Ditch the NHS for private health care

[Harleyman 12]

Keeping the NHS is a no brainer. It may have it's problems but it's still better than privatized health care a thousand times over. Ask 40 million Americans without any health coverage

[poppins 10]

Depends what you mean by 'nobody is left without health care'. In this country that is pretty much true at the moment. In America that is nowhere near true. If you are about to die then you have to be treated, but you will not get anything like the huge range of medical care that you get here on the NHS.

 

I don't think the NHS is perfect at all, and needs a lot of work to make it more effective, but it is obviously a much better system than in America where even people with health insurance don't always get the treatment they need as insurance companies are the same the world over, they try to get out of paying whenever possible.

 

People that cannot afford health care, or illegals DO NOT go untreated, they may have to wait for something thats not life threatening, example, a hip re-replacement ,they could wait as long as 3 to 6 months to get it done, maybe longer in some cases, also many illegals believe it or not will pay cash when they leave the hospital or a doctors office, many have been known to bring along a wad of cash to the ER with them

[Wildcat 10]

Country, Per capita spending on health ($), Life expect. at birth

 

United States.......... 6,719 .............................78

United Kingdom....... 2,815 .............................80

 

WHO stats.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

Edited September 1, 2010 by Wildcat

[Bassman62 10]

People that cannot afford health care, or illegals DO NOT go untreated, they may have to wait for something thats not life threatening, example, a hip re-replacement ,they could wait as long as 3 to 6 months to get it done, maybe longer in some cases, also many illegals believe it or not will pay cash when they leave the hospital or a doctors office, many have been known to bring along a wad of cash to the ER with them

I think that you many is a bit of an exageration.

[Tony 10]

Country, Per capita spending on health ($), Life expect. at birth

 

United States.......... 6,719 .............................78

United Kingdom....... 2,815 .............................80

 

WHO stats.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

 

What's that got to do with private health care though? A lot happens to a person in 78 or 80 years. In any case CIA stat's that I'd rely on show that the gap is actually closer at less than 1 year.

 

Other comparative stat's raise some interesting questions about that difference and I'm not sure that the UK comes out too rosy.

 

UK 10.02 deaths/1,000 population (July 2010 est.)

USA 8.38

 

UK 2.16 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2010 est.)

USA 4.32

 

 

On balance there is next to nothing between the UK and USA.

[Wildcat 10]

What's that got to do with private health care though? A lot happens to a person in 78 or 80 years. In any case CIA stat's that I'd rely on show that the gap is actually closer at less than 1 year.

 

Other comparative stat's raise some interesting questions about that difference and I'm not sure that the UK comes out too rosy.

 

UK 10.02 deaths/1,000 population (July 2010 est.)

USA 8.38

 

UK 2.16 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2010 est.)

USA 4.32

 

 

On balance there is next to nothing between the UK and USA.

 

My point was the US system costs twice as much for similar outcomes.

 

The life expectancy was only given to show comparability.

[Tony 10]

Point taken.

 

Interestingly the USA death rate is substantially lower so at a guess their life expectancy will soon exceed the UK's in spite of a doubled immigration rate. Obviously immigrants may not enjoy the benefits of proper health care earlier before they reach the USA.

 

The NHS in concept is great but it really has lost its way. Healthcare in other countries appears to be far better, and yes, sometimes you have to pay for it directly rather than indirectly. I have private health care over and above what I pay for the NHS and frankly I have been glad of it in the past unlike the people who motivated me to get it who are now dead. It is the one household expense that I will cling on to.

[Greybeard 10]

Country, Per capita spending on health ($), Life expect. at birth

 

United States.......... 6,719 .............................78

United Kingdom....... 2,815 .............................80

 

WHO stats.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

 

The US spending will obviously be higher because of the extra layer of costs incurred in 'profits' to the healthcare corporations.

[Alex C. 10]

There's an interesting (and long) analysis of why the USA system is so much more expensive here by a surgeon in the US. I found it to be quite revealing.

 

In short, the us healthcare system pays more for it's doctors, drugs and administration than we do.

