues,”

It NEVER will, because demand is unlimited, ever more advanced treatment available for free can never be met, NICE does its best to regulate cost but unless it works to an absolute budget it will fail.

I realise that, of course.

The selective part of my post that you quoted was in response to the idea that those going private are doing so to help those who rely on the NHS. Regardless of future advances in treatment (unless they eradicate the need for many operations) that is nonsense - private medicine adds to queues for those restricted to NHS treatment, and comes out of the budget paid for by everyone who contributes to the training of medics via their taxes.

As I also said (but you didn't quote) to be fair to everyone I would prefer private medicine to be abolished - at least until/unless there are no queues - but as long as both it and queues exist I can't blame people who are in pain or at risk of their condition worsening for using it. I do blame those who claim unselfish motives for their disingenuousness, however. It's a bugbear of mine.

No Governnent is going to increase tax for the wealthy for 2 reasons.
Most of the MPs are in that bracket themselves and then all the wealthy will just move to a different country where they don't pay as much tax. What they should do I'd get the private companies to pay up instead of finding ways to avoid it.

MOnica I don't want to live in a society without choice. I agree with Doodledog's post @ 08.37.06.

What I'm saying is that, as a society, we should be ensuring that everybody is able to afford absolute essentials (at the moment, they're not). Most of the money we spend is a choice - and I'm not begrudging any of it. What sticks in my craw is when people bleat on about needing certain things. They don't. They've made a choice to spend money in a certain way (fine by me). I'm disputing the concept of need when many people don't have that choice, so it can't possibly be a need.

If everybody did have the means to pay for essential needs, it would be fine, but they don't.

Norah

growstuff

How can there be needs for private medical care? I appreciate all the arguments about the flaws in the NHS. Nevertheless, I dispute that private medical care is needed when most can't afford it. Or are you saying that those who can't afford private medical care will just die - that's the logic if they can't afford something which is needed. I'm not disputing that some people choose private medical care, but don't try pretending that it's needed.

Need and choice/want aren't the same thing.

Likewise, having money will get you a nicer care home, but try kidding anyone that it's needed. It's your choice. Nobody is stopping people making that choice, but don't expect the state/poorer people to subsidise you by letting you off the tax - don't forget most people can't afford your choices - the ones you call needs.

Speed of service, (say TKR) is what is needed, and sadly lacking.

People save for their choices.

But some people just don't have the money to save. Private healthcare is a choice, but only for those who can afford it. In my opinion, needs are what are necessary to stay alive - air, food/water, means to keep warm. Just about everything else is a choice.

Universal Credit is currently £393.45 a month. The government thinks that's enough to pay for essential needs. I doubt there are many choices for people only receiving that amount every month. 50% of the population receives (after tax) less than £2000 a month. Most of them won't be eligible for any benefits, so will have to pay all housing costs out of that amount. They will have some choices, but not that many. Most of them won't have enough to save for private healthcare, or some of the things some people deem as essential.

MaizieD

^What you are preaching David is communism where everyone gets the same amount of money regardless of what they do.^

I'm very puzzled as to understand how you came to that conclusion, MOnica. I'd say that David was anything but a communist... He certainly sometimes posts things socialist in tone, but never communist...

It’s not socialism it’s purely capitalist, we have to support those that can’t support themselves, above that level the population should make their own provision. Our children and Grandchildren simply cannot afford to subsidize us in retirement

Other countries vary, most don’t pay a pension to everyone, most don’t have free health care for all regardless how wealthy they are. I wouldn’t want the US system, there are plenty of other health systems more affordable than the UK