The end of free treatment from the NHS.

[truman 10]

I think we shouid take care not to be distracted by details, that is one of the tactics that the neoliberals love to employ to divert attention from their disgraceful policies. It is the principle that counts.

 

This developments reveals the intention of ending the National Health Service and replacing it with a US style business model where only the wealthy can be sure of treatment.

 

So, on principle, you reckon the NHS should pay for any and all treatments that are available?. . Genuine question..

[alchresearch 215]

No surprises!

 

Here's a thread from two years ago which resonates with a number of issues in the news today:

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=796639

 

A thread started by you, and one which pretty much died a death in 16 posts

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

So, on principle, you reckon the NHS should pay for any and all treatments that are available?

Yes. That would be the ideal.

[F. Sidebottom 10]

Depending on what you have to pay for, then in principle I don't think it's wrong.

 

Far too many people abuse their health, and even those nearest and dearest (bad parenting), on the belief that the good old NHS will waltz in, at the tax payers expense, and fix everything.

 

It was a similar thing with dentists - the bill for dental treatments would be a fraction of it's current cost IF people looked after their teeth, especially parents with children. As it stands, we as a nation had to resort to charging for treatment at the dentist in order to get people to want to look after their teeth.

 

If we have to do the same for other general health matters in order to get lazy people to look after themselves, then so be it.

 

I will just clarify though, this IMO should only relate to matters where the patient had a choice - i.e. drinking, smoking, obesity and general lack of fitness through greed or laziness.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

The privatised NHS has begun to demand the introduction of charges for a range of treatments. Now that the multinational tax avoiders have started to take over our hospitals, profit rather than treatment has become the central objective of our health service. This means ordinary people paying for treatment or going without.

 

The article you cited in Post#4 doesn't say anything about 'multi-national tax avoiders forcing the prices up to make more profits' though, does it?

 

From the article:

 

Senior doctors will declare today that the NHS can no longer provide everything the public wants and patients may have to accept paying for some services themselves.

 

Surgeons, consultants and GPs from across the country will demand that a list of “core” services is drawn up to tell patients what they can expect from the NHS. Top-up charges for treatments and medications outside this list can no longer be ruled out, they will argue.

 

Nothing to do with private companies.

 

Those consultants, surgeons and GPs are likely to have, I suggest, a pretty good idea of the demand for certain services, the cost of those services and the amount of money in the pot.

 

In the UK, you pay 12% of your salaries (above a certain level, with an upper cap) in NIC.

 

That 12% is supposed to pay for:

 

All benefits,

The NHS,

Care in Old Age

State Pensions

 

and whatever else people want.

 

No other country in the developed world manages to fund so much with so little. If other countries can't fund the whole of their social/healthcare programme on 12%, what makes you think the UK can?

 

The idea of a list of core services telling patients what they can expect seems like a good one to me. It is, at least, honest.

 

I know one or two people who have been told: "We can't do any more for you" when what they should perhaps have been told is "We can't afford to do any more for you."

 

(How many times have you read about people campaigning to raise funds to send a friend/relative to a doctor overseas because the treatment "Is not available on the NHS"?

 

One friend of mine (who I'd told about pneumovax in the early 90's) was told: "It doesn't exist." Funny old thing. It existed a few weeks earlier when I had mine (through another healthcare system.)

 

I've no doubt that the NHS is an excellent service and I've little doubt that it is significantly under-funded.

 

As I've said many times before on this forum: "You can have whatever you want - as long as you are prepared to pay for it."

 

Any resource which is not unlimited is - by definition - a 'scarce resource' and must be rationed. You can either ration by price or by time delay. We've all heard of cases of people having to wait - sometimes years - for certain non-vital surgeries.

 

The government has 2 choices: Fund the NHS Fully (Infinite funding?) or introduce a co-pay system.

 

If there was a co-pay system no doubt some enterprising organisation would provide a low-cost insurance to cover the co-payments.

 

A list of what is - and what is not - available on the NHS at no charge would let people know where they stand.

[truman 10]

In the UK, you pay 12% of your salaries (above a certain level, with an upper cap) in NIC.

 

That 12% is supposed to pay for:

 

All benefits,

The NHS,

Care in Old Age

State Pensions

 

.

 

I think you're wrong with this Rupert.. Income Tax also goes towards the items you've listed..

Edited June 24, 2013 by truman

[altus 541]

The article you cited in Post#4 doesn't say anything about 'multi-national tax avoiders forcing the prices up to make more profits' though, does it?

 

From the article:

 

Senior doctors will declare today that the NHS can no longer provide everything the public wants and patients may have to accept paying for some services themselves.

 

Surgeons, consultants and GPs from across the country will demand that a list of “core” services is drawn up to tell patients what they can expect from the NHS. Top-up charges for treatments and medications outside this list can no longer be ruled out, they will argue.

 

Nothing to do with private companies.

 

Those consultants, surgeons and GPs are likely to have, I suggest, a pretty good idea of the demand for certain services, the cost of those services and the amount of money in the pot.

 

Some of the doctors, surgeons, consultants and GPs working in the NHS also do private work outside it so "Nothing to do with private companies." doesn't necessarily apply. Many NHS doctors/etc. are deeply committed to the ideals of the NHS and will be very much against the idea of charging. That the article in The Times neglected to include the word 'some' giving the impression that all doctors think so fits in with it's political perspective but doesn't give a true picture of the whole profession. It may only reflect the views of the subsection with a vested interest in increasing their own opportunities to make money.

[Clown Shoes 10]

I think that that we need to to have a major shakeup of the NHS by reviewing our duty of care.

