Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

The NHS European Tour

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
Following the pilot scheme which sent patients to a hospital in France, the Govt has released a report (details here).

Whilst I cannot comment on the general issues, because it was my Trust which ran the pilot, I would like to say that this isn't the full story. Personally, with the information I have, I would rather be treated in the UK.

Does anyone think that this is the correct strategy to follow for the NHS?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I just believe that the entire notion of a state-run NHS is flawed. Surely there must be room for some private enterprise within the system.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A state-run NHS guarantees that practically everyone gets medical treatment, and it is indeed one of the pillars of a caring, socially responsible society. The system is obviously far from perfect, but it cannot be replaced by a private enterprise.

    It is certainly wise to encourage those who can afford it to buy private health insurance. It will alleviate the burden placed on the NHS. But it shouldn't replace it altogether. We have suffered enough by the privatisation of other vital public services such as water supply or the railways to know it’d be a bad idea.

    With regard to sending patients abroad, I don't know what information you might hold MoK, but IMO if this scheme is helping to cut waiting lists and the majority of patients are satisfied, I'll go along with it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    A state-run NHS guarantees that practically everyone gets medical treatment, and it is indeed one of the pillars of a caring, socially responsible society. The system is obviously far from perfect, but it cannot be replaced by a private enterprise.

    It is certainly wise to encourage those who can afford it to buy private health insurance. It will alleviate the burden placed on the NHS. But it shouldn't replace it altogether. We have suffered enough by the privatisation of other vital public services such as water supply or the railways to know it’d be a bad idea.

    I disagree. Other nations (who do not have a state owned health system) spend more (as a proportion of gross domestic product) on health than Britain does by the inclusion of private finance into their systems. They also (in general) have better health care than we do.

    It's misguided for New Labour to state that the NHS is the 'best insurance policy' for the UK when they flagrantly ignore the alternatives.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But it is also true that in many nations that have no state-owned health system the poor are often left with no access to doctors or dependant on charities. There have been some shameful cases (even in rich, first world countries such as the U.S.) where injured/ill individuals have not been attended by doctors because it was suspected they had no medical insurance. In one instance a man bled to death outside a major hospital whilst members of the public tried to convince doctors to admit him for treatment first and worry about insurance later.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My personal belief is that private health care has a place within the provision of care for the population. This can either be through private health incurance (or people paying for themselves), or through the purchasing of capacity by the NHS, as and when it is needed. I certainly do not belive that private care should be compulsory nor should health insurance.

    Whilst other countries have health care policies there are only two countries who are undergoing huge healthcare improvement programmes at the moment. They are the US and.....UK.

    France and Germany are often held up as wonderful examples of health care. Perhaps many of those who believe this should look at the cost per capita of such a system but also at the complication rates too.

    It is all too easy to knock the NHS and it is certainly an area in which the media and politicians excel, but we do still have a service which other countries envy. I know. I've spoken to many of them, including the doctors who recently took part in this pilot study. in fact (I think I have said this before) they actually chose to adopt many of the new practices we have been developing.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    But it is also true that in many nations that have no state-owned health system the poor are often left with no access to doctors or dependant on charities. There have been some shameful cases (even in rich, first world countries such as the U.S.) where injured/ill individuals have not been attended by doctors because it was suspected they had no medical insurance. In one instance a man bled to death outside a major hospital whilst members of the public tried to convince doctors to admit him for treatment first and worry about insurance later.


    That may be true in some nations, but not all.

    I believe that in France there is a social insurance system. I think that all employees in the workforce pay a specific sum towards their own healthcare.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here's a slightly different perspective...

    It gives a little more information...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who says that there is one right answer? I don't think that anyone would suggest that the principle of the NHS is entirely problem-free, and neither is an insurance based healthcare system.

    I am in favour of the NHS, broadly speaking. Since ill-health strikes rich and poor alike, I do not think that the care people receive should be based on how much they can afford to pay. But I also support the right to choose to pay privately.

    There are some things for which an NHS style system is arguably better at than a privately run system, such as general practice, public health (immunisations etc), maternity and emergency medicine.
    Preventative medicine is also an important factor. When people have the choice between paying to see a doctor or not seeing one at all, those without insurance or with hefty excesses on their insurance policies are more likely to go without medical care.

    That said, the NHS does not always seem like the answer to our troubles, especially if you have something relatively minor such as an in-growing toenail, hernia or dodgy hip, when you could end up waiting a very long time on a waiting list.

    But with regard the original point about patients being sent overseas for their operations, I must agree with MoK.
    We live in an age where communication is ever so important in medicine, not least due to increased litigation and more vocal patients, so I would have strong reservations about sending anyone to a foreign country, where the doctors and nurses may only have a basic grasp of English, and where follow-up consultations would be out of the question.
Sign In or Register to comment.