[Closed] Say the NHS gets privatised - what happens then?

Elf - I dont ask you to agree with me. But why should a National HEALTH Service fund lifestyle choices?

If you have a fall are you going to consult the brochures to see which A&E your going to want to go to? When you think a lot of admissions are via A&E, choice falls apart.

Hint: The "E" in A&E stands for "EMERGEN-****ing-CY" Are you really that concerned about which hospital is going to fix you when you're lying broken in a stretcher. Or if you've had a heart attack and Drac's risking his own life to get you to the nearest A&E in the "golden hour"*

*Apologies if that phrase isn't being used anymore, but I think you'll know what I'm talking about.

should IVF be paid for out of the public purse, would the money be better spent on treating those who are ill rather than on creating new lives?

So you wouldn't say that infertility is an illness? It may have been caused by any number of factors. You think people who get [b][i]one[/i][/b] IVF cycle free do it instead of choosing the natural method? I'd say that the people who get to conceive via IVF consider the life they are helped to create far more precious than many of those who conceive naturally. (that's not meant to be inflammatory towards any parents).

Jesus, the shite some people spout when IVF is discussed. A cycle of IVF costs, what, £3000? A fraction of what it costs to fix a seriously injured drunk driver, a mountain biker that has to be airlifted from a trail centre in Scotland, and multiple other examples (all of which I'm happy to fun btw).

should IVF be paid for out of the public purse, would the money be better spent on treating those who are ill rather than on creating new lives?

Elf - I dont ask you to agree with me. But why should a National HEALTH Service fund lifestyle choices?

It's not just disagreeing with you Smee - it's just a case of pointing out the shite you spout - with an alarmingly increasing frequency of late. TBH, I can't figure out why you can't just be a fun troll sometimes - what kick do you get from inflammatory posts?

Never mind, I think you realise yourself that as ever you can't help yourself and "SurroundedByZulus" will go the same road that glupton, trollingzoofighter, smee and whatever other monikers you've had.

DD - stop trolling.

I dont agree with IVF being funded by the NHS, never have never will.

DD - stop trolling.

LOLz. Heh. Oh teh ironing etc.

I dont agree with IVF being funded by the NHS, never have never will.

And I've just laid out (a few reasons, I mean, I can go on if you want) why I think it should. So, are you willing to actually argue your point or as usual, make silly statements and run away when the world tells you how silly they are?

Go on then DD - you tell me why it should be funded by the NHS.

Why should a very expensive procedure with no direct positive health benefit to the patient (the female parent) which has at the very best a 1in 4 chance of success be funded by the NHS? Pretty sure that money could be put to a more appropriate use - say providing a knee or hip replacement for someone who cant walk due to pain. Cost is about the same.

I dont agree with IVF being funded by the NHS, never have never will.

Your 'beliefs' are based on ignorance, not knowledge though.

Tell you what; instead of spouting ill-informed blinkered shite, why not go talk to some people who've had IVF? Why not ask about their experiences trying to have children of their own? The pain they go through, the sadness, the depression etc. Have you ever spoken to anyone who's gone through that? Cos if you have, then you must surely be a right insensitive person to come out with crap like that.

And have you stopped for one moment to consider just how insensitive your comments might seem to people on here who have gone through or are about to go through IVF?

But why should a National HEALTH Service fund lifestyle choices?

Because as a taxpayer [i]I'm[/i] more than happy for the NHS to fund treatment for people wanting to have children.

So shut up.

Why should a very expensive procedure with no direct positive health benefit to the patient (the female parent)

Christ on a bike you really are ignorant, aren't you?

Seriously, I know you're a massive attention seeker and I can relate to that not a problem in itself, but you're just spouting complete rubbish now, unless this is yet another troll.

Go and talk to people. Listen to what they have to say. Learn something. Don't wallow in ignorance.

Surrounded By Zulus - Member
Go on then DD - you tell me why it should be funded by the NHS.

