manc-mag 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? I think Fop may have an undeclared (if blatantly obvious) interest on the whole dementia issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 This thread=major pwnage tbh. Message board cowardice at its worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. What's that? Your train of logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 This thread=major pwnage tbh. Message board cowardice at its worst. delicate flower alert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. The NHS is a balancing act though. Even more so as the burden on it increases with an ever-ageing population. I find it amusing though when people bash the government about it though (in general, not you or anyone else in this thread) since it's largely down to successive generations of a voting population who aren't prepared to pay more tax that it has become as stretched as it is. I'm not saying the government(s) aren't to blame btw, just that the population as a whole often seems to think it has nothing to do with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. What's that? Your train of logic? Still trying I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. What's that? Your train of logic? Still trying I see. Totally doing the work for me thanks *puts feet up* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 This thread=major pwnage tbh. Message board cowardice at its worst. delicate flower alert. Do you honestly imagine knowing as I do that Chez is an analyst that I'm doing anything more than mucking about with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. The NHS is a balancing act though. Even more so as the burden on it increases with an ever-ageing population. I find it amusing though when people bash the government about it though (in general, not you or anyone else in this thread) since it's largely down to successive generations of a voting population who aren't prepared to pay more tax that it has become as stretched as it is. I'm not saying the government(s) aren't to blame btw, just that the population as a whole often seems to think it has nothing to do with them. All I can say is if you watch someone trying to cope with a dementia sufferer first hand, it is worse in many ways than coping with someone with a progressive terminal illness (more of the long grind down than the quicker thrust). It is expensive, but if expense is the only worry then legalising euthanasia would be the logical move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. The NHS is a balancing act though. Even more so as the burden on it increases with an ever-ageing population. I find it amusing though when people bash the government about it though (in general, not you or anyone else in this thread) since it's largely down to successive generations of a voting population who aren't prepared to pay more tax that it has become as stretched as it is. I'm not saying the government(s) aren't to blame btw, just that the population as a whole often seems to think it has nothing to do with them. Wholly agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. What's that? Your train of logic? Still trying I see. Totally doing the work for me thanks *puts feet up* Still trying, if you had the stamina, you might be dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 yeah yeah total gobshite comeuppance all over this thread tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 yeah yeah total gobshite comeuppance all over this thread tbh There's a few more thread I've posted in you haven't yet, come on keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 yeah yeah total gobshite comeuppance all over this thread tbh There's a few more thread I've posted in you haven't yet, come on keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 yeah yeah total gobshite comeuppance all over this thread tbh There's a few more thread I've posted in you haven't yet, come on keep up. We're back to that one are we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted June 30, 2008 Author Share Posted June 30, 2008 Would people working paying higher private insureance premiums get better access to healthcare? Depends on how you design the system. Under an insurance based system, does everyone get better access to healthcare? You answered this with Avastin and France. Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Do you believe the core and nuts and bolts of the system funding or otherwise should remain public? Its already changing and the more we mix up the system, funding and provision, the better it will become. How would you design it? OK, for a giggle.... If you work, you pay for your own insurance. This is two-tier, one for general medical which comes out of your income directly and is the same % for everyone. The second is a top up scheme which has a minimum contribution but can be topped up which is for expenses above e.g. 5k per year. This gives those wealthy enough the choice to have 'hotel-like' conditions if they so wish. Those without jobs are subsidised by the government who make payments into schemes on their behalf, they can make very small contributions to the top up fund (minimal) that are then multiplied by the government into a much larger figure, allowing them to access better schemes. This has a number of interesting incentives on individual behaviours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3963 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 OK Here is my view. At the moment the NHS is run for the patients with a certain amount of money. If you privatise that yo then have people wanting to take money out. I do not see how removing money from any system makes it better. It is the big lie that private companies are more competitive than national ones. This is blatantly untrue and look at the power and water companies as proof. Try backing that statement up. Evidence against that statement - Russia Evidence for that statement - ? Also, by making people take out social insurance, then individual contributions are related to income and preferences. How you can conclude this leads to less money in the system is beyond me, when systems organised like this pour 3 to 4 times more money per head into them? The problems with 'totally' private systems are ethical not financial!! All we need is a blend of the two. Anyway, the thread title was deliberately provocative in the run up to the organisations 60th birthday and the forthcoming report from Lord Darzi. There will be loads of announcements and guff in the next few weeks that wont change the fact that unless we find more money, you'll be no more likely to get the CAT scan, the operation early or access to life-saving drugs than someone from Poland, Hungary or the Czech republic. Who spend far less than us... Russia is not evidence for national companies against private. Russia was under economic attack constantly from the cold war and arms race. My evidence would be the shambolic running of the privatised water and rail companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Would people working paying higher private insureance premiums get better access to healthcare? Depends on how you design the system. Under an insurance based system, does everyone get better access to healthcare? You answered this with Avastin and France. Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Do you believe the core and nuts and bolts of the system funding or otherwise should remain public? Its already changing and the more we mix up the system, funding and provision, the better it will become. How would you design it? OK, for a giggle.... If you work, you pay for your own insurance. This is two-tier, one for general medical which comes out of your income directly and is the same % for everyone. The second is a top up scheme which has a minimum contribution but can be topped up which is for expenses above e.g. 5k per year. This gives those wealthy enough the choice to have 'hotel-like' conditions if they so wish. Those without jobs are subsidised by the government who make payments into schemes on their behalf, they can make very small contributions to the top up fund (minimal) that are then multiplied by the government into a much larger figure, allowing them to access better schemes. This has a number of interesting incentives on individual behaviours. Is there a way we could get the insurance companies to subsidise the care of the unemployed? Then we would really be cooking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. The NHS is a balancing act though. Even more so as the burden on it increases with an ever-ageing population. I find it amusing though when people bash the government about it though (in general, not you or anyone else in this thread) since it's largely down to successive generations of a voting population who aren't prepared to pay more tax that it has become as stretched as it is. I'm not saying the government(s) aren't to blame btw, just that the population as a whole often seems to think it has nothing to do with them. All I can say is if you watch someone trying to cope with a dementia sufferer first hand, it is worse in many ways than coping with someone with a progressive terminal illness (more of the long grind down than the quicker thrust). It is expensive, but if expense is the only worry then legalising euthanasia would be the logical move. My sympathies but it doesn't alter what I said. Practically everybody of an adult age has a tragic story they can relate pertaining to a loved one suffering. It doesn't make them experts on health funding though. On the contrary, one has to remain as objective as possible in considering where the money goes which is what the experts and those in power have to try and do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed? Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital. Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere? Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken). It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it? Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour. Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty. The NHS is a balancing act though. Even more so as the burden on it increases with an ever-ageing population. I find it amusing though when people bash the government about it though (in general, not you or anyone else in this thread) since it's largely down to successive generations of a voting population who aren't prepared to pay more tax that it has become as stretched as it is. I'm not saying the government(s) aren't to blame btw, just that the population as a whole often seems to think it has nothing to do with them. All I can say is if you watch someone trying to cope with a dementia sufferer first hand, it is worse in many ways than coping with someone with a progressive terminal illness (more of the long grind down than the quicker thrust). It is expensive, but if expense is the only worry then legalising euthanasia would be the logical move. My sympathies but it doesn't alter what I said. Practically everybody of an adult age has a tragic story they can relate pertaining to a loved one suffering. It doesn't make them experts on health funding though. On the contrary, one has to remain as objective as possible in considering where the money goes which is what the experts and those in power have to try and do. Aye, but dementia is pretty much the one thing that gets no real pay back from the NHS, nor is it only something that sets in at 80+, it can come on very early, not to mention effectively be brought on by strokes etc. It's a medical condition, but you often get much more support for quitting smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Still stand by what I said. What's your solution then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Still stand by what I said. What's your solution then? Treat it as the medical condition it is, even if it's just re-allowing low grade suffered to have the drugs that allow them to have a normalish life for a few years more, expensive but morally there no other option - not that moral comes into it of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Still stand by what I said. What's your solution then? Treat it as the medical condition it is, even if it's just re-allowing low grade suffered to have the drugs that allow them to have a normalish life for a few years more, expensive but morally there no other option - not that moral comes into it of course. The money just isn't there though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Still stand by what I said. What's your solution then? Treat it as the medical condition it is, even if it's just re-allowing low grade suffered to have the drugs that allow them to have a normalish life for a few years more, expensive but morally there no other option - not that moral comes into it of course. The money just isn't there though. I'm fairly sure if enough votes were to be gained from it, that magically it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Perhaps but that pre-supposes that removing the required money from other areas of the NHS/public sector wouldn't more than cancel out any votes gained over such an initiative. Which takes me back to what I've said previously. You can't 'magically', as you put it, make the money appear. It's a finite source and that is why difficult decisions have to be made. It's not a question of what is right and what is wrong morally. That's a massive oversimplification, it's a balancing act, as I said before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now