Tell you what – for avoidance of doubt – here’s exactly what Hannan Says:

So, if not the NHS, what? which countries do better? the united States is often said to have a market-based healthcare system. Does it have anything to teach us?
uS healthcare is nothing like as bad as is sometimes believed in europe. It is a myth, for example, that it does not provide for the poor. the uS government spends more per capita on healthcare than any major european government apart from Germany. A far more serious objection is the sheer cost of uS healthcare: 16 per cent of GDP. the uS system is burdened by too much litigation, regulation and producer capture. we can do better.
So how about europe? while there are several models of healthcare on the Continent, most of them tend to involve a mixture of private and state provision and to be founded on health insurance. Insurance-based systems are demonstrably better than the NHS, but they, too, are expensive. Defenders of the NHS claim that the expenditure on the Continent is the only reason why the NHS performs so badly in comparison. Actually, we do not need to look across the Channel to see that there is no simple correlation between spending and outcomes: the NHS in Scotland performs worse than that in england on almost every measure, despite considerably higher spending (£2,313 per head in the former compared with £1,915 in the latter in 2006–07).
A system seldom looked at is that of Singapore, a wealthy, developed, Commonwealth nation. Singapore boasts health outcomes that surpass those of many european nations, yet spends only 3.5 per cent of GDP on health compared with Britain’s 8.4 per cent.
Singapore operates a system of health savings accounts which puts ultimate power in the hands of doctors and patients. Instead of relying on a government-funded or insurance-based scheme, Singaporeans save money in accounts dedicated for personal healthcare. Combined with low-cost catastrophic insurance cover, health expenditure is managed by the individual in association with his or her doctor. ?is avoids the rationing and waiting lists intrinsic in the NHS, as well as the bureaucracy characteristic of insurance-based systems. of course, the state acts as a safety net for those unable to save enough to meet their heath needs, but most people are able to manage their health needs without the government. the Singaporean government pays for only 31 per cent of health expenditure.
when people need treatment, they go directly to the healthcare provider they wish to see. they pay for this treatment from their savings accounts. In the event of catastrophic illness that would overwhelm a savings account, the insurance system pays the bill. Catastrophic insurance differs from traditional health insurance in that it is not accessed every time you see a medical professional. Catastrophic insurance is seldom, if ever, activated, so premiums are kept low.
once Singaporeans have enough in their savings accounts to meet future expected needs, they no longer have to pay into their account and so have an incentive not to overspend. Because Singaporeans benefit if they moderate their health spending, they are cost-conscious and will shop around for a medical provider who offers good value for money. this price sensitivity reduces health costs more effectively than rationing agencies such as the uk’s National Institute for Health and Clinical evidence (NICe).
Amazingly, Singapore provides this great health system with fewer doctors, nurses and bureaucrats per capita than most developed nations, suggesting an efficiency that is lacking in centrally-planned or insurance- based models. this is a health system for patients, not doctors’ unions.

Which, quite categorically, does not support your claim that he worships the US system, or that he wants us to emulate it…. and guess what, his claim that the Singapore model is more efficient is supported by the WHO report linked to above! 😆

Now, I’ve commented on here before that I personally think that the way forward for the UK is that we go back to the model of a national insurance system without centralised/state delivery – which is left in the hands of the private and mutual sector – however regardless of my opinions, the fact is that the claim by either Ernie or Fred that either I or Hannan want to see a US model, can be seen to be utter bollocks 😉

And what happens if Singapore’s economy collapses and the people can no longer afford health insurance?

Hannan’s rubbish is full of holes. He really does not in any way have a clue about the reality of US health care, as he’s never experienced things from the bottom end of it. He’s just a privileged blinkered knob who thinks cos he went to a good school he has the right to speak on matters which affect the lives of people whose lives he has no knowledge of. Bit like some people on here then, in threads like this….

Ernie – very poor straw man – Show me a single place where Hannan says we should follow the US model?

Well he told his American audience that our system was crap, whilst their system was much better – did you see the video ?

That’s despite the fact that according to evidence which you apparently approve of, the US was ranked 37 against the UK’s 18. You think 37 is better than 18 ?

.

the model Hannan promotes is the Singapore model

He never told his American audience that – why not ? In fact if you watch the video he doesn’t suggest that there is anything wrong with the US healthcare system.

He had the perfect platform to express his opinions on healthcare – that’s what he was there to discuss.

You really need to be a bit more honest Z-11.

