Forum menu
What would the consequences be?
How?
Hospitals, the Staff, the Services - which, or all?
And how would it be paid for - mandatory fees (as per other European countris maybe)?
And GP's are already private.
So probably little impact initially, but really depends on which approach is taken for long-term impact - and I really can't see a 3rd world/USA version here at all, ever.
Everyone, including trolls, would have to start paying for their medical treatment at the point of delivery ?
still be free, taxes would go directly to firms who do the work. so nothing.
depends on how far, but if they adopt the american model costs go up, quality of care for those with money goes up and for the majority well who cares about those too poor to be able to afford insurance.
Do you see many employers offering health insurance as per the US model? of course not. Do you really see the government cutting tax, again don't be stupid. So the majority get poorer and worse care.
Not a troll. What kind of model do you think the UK governments would stumble upon? I suspect that the same amount of money would be taken from the public purse, but a huge chunk of that would go straight to shareholders and not patient care.
I suspect the wife's new salary would mean that I could retire...
And GP's are already private.
Care to explain your reasoning there?
still be free, taxes would go directly to firms who do the work. so nothing.
Or taxes would go down and you'd have the freedom to choose where and how you spend your money?
Well how is mental health, abortions,child birth,drug dependancy, eating disorders,stoke management and treatment and other medical stuff going to be funded.
Then we have the A and E functins where a price cant be given at the start of treatment,then theres privatisation of the ambulance service, who will take you to hospital if you dont have the right ID.
its going to be a nightmare , but im sure some multi million pound PLC, is already doing the sums ready to take over when cameroooon say jump.
Oo Oo I know!
Is the answer that the NHS would run in exactly the same way, but cost twice as much because we would be paying to make a profit for the companies who would produce carefully graphically designed pamphlets that ensured us that we would get the best care available while paying through the nose for it?
But David Camerons mates would get rich, so that would make it OK?
And GP's are already private.Care to explain your reasoning there?
Posted 3 minutes ago # Report-Post
and a local gp went bust up here a few weeks ago, they changed the locks, refused access to the staff and patients,and refused access to the medical records of the patients, caused a lot of anguish and a huge cost for the local health authority or what ever they are called this week.
Errr everyone would just have private insurance which they do already?
Might actually get some decent service
[i]Might actually get some decent service [/i]
You Go Girl!!
Unless you earn more than 6K a month you'd better not get sick.
Might actually get some decent serviceYou Go Girl!!
Let me guess, you work for them, bless.
Unless you earn more than 6K a month you'd better not get sick.
Even though you can get basic BUPA health care for £20 a month.
What does basic Bupa £20/month healthcare get you?
[i]Even though you can get basic BUPA health care for £20 a month.[/i]
What does that cover?
basic BUPA health care
and what about not so basic care?
[img] 
[/img]
Even though you can get basic BUPA health care for £20 a month.
Ah right but that provides nothing like you NI gets you.
GP's are all private companies that have very lucrative contracts to supply services to the NHS. They are not NHS employees. THey hire and fire their own staff and can choose how many appointments they have, when they are etc etc.
Im sure you can get BUPA for £20 per month. However it will only cover a limited number of procedures and only upto a certain cost. No private provider in the UK provides emergency care, Intensive care or A&E services as it is very expensive and not profitable. At the moment there is still a high chance that you would be treated in an NHS hospital as anything more than very simple stuff the private hospitals don't have the support services to cope.
There are some things that need to be centralised. Healthcare, roads, trains, internet, gas / electricity. Anything that is a natural monopoly.
If you buy a new TV, you can shop around, take it back etc. Commerce good. You can't take back a knee op, and you don't want 15 gas pipes running into your house. Commerce bad.
What will privatisation bring?
People who want to do the job for money and not for patients or because they want to do it.
Greedy CEOs.
Greedy stake holders.
Restrictions on care as it costs too much.
List of exclusions to their "comprehensive" policy is pretty comprehensive.
AIDS / HIV
allergies or allergic disorders
birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes
chronic conditions.
complications from excluded or restricted conditions / treatment
contamination, wars and riots
convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care
cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment
deafness
dental / oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage etc)
dialysis
drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use
experimental drugs and treatment
treatment to correct eyesight (eg long or short sight)
HRT and bone densitometry
intensive care
learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems
overseas treatment and repatriation
physical aids and devices
pre-existing or special conditions
pregnancy and childbirth
puberty, menopause and ageing
screening, monitoring and preventive treatment
sleep problems and disorders
speech disorders
telephone consultations
temporary relief of symptoms
[u][b]Prompt Diagnosis[/b][/u]
£20.71 per month
Consultations
MRI, CT and PET scans
Diagnostic tests.
[u][b]Treatment and Care[/b][/u]
£37.53 per month
Post diagnosis treatment
Therapies such as physiotherapy
Cancer treatment and drugs.
[u][b]Comprehensive[/b][/u]
£60.47 per month
Consultations
MRI, CT and PET scans
Diagnostic tests
Post diagnosis treatment
Therapies such as physiotherapy
Cancer treatment and drugs
If the NHS went private, they would have to make it more affordable than BUPA, I was just giving an example.