Why should a very expensive procedure with no direct positive health benefit to the patient (the female parent) which has at the very best a 1in 4 chance of success be funded by the NHS? Pretty sure that money could be put to a more appropriate use - say providing a knee or hip replacement for someone who cant walk due to pain. Cost is about the same.

Elfinsafety - your manner is offensive.

I have a sister inlaw who went through 9 cycles of IVF - 3 funded by the NHS, 6 funded by herself. Looking back, she wishes she hadnt bothered as she has now adopted and wishes she'd done it a lot sooner.

My view on this matter will not change.

Craigxxi - that's about the best joke i've ever heard. What does the government pay for education per year? Is it not something like £14000/head/year. What happens if the kids becomes a dole dodger, or god forbid goes to work in the public sector?

Why should a very expensive procedure with no direct positive health benefit to the patient

Well, Elfin's just BOOMED that piece of shite out of the water for me. Of course it has positive health outcomes for the patient(s). Are you going to explain why this particular "lifestyle" choice should not be funded (even though reduced fertility is hardly anything that anybody has "chosen") whereas your knackered knees from years of being the most amazing runner, rower, cyclist etc etc should be fixed?

Pretty sure that money could be put to a more appropriate use - say providing a knee or hip replacement for someone who cant walk due to pain.

Oh come on Smee, stop using straw men - are you saying that the NHS doesn't fund knee or hip replacements?

And have you stopped for one moment to consider just how insensitive your comments..etc

I don't think Smee/Glupton/TZF/SBZ has ever stopped for one moment to consider the sensitivity or lack of thereof of any of his comments. Ever.

Elfinsafety - your manner is offensive.

What, and yours isn't? 😯

Do you know anyone who's gone through IVF who have then concieved and had children of their own? I do. Their treatment was funded by the NHS, in most of the cases, and they'll forever be indebted to the NHS as without it they'd never have had the opportunity.

I'd like to see you stand in front of them and say what you feel safe to say on here.

Anyway, enough already. You have the potential to learn, to become less ignorant. Embrace that, it's a wonderful thing.

Surrounded By Zulus - Member

My view on this matter will not change.

'S ok glupton. You're as entitled as you ever are to be totally and utterly wrong. Again.

The thing I love about this place is that when people can come up with no rational, logical or sensible arguement they resort to personal abuse.

Nobody has told me why IVF should be paid for by the NHS yet though.

I read that the poorest households in the UK pay in the region of £250,000 over a lifetime through direct and indirect taxes and that wasn't accounting for inflation.

Surrounded By Zulus - Member
The thing I love about this place is that when people can come up with no rational, logical or sensible arguement they resort to personal abuse.

Nobody has told me why IVF should be paid for by the NHS yet though.

You've had more than enough reasons it's just your lack of understanding that is getting in your way.

Fred - he's allowed an opinion, just like you are, and he's expressed it politely and without personal attacks.

Even if your own opinions are often shite Fred, it doesn't people free rein to call you names (its your attitude that normally results in that)

Seeing as I'm too thick to find them, can you list them for me please?

Simply, because the NHS treats all alike regardless of lifestyle choices, if you rule against one lifestyle then all lifestyles must be excluded.

Pretty simple, do you understand?

Fred - he's allowed an opinion

Well he shoon't be.

Even if your own opinions are often shite Fred

They're not actually. It's your interpretation system that's flawed.

Seeing as I'm too thick to find them, can you list them for me please?

I've given you the answer to your problem; go and talk to people who've had successful IVF on the NHS. Discuss your views with them.

That's probbly the best way to become informed.

It's quite simple really; it's an approach most folk take...

Well that's nonsense for a start. Just to rub it in, I think I'll use the IVF postcode lottery as an example of some people being more equal than others in the treatment that is available to them on the NHS.

Fred - why exclude the majoriy of people that receive IVF treatment on the NHS from that discussion?

Oh dear

It appears that this thread has been bigshittered.

There is a debate to be had about what the NHS should, can, will, ought to offer, but I fear the egos present will preclude any sensible chat..