Right, I’m off…..tat-tar

And what a load of pish it is.

uS healthcare is nothing like as bad as is sometimes believed in europe. It is a myth, for example, that it does not provide for the poor.

Lie – a significant number of people mainly poor in the US have no healthcare provision at all – and the state funded safety net is very poor quality

Provision for chronic healthcare is very poor -try being unemployed and diabetic – here you get state of the art care for free – in the US you do not

So how about europe? while there are several models of healthcare on the Continent, most of them tend to involve a mixture of private and state provision and to be founded on health insurance. Insurance-based systems are demonstrably better than the NHS,

misleading – its only because they are better funded. Admin costs are higher

Actually, we do not need to look across the Channel to see that there is no simple correlation between spending and outcomes: the NHS in Scotland performs worse than that in england on almost every measure, despite considerably higher spending (£2,313 per head in the former compared with £1,915 in the latter in 2006–07).

Misleading – Scotland public health is much worse hence the higher costs and lower outcomes – Scotland is actually more efficient than England due to not wasting money on foundation trusts and private healthcare providers thus allowing for proper strategic planning. Also the service provides more and the rural and island areas cost more

singapore – the poor get little heathcare and singapore relys on an underclass of migrant workers with no access to healthcare. Being ill in singapore is a very expensive business and there is no comprehensive cover

Zulu – really you should know better that to believe this guff – even by your standards its very poor

Ernie:

I’ve quite categorically disproved your claim that Hannan says we should follow the US model.

TJ:

The WHO report quite categorically disproves your claim that the NHS is the most efficient system.

If I can disprove your claims so easily, why should anyone believe anything else you say?

Elfin – I am not a great fan of Hannan’s either – he looked pretty lightweight on QT this week – but what does…

He’s just a privileged blinkered knob who thinks cos he went to a good school he has the right to speak on matters which affect the lives of people whose lives he has no knowledge of.

…add to the debate? How would that be different from Z11 or anyone else replying, “He’s just a under-privileged ,blinkered knob who thinks cos he went to a bad school he has the right to speak on matters which affect the lives of people whose lives he has no knowledge of. “?

… a certain former deputy PM springs to mind, not sure why? 😉

EDIT: Can’t be bothered.

but what does…

He’s just a privileged blinkered knob who thinks cos he went to a good school he has the right to speak on matters which affect the lives of people whose lives he has no knowledge of.
…add to the debate?

He knows bugger all about how policies affect people outside of his tiny bubble of personal experience, is what. People like him have no right to be speaking about such issues. It’s like me talking about issues affecting poultry farmers in Peru and presenting myself as an authority on things ffs.

Or someone who’s never bin to a Harvester before commenting on the standard of food on offer there.

EDIT: Can’t be bothered with this bit either.

No you haven’t

Fine DD – no problem at all – can you please show me a single reference where the “Evil dan the man Hannan” says that we should follow the US model?

Either he’s said it, or he hasn’t.

LOL At DD40 bravissimo

Fine DD – no problem at all – can you please show me a single reference where the “Evil dan the man Hannan” says that we should follow the US model?

See my edit Labby.

It’s too nice out to be not walking the dog today. It does unnerve me though to see people so publicly idolise Dan like you do. I would have though it was something did in the privacy of their own homes, in which case it’s no business of mine.

Yeah, I must get meself ready for me pootle. If we all go out to ride our bikes, then Labby can sit here and talk to himself. That way, he might actually get someone to agree with him.. 😀

So, well, erm, basically you’re admitting that you were wrong then DD 😆

😉

So, well, erm, basically you’re admitting that you were wrong then DD

That’s it Labby. 🙂

(Sssshhhh everyone)

Elfinsafety – on the basis of your criteria, it is basically impossible to find anyone who is qualified to be a politician. On that point, I wholeheartedly agree, hence my natural bias towards limited state intervention in most areas of economic and political life.

The fact that they are mostly incapable is probably due to the completely unrealistic assumption that we make about any of them in the first place.

The problem with PFI is that the Trusts they were offered to didn’t understand them

There was a lot of strong-arming (and fiddling of financial comparators) involved in foisting PFI upon the NHS, despite widespread opposition. Plenty of people (e.g. Allyson Pollock could see what was coming – and lo, it came to pass.

This is the kind of flawed thinking which has won over the minds of civil servants and politicians in Westminster and has allowed private health providers to really get their feet under the top table in the DOH.

