Privatise the NHS

[manc-mag 1]

This thread is an absolute gem btw.

 

Are you sure the old clique type aura doesn't spoil it?

 

Fuck off, Hobbes.xxx

[Happy Face 29]

Of course the whole debate is moot, we all know national healthcare wins since the US taxpayer already pays for their healthcare twice anyway. First via a private policy, then again to cover the nationalised bailout of the insurance companies that spent all the cash on the gamblers.

Any reformed NHS doesn't need to be based on the US model though. I'd hope it wasn't tbh, although I don't know enough about their system so I may be judging it harshly from afar.

 

The US springs to mind from the thread title though. I think the vast majority of Europe is still predominantly publicly funded.

[Renton 22001]

Of course the whole debate is moot, we all know national healthcare wins since the US taxpayer already pays for their healthcare twice anyway. First via a private policy, then again to cover the nationalised bailout of the insurance companies that spent all the cash on the gamblers.

Any reformed NHS doesn't need to be based on the US model though. I'd hope it wasn't tbh, although I don't know enough about their system so I may be judging it harshly from afar.

 

The US springs to mind from the thread title though. I think the vast majority of Europe is still predominantly publicly funded.

 

Seriously HF, the US system has nothing to with what is being proposed, I'd be dead set against it were that the case. We'll be moving towards a more 'european style' health service if anything. As was said early on, pragmatism not dogmatism is what is required now.

[Guest alex]

I was about to say, isn't this more like what they have in France etc.?

[Happy Face 29]

OP

 

Now, this begs the question, isn’t it time to privatise the NHS and introduce a system of insurance that people can choose?

 

I'm saying no to that.

[ChezGiven 0]

Of course the whole debate is moot, we all know national healthcare wins since the US taxpayer already pays for their healthcare twice anyway. First via a private policy, then again to cover the nationalised bailout of the insurance companies that spent all the cash on the gamblers.

 

Excellent point.

 

 

In what way does 'national' healthcare win? The NHS is failing to deliver modern medicines to the UK. Countries with similar GDP per capita are able to pay more because of the way they are organised. The UK delivers the same quality of medicines as Slovakia due to its inefficiency.

 

The US market is a bad example of an alternative as, at present, it represents the opposite extreme. I quoted Marshall in another thread but his insight is relevant here. The extremes are separated by degrees with multiple possibilities in between. The UK and the US have healthcare systems that represent the extreme 'public' (the most fair) and 'private' (the most efficient*) systems. Reforms to each represent trade-offs between these two extremes and social values.

 

*The efficiency of the system depends on more than just the 'financing' of the system. Thats another debate though.

[Renton 22001]

OP

 

Now, this begs the question, isn’t it time to privatise the NHS and introduce a system of insurance that people can choose?

 

I'm saying no to that.

 

Nice selective posting, entirely ignoring most of the rest of this thread and recent 'real world' events.

 

There was Trevor MacDonald tonight thing on Monday btw which actually described the ethical dilemma in prescribing Avastin (for colon cancer) quite well; it showed the point of view of cancer sufferers, cancer charities, the drug company (evil Roche iirc), and NICE. Did you see it? Would Avastin be available under the NHS if you had your way, or conversely would it be fairer to let no-one have it?

Edited November 13, 2008 by Renton

[ChezGiven 0]

Of course the whole debate is moot, we all know national healthcare wins since the US taxpayer already pays for their healthcare twice anyway. First via a private policy, then again to cover the nationalised bailout of the insurance companies that spent all the cash on the gamblers.

Any reformed NHS doesn't need to be based on the US model though. I'd hope it wasn't tbh, although I don't know enough about their system so I may be judging it harshly from afar.

 

The US springs to mind from the thread title though. I think the vast majority of Europe is still predominantly publicly funded.

 

The OP was a little provocative.

 

Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe.

[Guest alex]

OP

 

Now, this begs the question, isn’t it time to privatise the NHS and introduce a system of insurance that people can choose?

 

I'm saying no to that.

Sorry, I thought you meant what we were discussing now rather than what we were discussing five months ago

[ChezGiven 0]

OP

 

Now, this begs the question, isn’t it time to privatise the NHS and introduce a system of insurance that people can choose?

 

I'm saying no to that.

 

Did you see that thread on the bodybuilder forum last week?

 

You should have posted one of those 'Do Not Want' pics.

[Park Life 71]

Of course the whole debate is moot, we all know national healthcare wins since the US taxpayer already pays for their healthcare twice anyway. First via a private policy, then again to cover the nationalised bailout of the insurance companies that spent all the cash on the gamblers.

 

Excellent point.