Actually bollocks to it in fact I'm an idiot for getting sucked in.

Well done SBZ; you must be very proud of yourself. What a winner you are.

I am happy to pay for the NHS, but also believe in Private Insurance (and have had it and used it) plus previously have paid for private treatment from my own pocket (which incidently was cheaper than the Insurance Company previously paid...).

I like our system, and having seen many different systems around the world, feel ours is up there with the best - but then all systems have problems. A bit like democracy, it has its problems, but compared to the alternatives...

The IVF postcode lottery. BOOM. Another straw man from SBZ. Of course the postcode lottery is wrong. But that's not a factor in the argument for or against.

It's too easy sometimes.

See there's the difference Fred - He gained a direct personal benefit from his treatment. As in HE was ill, HE received treatment, and he appears to have got better due to that treatment. Not exactly the same now is it?

DD - have you been to the pub this afternoon? Because your arguing like a drunk.

crikey, change it from within maaaan 🙂 Join the debate.

EDIT

DD - have you been to the pub this afternoon? Because your arguing like a drunk.

No Smee. Sorry if it's not working out well for you. Is it time for a thread asking the mods to delete your log-in yet? How many would that be?

So, where do you stop with the lifestyle argument?

60 year old post menopausal woman wants a child - do you offer her IVF? If not, why not?

Surrounded By Zulus - Member
Well that's nonsense for a start. Just to rub it in, I think I'll use the IVF postcode lottery as an example of some people being more equal than others in the treatment that is available to them on the NHS.

I think you find your information out of date as NHS trusts are been forced to comply with NICE guidelines on fertility treatment. That must really make your blood boil.

Bravissimo- it's not worth it. His view will not change on this, remember? Not worth engaging with him any longer.

A quick Google reveals that IVF costs between £4000 and £8000 per cycle. People receive 2-3 cycles on the NHS. So, £16000-£24000 per patient.

Now, how much will the average person pay into the NHS over their lifetime?

How much will each child they have pay inot the NHS over their lifetime (assuming there will stiull be an NHS in years to come...)?

Not really rocket science this, is it?

You smash yourself up doing something like mountain biking, which is a 'lifestyle choice'. You sustain serious injuries and need ambulance/helicopter, ITU, operations, after care, physiotherapy etc.

How much does that cost?

Should you be just left on the mountain, as it's your own stupid fault cos you chose to do something dangerous?

Oh well, that's that one sorted. Pint, anyone?

Craigxxl - must have changed massively in the last few months then:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13670615

😉

Have they been forced, or have they been given guidance which approx 70% of trusts are ignoring?

So, where do you stop with the lifestyle argument?

At the bit where we decide that infertility is not a lifestyle choice. Or I dunno, we could think up ridiculous examples to support an argument (which may be more of a big hitter thing rather than one of principle). Not that you'd ever do that labby.

heres a thought there is a limited pot, so what hould be paid for on the NHS? IVF? cosmetic reconstruction? hips?

[i]crikey, change it from within maaaan Join the debate[/i]

I tried, but kind of can't be arsed; it's predictable to the nth degree.

Ultimately, it's not up to the NHS to decide who or what to treat; we are that much maligned thing; a public service, and so we should provide what the people want us to, within reason. Healthcare is an emotional subject, so we really need some kind of objective committee approach, hopefully free of political knobbers.

We really, really need to start throwing money at primary care; stop the people getting ill, improve lifestyles, improve health from cradle to grave instaed of being a safety net that catches people after they become ill.

Just like stopping people committing crimes is 100 times better than sending them to prisons...

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.

[img] [/img]

Alas, I am not even remotely joking, and it's already far beyond doing sums, but I'd be in all sorts of bother with my employer if I elaborated.

DD - seriously, it was a fair question,

At the bit where we decide that infertility is not a lifestyle choice

And where is that?

Fertility naturally drops off in the late 30's , even lower in the 40'2s- so where do you propose that "lifestyle" limit actually lies? 30? 40? 50?