 

People are living longer and treatment is becoming more expressive.

 

Pumping 95 yr olds full of drugs to keep them alive is a waste of money.

 

Transplants for people who smoke or drink should be refused.

 

We should also only give free treatment for illnesses and not for injury.

 

Alcohol & drugs injuries should also not be a cost to the NHS

 

Car insurance should cover crash injuries, home insurance should cover home injury etc

 

People who want to jump over buildings on skate boards, mountain climbers, skiers, racing drivers etc etc etc should all pay for care.

 

Air Ambulance, RLNI, Mointain Rescue etc should all be covered by personal insurance.

[truman 10]

Air Ambulance, RLNI, Mointain Rescue etc should all be covered by personal insurance.

 

Aren't all these charities, not government funded bodies...?

[Staunton 18]

My message is to ordinary people here in Sheffield and across the UK.

 

There are now calls for charges to be applied to NHS treatment.

 

This is a very important issue. The NHS has been subjected to a full scale privatisation scheme, and many tax avoiding multinational corporations are now taking over NHS services. But they are not interested in providing treatment or care. They have one aim - to make profit.

 

Corporate businesses are not looking to support you or me in our health needs, they wish to help themselves to taxpayer money, to introduce charges at the point of delivery and to profit at every opportunity.

 

They will structure their businesses in such a way as to avoid tax, and will continue to lobby for a US style health system where only the wealthy have access to healthcare.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

Some of the doctors, surgeons, consultants and GPs working in the NHS also do private work outside it so "Nothing to do with private companies." doesn't necessarily apply. Many NHS doctors/etc. are deeply committed to the ideals of the NHS and will be very much against the idea of charging. That the article in The Times neglected to include the word 'some' giving the impression that all doctors think so fits in with it's political perspective but doesn't give a true picture of the whole profession. It may only reflect the views of the subsection with a vested interest in increasing their own opportunities to make money.

 

I would've thought that most people in the UK were against the idea of charging.

 

That doesn't alter the fact that if the funding is less than the operating costs, services have to be reduced or people have to pay a part of the cost.

 

You can't buy an item which costs £10.00 with £1.00 - Unless you buy it on tick in which case you'll end up paying £20.00.

 

I think that that we need to to have a major shakeup of the NHS by reviewing our duty of care.

 

People are living longer and treatment is becoming more expressive.

 

Pumping 95 yr olds full of drugs to keep them alive is a waste of money.

 

Maybe. But one of the recommendations of the article cited by Staunton was that a list of 'core services' should be drawn up to tell people what they can expect from the NHS.

 

As far as age limits go, you'd have to be careful. How long do you think it would be before somebody sued you for age discrimination?

 

The law suit could go a long way. 'Causing death by age discrimination'.

 

What if your 95-year old had been extremely healthy and hadn't had a thing from the NHS during the first 94 years of his/her life? How would (S)he rate compared to a 30-year old who had been chronically ill for the whole of his/her life, had cost the NHS a vast amount of money and was likely to do so for the rest of his/her life?

 

Dangerous ground, indeed.

 

 

Transplants for people who smoke or drink should be refused.

 

We should also only give free treatment for illnesses and not for injury.

 

Alcohol & drugs injuries should also not be a cost to the NHS

 

Car insurance should cover crash injuries, home insurance should cover home injury etc

 

People who want to jump over buildings on skate boards, mountain climbers, skiers, racing drivers etc etc etc should all pay for care.

 

Air Ambulance, RLNI, Mointain Rescue etc should all be covered by personal insurance.

 

The RNLI is funded solely by subscription/charitable donation.

 

Effectively, you're introducing charging (albeit by the back door.)

 

If people aren't going to be covered by (or treated by) the NHS, should they be required to pay into the scheme?

 

Can they have their money back, (including that portion of their taxes which goes to the NHS) and insure themselves privately?

[Clown Shoes 10]

Aren't all these charities, not government funded bodies...?

 

Yeah but they usually drop people off at hospital so they should be part of the emergency service which we could afford if it wasnt free

 

---------- Post added 24-06-2013 at 16:31 ----------

 

I would've thought that most people in the UK were against the idea of charging.

 

That doesn't alter the fact that if the funding is less than the operating costs, services have to be reduced or people have to pay a part of the cost.

 

You can't buy an item which costs £10.00 with £1.00 - Unless you buy it on tick in which case you'll end up paying £20.00.

 

 

 

Maybe. But one of the recommendations of the article cited by Staunton was that a list of 'core services' should be drawn up to tell people what they can expect from the NHS.

 

As far as age limits go, you'd have to be careful. How long do you think it would be before somebody sued you for age discrimination?

 

The law suit could go a long way. 'Causing death by age discrimination'.

 

What if your 95-year old had been extremely healthy and hadn't had a thing from the NHS during the first 94 years of his/her life? How would (S)he rate compared to a 30-year old who had been chronically ill for the whole of his/her life, had cost the NHS a vast amount of money and was likely to do so for the rest of his/her life?

 

Dangerous ground, indeed.

 

 

 

The RNLI is funded solely by subscription/charitable donation.

 

Effectively, you're introducing charging (albeit by the back door.)

 

If people aren't going to be covered by (or treated by) the NHS, should they be required to pay into the scheme?

 

Can they have their money back, (including that portion of their taxes which goes to the NHS) and insure themselves privately?

 

I think its nit picking what my points was that we should treat the ill and not people who had an accident while rock climbing or doing a wheelie on a motorbike at 70miles an hour.

 

treatment that leads to a criminal conviction like fighting should not be by the covered by the NHS

 

In short, the NHS should not cover personal injury or stupidness.