Well said – and it bears repeating. Add in the management-con.sultancy feeding frenzy that will be the new consortia and… well, it’s pretty obvious where we are headed. Whatever their pompous ‘credo’, the nicely-timed Circle venture will be running Hinchingbrooke as as a loss-leading stalking horse, paving the way for other ‘failing’ hospitals to be taken over. Why else would an ex-Goldman-Sachs banker suddenly be so keen to play at doctors and nurses?

It makes me seethe – not only because services are being fragmented, but also because of the way inwhich the political rhetoric of ‘choice and competition’ is being used to disguise a whole raft of measures that will (IMO) result in nothing of the sort. Even CMD himself cited the (fundamentally-flawed) Cooper paper in support of the notion that “competition saves lives, right” – despite the fact that it seriously mis-handles data relating to AMI-related (i.e. heart attack) mortality. And while the NHS gets slagged off, there are circling corporate interests which more than understand its actual value (and the current pensions T & C battle forms one aspect of this – the workforce is being softened up, imo). They will be making serious hay, but I doubt there will be commensurate improvements in frontline care.

My dad has just retired after a lifetime in public health – a loooong trek from army medic to Consultant Paediatrician. Thank Gawd he’s out of it, and so won’t have to deal with the coming clusterfug – I’d like to see some Mckinsey & Co tool explain to him how competition ‘works’ in PICU…

Bottom line: if we want a French/German style healthcare system, then we will have to invest like our continental cousins, coupled with proper (i.e. non-refusal) insurance regulation (and, as a nation, we will probably have to knock binge drinking on the head). But, for pity’s sake, don’t let us screw up good and effective services for the sake of having a big ol’ yard sale to Serco. You don’t know what you’ve got, till it’s gone. 😕

You know what? I haven’t read all of this thread, but here’s what I think. How much do bombs cost? How much for bullets and tanks and armoured cars and the salaries of our troops?

How come we can apparently afford to go round the world poking our nose into other countries’ business but we can’t afford our own health service?

The British Bulldog is old now, his teeth have fallen out and his fur is a bit patchy. All he really wants to do these days is sit by the fire and rest.

Politicians! Wind your necks in! We aren’t a world power any longer, bring the troops home and sort out what’s going on here. We need to mind our own business and get this country back on its feet.

Edit: I have some American friends, they have seen the US health system in real life (not the pseudo world politicians live in) – it sucks. If you are poor and ill, you are stuffed.

The British Bulldog is old now, his teeth have fallen out and his fur is a bit patchy

I resemble that remark.

LOL, nice comfy bed by the fire for you then! Lots of cuddles and (soft) treats 🙂

Lots of cuddles and (soft) treats

…before I get put down.

Zulu-Eleven – Member

Ernie:

I’ve quite categorically disproved your claim that Hannan says we should follow the US model.

Zulu-Eleven, you can huff and puff and stamp your feet as much as you want, but everyone knows, right across the political spectrum, that Dan Hannan publicly claimed that the US healthcare model was superior to the British NHS.

Even the Daily Telegraph, for which Hannan is a journalist and former leader writer and therefore not naturally hostile towards him, clearly understood what he was saying :

Daniel Hannan is wrong about the NHS, America has it much worse

So why on earth should anyone trust someone who believes that US healthcare model is superior to the British NHS ? It really doesn’t matter what subsequent things he’s said about Singapore or anything else, the man fell at the first hurdle by claiming that the US healthcare model was superior to the British NHS and can’t be trusted.

Now I don’t doubt for a minute that the Peruvian halfwit deeply regrets what he said publicly on Fox News to his American buddies.

And I also don’t doubt that he only succumbed because he found the stroking and massaging of his overinflated ego by a sycophantic and grovelling Fox News anchorman too irresistible to ignore.

But however much damage limitation exercises he attempts, and there’s been plenty of backtracking, it’s all too late – the public now knows what he really thinks.

And you need to be more honest too Zulu-Eleven. You steam into these healthcare debates on STW without giving the slightest hint that you believe the US healthcare model is superior to the British NHS.

Why don’t you nail your colours firmly to the mast before you proceed to divulge your opinions on healthcare ? I think it’s only fair.

Or is this the one issue, and it’s a biggy, that you actually completely disagree with your political guru ?

…before I get put down.

Can we stuff you Noteeth? Put you in the hall?

Hannan/Beck Fox interview Transcript:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,538690,00.html

There’s no need to post a link of the transcript Zulu-Eleven, I’ve seen the video many times, and so has the Daily Telegraph editor who wrote :

“Daniel Hannan is wrong about the NHS, America has it much worse”

And if the man was so wrong, concerning something as important as that, then he can’t be trusted with anything.