 

 

In what way does 'national' healthcare win? The NHS is failing to deliver modern medicines to the UK. Countries with similar GDP per capita are able to pay more because of the way they are organised. The UK delivers the same quality of medicines as Slovakia due to its inefficiency.

 

The US market is a bad example of an alternative as, at present, it represents the opposite extreme. I quoted Marshall in another thread but his insight is relevant here. The extremes are separated by degrees with multiple possibilities in between. The UK and the US have healthcare systems that represent the extreme 'public' (the most fair) and 'private' (the most efficient*) systems. Reforms to each represent trade-offs between these two extremes and social values.

 

*The efficiency of the system depends on more than just the 'financing' of the system. Thats another debate though.

 

 

I could be wrong but doesn't the U.S. have the highest drug prices in the world?

[Park Life 71]

Of course the whole debate is moot, we all know national healthcare wins since the US taxpayer already pays for their healthcare twice anyway. First via a private policy, then again to cover the nationalised bailout of the insurance companies that spent all the cash on the gamblers.

 

Excellent point.

 

 

In what way does 'national' healthcare win? The NHS is failing to deliver modern medicines to the UK. Countries with similar GDP per capita are able to pay more because of the way they are organised. The UK delivers the same quality of medicines as Slovakia due to its inefficiency.

 

The US market is a bad example of an alternative as, at present, it represents the opposite extreme. I quoted Marshall in another thread but his insight is relevant here. The extremes are separated by degrees with multiple possibilities in between. The UK and the US have healthcare systems that represent the extreme 'public' (the most fair) and 'private' (the most efficient*) systems. Reforms to each represent trade-offs between these two extremes and social values.

 

*The efficiency of the system depends on more than just the 'financing' of the system. Thats another debate though.

 

If by efficient you mean it delivers fuck all to 40million Americans then I guess you're right.

[Park Life 71]

Of course the whole debate is moot, we all know national healthcare wins since the US taxpayer already pays for their healthcare twice anyway. First via a private policy, then again to cover the nationalised bailout of the insurance companies that spent all the cash on the gamblers.

Any reformed NHS doesn't need to be based on the US model though. I'd hope it wasn't tbh, although I don't know enough about their system so I may be judging it harshly from afar.

 

The US springs to mind from the thread title though. I think the vast majority of Europe is still predominantly publicly funded.

 

The OP was a little provocative.

 

Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe.

 

 

Certainly keen to get employers more involved, but that will become a penalty to middle sized businesses...France is bankrupt anyway.

[ChezGiven 0]

40 million uninsured is a measure of the fairness of the system not efficiency.

[Happy Face 29]

OP

 

Now, this begs the question, isn’t it time to privatise the NHS and introduce a system of insurance that people can choose?

 

I'm saying no to that.

 

Nice selective posting, entirely ignoring most of the rest of this thread and recent 'real world' events.

 

There was Trevor MacDonald tonight thing on Monday btw which actually described the ethical dilemma in prescribing Avastin (for colon cancer) quite well; it showed the point of view of cancer sufferers, cancer charities, the drug company (evil Roche iirc), and NICE. Did you see it? Would Avastin be available under the NHS if you had your way, or conversely would it be fairer to let no-one have it?

 

 

I did say "the WHOLE debate is moot" in response to no-one in particular - and with a wink. Can't see why I'm being picked up on not relating it to a specific point five months down the line.

 

 

I didn't see it I'm afraid.

 

Chez, i know "Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe." but when it comes down to it, isn't the main difference between, say, France and the UK that they just spend more on their public system than we do on ours?

 

In terms of % GDP.

[Guest alex]

I was picking up on the references to the US system btw. Of which you've made several.

[Park Life 71]

40 million uninsured is a measure of the fairness of the system not efficiency.

 

 

Would GSK be interested in getting into a niche heathcare insurance product?

 

You see I realise the underlying debate ain't about band aids it's about the allocation and supply of more exotic drugs.

 

I would suggest GSK deliver an insurance product as an add on to supply special and expensive drugs if needed by the client.

 

Any good?

[ChezGiven 0]

OP

 

Now, this begs the question, isn’t it time to privatise the NHS and introduce a system of insurance that people can choose?

 

I'm saying no to that.

 

Nice selective posting, entirely ignoring most of the rest of this thread and recent 'real world' events.

 

There was Trevor MacDonald tonight thing on Monday btw which actually described the ethical dilemma in prescribing Avastin (for colon cancer) quite well; it showed the point of view of cancer sufferers, cancer charities, the drug company (evil Roche iirc), and NICE. Did you see it? Would Avastin be available under the NHS if you had your way, or conversely would it be fairer to let no-one have it?

 

 

I did say "the WHOLE debate is moot" in response to no-one in particular - and with a wink. Can't see why I'm being picked up on not relating it to a specific point five months down the line.

