The fundamental question is:- Can an artificial market make delivery of health cheaper, whilst at the same time make money for the company who are delivering it? The answer is "yes" and "no". For routine non-diagnostic procedures such as doing elective x-rays, or ct scan, etc, then there is some merit in thinking that you could go to Tesco's and get that done, as long as the results were processed by the NHS. Any other encroachment is merely going to lead us into the system in the USA where if you can pay you get the best care in the world, if you can't then you get to go bankrupt staying alive, or you die. Heres the big question for anyone who thinks the Government reforms, etc are going to improve, or not at least worsten patience outcomes, whilst saving money, where is the commitment to give the UK tax payer back all the money they are going to save through these efficiencies........? Exactly.
I do not want a USA style system over here and am not advocating one - I want an NHS that can serve everyone who needs it, free at the point of delivery. However, The problem I have with the statement you made above is the idea that it is wrong in theory that if you can pay you get the best care in the world. What is wrong with that?. If I had enough money then I can buy the best car in the world, or the biggest house in the world, so why on earth can I not buy the best healthcare in the world because at the end of the day, my health is more important than any car or house. The Labour doctrine that if you paid for any element of care you needed then the rest of your care requirements were denied to you on the NHS, effectively meaning that you couldn't use your money to improve ANY aspect of your care unless you could afford to pay for EVERY aspect of your care was one of the worst elements of socialist dogma that eminated from the last government - the standard socialist "race to the bottom" outcome - i.e. if my care has to be **** then so does yours. Just an opinion like...
Don't understand here. Are you suggesting that people who pay for pmi don't get treatment on the nhs? Cos that doesn't happen, not in my experience anyway.
What I am saying is that people who pay for some treatment relating to a particular NHS treatment "experience" are then denied the rest of it on the NHS, not barred for the NHS altogether, but in relation to that particular issue. i.e. if you have cancer, you cannot suggest that you pay for a certain drug that the NHS won't fund, or pay for a scan to take place tomorrow privately instead of next year on the NHS, without being told that you are then a private patient for the whole cancer episode. If you could, then the whole issue about cost of some drugs would not be such an issue, because many people would just pay - if I was denied a life saving drug because NICE has deemed it too expensive at £20 a day, I would gladly pay for it myself if £7000 of drugs for a year kept me alive - small price to pay. But I wouldn't be allowed to (at least not previously - not sure if it has changed now). If I tried, then all the other consultant visits, and treatment I needed would then be deemed to be as a private patient. ** Just looked it up - it changed in 2009 - see attached http://www.lincolnshire.nhs.uk/Documents/Our NHS Services/EMSCG top up payments leaflet.pdf)
The point is that the best care in teh world should be available to everyone regardless of their relative means to pay. The NHS is and has been capable of delivering this. All this competition will do is actually drive up costs as firms will needs their pound of flesh from their work where there was none before. See other privatised industries for examples of this. The energy market is the best one. All these firms, all this much vaunted choice and reality barely owt between the lot of them
We don't need competition in health care. Same as we didn't need it in energy, transport, water and every other chuffin thing the T****s sold off. We are supposed to believe that we have more choice and get a better deal. One word - Cartels.
Correct. The current dogma is that a so called choice equals a better deal for the consumer, but in reality it is only a better deal for the shareholders and the rich.