[i]Comprehensive does not routinely cover the following conditions and treatments:
AIDS / HIV‡, allergies or allergic disorders, birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes‡, chronic conditions‡, complications from excluded or restricted conditions / treatment
contamination, wars and riots, convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care‡, cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment‡, deafness, dental / oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage etc)‡, dialysis‡, drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use‡, experimental drugs and treatment‡, treatment to correct eyesight (eg long or short sight)‡, HRT and bone densitometry‡, intensive care, learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems
overseas treatment and repatriation, physical aids and devices‡, pre-existing or special conditions
pregnancy and childbirth‡, puberty, menopause and ageing, screening, monitoring and preventive treatment, sleep problems and disorders, speech disorders‡, telephone consultations, temporary relief of symptoms‡, unrecognised providers or facilities.
‡ In some circumstances, benefit may be available for these conditions or treatments. Full details can be found in the membership guide.[/i]
From BUPAs 'Comprehensive cover' webpage.
...But that's OK, because you have an NHS to pick up the pieces...and train the Doctors, and train the nurses, and train the physios, and train the radiographers, and train the pharmacists, and the ECG techs, and the phlebotomists, and the...
All this could be done in the private sector, but someone, probably you, will still have to pay for it, and pay enough to allow private companies to make a profit for their shareholders.
If the NHS went private, they would have to make it more affordable than BUPA, I was just giving an example.
But they'd need to offer a whole load more, see many more patients and for less money you say?
and a vastly poorer service,less follow up care, if any,a lot less staff and management, but plenty of well paid work for sign makers, and solicitors who will create these new privatised empires.
oh and a massive sell off of land around hospitals for housing or supermarkets.
The last two parts have already starterd , you only have to look at all the new trusts, and stand alone departments, with their own entrances and car parks.
Its so very sad to see what took so long to build up being destroyed so quickly,without any input from us the user.
my mate came off the bike last night and was keep in overnight, full CT scan etc approx cost £5000.
There wont be any more queues as people wont be able to afford the insurance (if were talking cover for full equivalent of NHS
The best way to find out what would be offered would be to look at the American system I guess.
What would the consequences be?
Well for whichever government implemented it then political oblivion I guess.
Fortunately - we'll know for sure very soon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15436685
So, with Hinchinbrooke Hospital being run privately, we'll have the perfect opportunity to see whether the doom-mongers were right, or wrong.
Then there will be no need for an argument, will there 😀
BTW - there's a big difference between privatisation of the NHS, which is the delivery of services, and the ending of the National Insurance scheme, which predates the NHS by two world wars and the worst fiscal depression ever seen.
BUPA, Axa PPP etc usually paid by employers, and therefore only cover survivable / recoverable conditions. Aim is to get you back to work quicker than you would otherwise, so anything you might not get back from isn't covered.
If healthcare moved to a US approach with no national system, you would see more competitive prices and truly comprehensive packages.
[i]The best way to find out what would be offered would be to look at the American system I guess.[/i]
Aw, bless.
That would suggest that we would get:
Lower life expectancy.
Higher infant mortality.
Fewer Doctors per person.
Double the per capita expenditure on Health.
Double the Healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP.
The NHS isn't the greatest Healthcare system in the world, but it's not bad.
BUPA, Axa PPP etc usually paid by employers, and therefore only cover survivable / recoverable conditions.
They offer cancer treatment
The best way to find out what would be offered would be to look at the American system I guess.
Aw, bless.That would suggest that we would get:
Lower life expectancy.
Higher infant mortality.
Fewer Doctors per person.
Double the per capita expenditure on Health.
Double the Healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP.The NHS isn't the greatest Healthcare system in the world, but it's not bad.
Crikey, stop being such a child, I didn't post on here to argue, strange as that may seem.
In a report (Individual Health Insurance 2009: A Comprehensive Survey of Premiums,Availability, and Benefits) made public in October 2009, America's Health Insurance Plans (a trade group representing health plans) presented some information that gives a sense of what a health insurance policy costs when purchased by an individual.On average, the annual premium was $2,985 for a single person and $6,328 for a family.
The annual premium differed from state to state. For example, the premium for a family health plan in New York was $13,296, while a similar plan in Iowa was $5609.
The annual premiums for health plans were also different depending if the annual deductible was high or low. For example, family plans with no deductible had an average premium of $12686 each year, while plans with an annual deductible of $10,000 had an average premium of $5380 each year.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States ]Wiki article on US healthcare. [/url]
Few key points, 16.7% of the population have no insurance. 62.1% of all bankrupcies linked to medical costs. Infant mortality higher, life expectancy lower than comparable economies. And the cost, twice as much as any one else.
It's already happening
http://www.serco.com/media/market/healthnews/nhsforthvalley.asp
Elsewhere in Scotland, Serco has over 1100 employees, providing a range of public services including HM Prison Kilmarnock
62.1% of all bankrupcies linked to medical costs.
That is truly disgraceful. Not that the other stats aren't of course.
[img] 
[/img]
I'm a bit baffled.
Why would you propose a Healthcare system which may fit with your ideological outlook, but which would leave you, your country, your neighbours, your parents, all worse off?
It's commendable in terms of political allegiance, but pretty dim otherwise?
I'm a bit baffled.Why would you propose a Healthcare system which may fit with your ideological outlook, but which would leave you, your country, your neighbours, your parents, all worse off?
It's commendable in terms of political allegiance, but pretty dim otherwise?
We don't want no commie socialist medical system do we.
...and if you have to pay this to ensure access to Healthcare, it's just another form of tax, but one that you pay to a private company rather than to your country...
Still rather dim?
It's truly disgusting that wealthy politicians want to sell off one the greatest things this country has ever had, just to line their and their cronies pockets even further. Utter, utter scum.