Should the NHS be replaced by private health care?

Question

Every time I pay for a prescription I am angered by the fact that so many get their prescriptions free and so few of us pay. It does not take an advanced degree in economics to realise that the system is flawed and unworkable. Those of us in the 40% tax bracket and many of those in the lower bands could actually buy better health care insurance for less than our enforced contributions. My major bone of contention here is the system has become untenable in light of a wave of rising entitlements. This is compounded by the fact that people that have never contributed are demanding treatment as a matter of divine right. There will be some vocal liberals who will lambast me for that last comment, but I clearly state that I do not want to pay for the medical benefits of someone who has not contributed; let me and those who think like me opt out and then we will see how far and how much the socialists are willing to support the underclass

Answer 1

As medical student I am constantly being asked "should we have a national health care system?" My answer is and always will be NO. The tree hugging hippies always comment that Canada does, but they fail to see too that the Canadian system is failing and bankrupting many of the provinces. There are three month waits on many out patient procedures that in this country you can be scheduled for the next week. What this country needs is not FREE health care, but instead more AFFORDABLE health care. People argue that the reason health care costs so much is because of the dregs of society draining the system or the fat, greedy insurance business people sucking the money out of the working American. Personally I see the problem laying even deeper. The problem is the lack of medical schools in America. There has not been a new medical school (MD not DO) built in America in almost 50 years. The last change was in the 1980s when Oral Roberts CLOSED down its school. With the decreasing ratio between new medical students entering the work force and the rapidly increasing population, one can see that this a simple business model happening in health care. It's the battle of supply versus demand. Doctors are needed and there aren't enough of them. There you go, there's the answer to the high price of medicine. You need us, you don't have many options, so pay us what we ask. Unfortunately the government as screwed it up this beautiful system workin in our favor and has implemented Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are unfortunate because they make the common person who is paying our high price become discouraged and then demand that they don't have to pay either. The other unfortunate aspect that occurs is that regardless if you are Medicare or privately paying, we do the best job we can on either one. The only difference, the Medicare leeches don't have to pay jack squat. How do you like that? I know this sounds cold hearted, but lets do away with Medicare and Medicaid and let evolution take over. Oh, so you don't want to a productive member of society and instead want to live in a trailer, have nine kids, a half dozen foster kids, and collect welfare checks. Fine, but you won't be able to afford the bypass surgery you need from sitting on your @$$ eating twinkies all day. Trust me, there are doctors that agree with your arguement, but unfortunately we're obligated under a moral and professional code to help everyone equally, regardless of who's paying their bill. I know this might seem long, but trust me, I feel the same way. I'm a med student and my health coverage is crap compared to Medicaid because that's all I can afford with my over $240,000 in debt due to the high cost of medical education. Oh well.

Answer 2

It is not feasible to replace the NHS with a fully private system of individual contribution. However, consideration should be given to encouraging private investment, or indeed part-privatising the system, but ideally installing a subsidised system where the individual bears some of the cost.
It is an age-old argument that will continue for years to come, but the NHS is, and has been, in decline for far too long. A constant stream of money would not be pumped into such an irretrievable scheme if it were someone's struggling business, or a person forever borrowing money from friends for a venture that was never near success, but this seems to have been the answer from politicians for an age. You cannot simply throw money at something and expect all its problems to disappear (and even if you could, it would take a sight more than is being injected at present!). The government simply cannot afford the amounts needed to make a real difference on the hospital ward, beyond the payment of middle managers. It will take concerted effort, and probably partnership with a number of investors before any health system in which we can truly have faith materialises.
Some will declare that the system works well enough given that it is free to one and all, but is this really true? How many recent headlines have been made by pensioners who have had to knowingly bluff a finance agreement to pay for a private operation because the waiting list on the NHS is simply too long? We must stop being so reactionary, and face facts: the NHS is not adequate for anything beyond primary, basic healthcare provision. Private investment is needed, and a system should be provided that is subsidised rather than free, i.e. part paid by the individual.

Answer 3

No health care should remain free.

That said however it is long overdue for the health service to have a review of its services on moral, ethical and cost basis.

Cost first: The way hospitals are run is inefficient and far more costly than it should be. Operating theatres for a start could be utilised much better than they are at present. Elective day surgery could for instance be done in two shifts day and night thus quickly reducing the waiting lists.

Ethical and moral: Is it either ethical or moral to give free treatment to people who are not ill? Cosmetic surgery. Abortion on demand. Fertility treatment. There are many more examples of operations and treatments which are not illness as such.

The health service could not provide the treatment everyone expects it to if the whole of the gross national product was given to it.

Time for common sense to prevail and a realistic view of what the health service should be providing to be taken.

Answer 4

I think you've got a point but privatisation isn't the answer. The solution lies in adjusting the entitlements. E.g one should have either been born here or paid tax/national insurance for at least 3 years before receiving free treatment. That would reduce the incentive for people to come here for the free health care and reduce the burden on the system.

Answer 5

I hear and understand your anger .... I imagine you work very hard in a rotten job only to see someone get something free, that you pay for.... try and see the big picture it might be a mum who's child will contribute to your pension etc ... and do the maths if there were no health service how much will you pay for an American style service?

Answer 6

I agree with you, I get annoyed as well. But its a never ending debate and I don't think it will change one bit in the future, whether we are funded or private. They will still get the money some other way from us!!!

Answer 7

Sorry you live here with the rest of us, would you prefer we ignore the less fortunate, and live in armed fortresses.

Answer 8

no