 

 

I didn't see it I'm afraid.

 

Chez, i know "Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe." but when it comes down to it, isn't the main difference between, say, France and the UK that they just spend more on their public system than we do on ours?

 

In terms of % GDP.

 

The massive increases in healthcare expenditure over the last 5 years in the UK have brought it in line with France, Germany etc in terms of % of GDP. About 9%.

 

It was about 3% below average 8 years ago.

[Renton 22001]

40 million uninsured is a measure of the fairness of the system not efficiency.

 

An American generalist physician once told me that the US system was actually very inefficient in some ways though. Basically, millions of people can't afford preventative drugs which you would get on the UK NHS. The result is they get very sick. However, even in the US people aren't allowed to die on the street so they end up being admitted as emergencies, not sure who ultimately picks up the cost of that mind (Medicare or something?).

 

Regardless, the US system appals me but I really don't think it could ever become a reality here, as HF fears.

[Renton 22001]

40 million uninsured is a measure of the fairness of the system not efficiency.

 

 

Would GSK be interested in getting into a niche heathcare insurance product?

 

You see I realise the underlying debate ain't about band aids it's about the allocation and supply of more exotic drugs.

 

I would suggest GSK deliver an insurance product as an add on to supply special and expensive drugs if needed by the client.

 

Any good?

 

Isn't that in essence what is being proposed/becoming reality????

[Happy Face 29]

I was picking up on the references to the US system btw. Of which you've made several.

 

As it's the ONLY industrialised nation that doesn't provide healthcare to all it's citizens (truly private), I assumed the OP was advocating the US system to tell the truth.

 

As Chez says though, he was just being provocative. We can all agree America is fucked up.

[Guest alex]

I was picking up on the references to the US system btw. Of which you've made several.

 

As it's the ONLY industrialised nation that doesn't provide healthcare to all it's citizens (truly private), I assumed the OP was advocating the US system to tell the truth.

 

As Chez says though, he was just being provocative. We can all agree America is fucked up.

I was just clarifying what I was picking you up on

[Happy Face 29]

OP

 

Now, this begs the question, isn’t it time to privatise the NHS and introduce a system of insurance that people can choose?

 

I'm saying no to that.

 

Nice selective posting, entirely ignoring most of the rest of this thread and recent 'real world' events.

 

There was Trevor MacDonald tonight thing on Monday btw which actually described the ethical dilemma in prescribing Avastin (for colon cancer) quite well; it showed the point of view of cancer sufferers, cancer charities, the drug company (evil Roche iirc), and NICE. Did you see it? Would Avastin be available under the NHS if you had your way, or conversely would it be fairer to let no-one have it?

 

 

I did say "the WHOLE debate is moot" in response to no-one in particular - and with a wink. Can't see why I'm being picked up on not relating it to a specific point five months down the line.

 

 

I didn't see it I'm afraid.

 

Chez, i know "Its a mix of funding between, government, employers and individuals throughout Europe." but when it comes down to it, isn't the main difference between, say, France and the UK that they just spend more on their public system than we do on ours?

 

In terms of % GDP.

 

The massive increases in healthcare expenditure over the last 5 years in the UK have brought it in line with France, Germany etc in terms of % of GDP. About 9%.

 

It was about 3% below average 8 years ago.

 

I thought we were still below average...

 

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7591/442

 

...but that's over a year old.

 

Apologies for googling something Renton. I see this sort of stuff as an opportunity to learn something though.

[Park Life 71]

40 million uninsured is a measure of the fairness of the system not efficiency.

 

 

Would GSK be interested in getting into a niche heathcare insurance product?

 

You see I realise the underlying debate ain't about band aids it's about the allocation and supply of more exotic drugs.

 

I would suggest GSK deliver an insurance product as an add on to supply special and expensive drugs if needed by the client.

 

Any good?

 

Isn't that in essence what is being proposed/becoming reality????

 

 

I doubt it GSK wouldn't touch that with a bargpole. The risks for them are way too high and who would they call on for lines of risk management (to make sure the system is in place for the long term) no finance or credit line would touch it. YOu see when people get ill they also become unprofitable.

[ChezGiven 0]

40 million uninsured is a measure of the fairness of the system not efficiency.

 

 

Would GSK be interested in getting into a niche heathcare insurance product?

 

You see I realise the underlying debate ain't about band aids it's about the allocation and supply of more exotic drugs.

 

I would suggest GSK deliver an insurance product as an add on to supply special and expensive drugs if needed by the client.

 

Any good?

 

Isn't that in essence what is being proposed/becoming reality????

 

Yes. (just by insurance co's though - see link from when i bumped)

Edited November 13, 2008 by ChezGiven