At what point do you draw the line?

heres a thought there is a limited pot, so what hould be paid for on the NHS? IVF? cosmetic reconstruction? hips?

I'd happily pay for all of those. Would you mrmo? (given that the cosmetic reconstruction isn't for an breast increase from 32B to say, I dunno...40DD).

@ crikey, +1 to everything you said in your last post.

so we really need some kind of objective committee approach, hopefully free of political knobbers.

Like NICE - which is being dismantled by the Condems

At the time of the survey 5 out of 130ish trusts offered no IVF at all but the remaining 125ish do offer IVF just not to NICE guidelines. It's still there just not as much as what it should be getting there.

In a foreword to the report, Health Minister Anne Milton said many PCTs had made good progress towards implementing the NICE recommendations.

"I am aware, however, that a small number of PCTs with historical funding problems have temporarily suspended provision of IVF services.

"I have already expressed my concerns about this approach and would encourage all PCTs to have regard to the current NICE guidance."

Doesn't really support your assertion that:

NHS trusts are been forced to comply with NICE guidelines on fertility treatment

then, does it?

The NHS will not be privatised as a whole, but parts of it will and that is wholly appropriate on economic, political and moral perspectives. As in other aspects of life we will move to a more mixed-market approach to the provision of healthcare.

Spending on health is likely to continue to increase for various reasons. Economists will point to the fact that it is a superior good ( and hence % of spending goes up as income goes up), demographers will point to the increases in life expectancy and practitioners will point to the fact that the cost of medical equipment tends to rise faster than inflation.

This will require a more sensible debate on whether a state monopoly on the provision of healthcare is the best way of allocating scare resources. I hope that this will move beyond the sterile (pun intended), polarised debate between the zealots of the command and free-market economies to recognise that a better system will result from taking the positive aspects of both systems and learning from the provision of healthcare in other parts of the world.

The NHS will not be fully privatised for the very simple reason that the the concept of provision based on need rather than ability to pay is correctly entrenched in our society. However, a system that relies solely on funding via taxation will dissappear for two simple reasons - one, evidence shows that this typically leads to relatively low levels of spending in aggregate and as a % of national income and, two, it unfairly results in the suppression of wages of medical staff (unless they supplement their income by working in the private sector as well). But as some commentators have noted, we cannot keep rationing ourselves to death as we do now.

The New NHS will be allowed to focus on treating serious, long term illnesses and be given a mandate to improve customer experience/treatment. Beyond that taxation will be [b]supplemented[/b] by cumpulsory social insurance (as in Europe) that will be borne by individuals not corporations and that will include protection for low paid/unemployed and possibly a progressive nature to ensure a greater burden being shared by those who are able to afford it. This will do two things - one it will increase the overall money going into the system and, two, money would be "spent by those needing treatment" ie, revenues will accrue at the point of service and demand rather than (supposedly) trickling down from a centralised pot. Just like in most normal busineses. Finally (although not exclusively) the politicians will be removed from the management of the process to be replaced by those who know what they are doing. And the system will be broken into more manageable units.

So we will get a system that is better funded (ie more money), more economically and politically neutral, better able to match supply and demand while respecting the principle of ensuring provision for all.

The again this could all be a dream!! It can't be that simple!

At what point do you draw the line?

I dunno. Individual cases would require adjudication. I have no problems with fair questions, but don't expect not to be pulled up when you load the question with a ridiculous example which is hardly even that likely to happen. I also am aware that those with SBZ's viewpoint (and yours if you agree with him, but I haven't quite worked that out) always drag out "lifestyle" as if it somehow strengthens their standpoint. Once we start using "lifestyle" related conditions to deny treatment, well, then we could save ourselves a fortune.

DD, while i am happy to pay there comes a point when you can't afford. Where that point is, is open to discussion though, as medical care gets more and more expensive you could spend all the money available and at some point you will still have to make a choice.

I suppose the question is what is the best way of spending the money available, something tells me paying profits isn't it.