[sccsux 10]

What you're suggesting would lead to a multi tier health service.

 

Again, like the last time the conservatives were in office.

[Alex C. 10]

part privatisation could possibly be a way forward - companies competing to run medical facilities on behalf of the NHS.

 

I believe this is already done to some degree, I had a letter through from a company called care UK the other day, who seem to be providing my hernia treatment. So far they've been excellent. My appointment for an assessment was on the 23rd, they brought it forward to the 17th and when I rang them today to say that was unsuitable, they brought it forward to the 3rd (this friday)

 

Just to bring this up to date - I've now seen this facility, and think it's interesting in the different approaches they take.

 

When I had an operation at the NHS hospital in May, I was waiting from October until May for the operation. Part of that was down to a mess up with choose and book, so it was really November - May (6 months). I saw them for an assessment, a further assessment a month later, a pre-operative assessment and then finally saw them the day of surgery. I had to wait about 2 months from my second assessment to get the date of my surgery.

 

For my hernia, instead of the hospital, it's a 'treatment centre' run by Care UK. I was referred to them on the 21st of August. I originally got a date for the 23rd of September for an assessment, they moved this back to the 17th which wasn't suitable, so they moved it again to the 3rd of September (today). At todays appointment, they covered what took 3 appointments at the hospital - the MRSA screening, an assessment, a chat with the anaesthetist, and a general health check. They then booked me in for the operation on the 23rd.

 

I don't know if it's because they're a private company, but it seemed so much more efficient at the treatment facility than the hospital. The need for 4 appointments at the hospital seems wasteful when they can clearly just do one appointment for an assessment and one appointment for the operation.

 

I did have a chat with one of the nurses and she said that they find it so much quicker to just carry out all the pre-operative stuff at the assessment. She also told me that they have never had a case of MRSA, and they only take a swab from the nose - the hospital take a swab from the nose and the groin, but apparently, if you have MRSA it will be present in your nose, so the second swab is just a needless cost.

 

So maybe private-public partnerships are the way forward?

[Daven 10]

Just to bring this up to date - I've now seen this facility, and think it's interesting in the different approaches they take.

 

When I had an operation at the NHS hospital in May, I was waiting from October until May for the operation. Part of that was down to a mess up with choose and book, so it was really November - May (6 months). I saw them for an assessment, a further assessment a month later, a pre-operative assessment and then finally saw them the day of surgery. I had to wait about 2 months from my second assessment to get the date of my surgery.

 

For my hernia, instead of the hospital, it's a 'treatment centre' run by Care UK. I was referred to them on the 21st of August. I originally got a date for the 23rd of September for an assessment, they moved this back to the 17th which wasn't suitable, so they moved it again to the 3rd of September (today). At todays appointment, they covered what took 3 appointments at the hospital - the MRSA screening, an assessment, a chat with the anaesthetist, and a general health check. They then booked me in for the operation on the 23rd.

 

I don't know if it's because they're a private company, but it seemed so much more efficient at the treatment facility than the hospital. The need for 4 appointments at the hospital seems wasteful when they can clearly just do one appointment for an assessment and one appointment for the operation.

 

I did have a chat with one of the nurses and she said that they find it so much quicker to just carry out all the pre-operative stuff at the assessment. She also told me that they have never had a case of MRSA, and they only take a swab from the nose - the hospital take a swab from the nose and the groin, but apparently, if you have MRSA it will be present in your nose, so the second swab is just a needless cost.

 

So maybe private-public partnerships are the way forward?

 

It may surprise many to learn that MRSA does exist in private hospitals - they will never admit to it though and will transfer the patient very rapidly to an NHS facility so that this unfortunate person doesn't appear on their stats. The fact that the private hospital you speak of doesn't swab the groin for MRSA is very revealing since it is just as likely to be in the groin than in the nose - often both. The second swab is NOT a needless cost - it may be crucial. I fear that private hospitals are burying their head in the sand and refusing to admit that the MRSA germ would dare to cross their silver plated threshold.