Growth of Private Healthcare

[Craig the cyclist]

No.

Do your own research, this is not a seminar. And remember what I said about reading things properly.

Hmmm, thought so. Just the one then.

I have re-read your OP several times, and I just can't see where the challenge is to the NHS. This just does not make sense.

It is worrying that the NHS, having worked so hard to help fight the pandemic, is now facing the challenge of a lot more people seeking private healthcare as a result of perceived failures in its handling of the more usual health problems of the nation, as shown by waiting lists and delays in diagnosis, specialist treatment and operations.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Hmmm, thought so. Just the one then.

I have re-read your OP several times, and I just can't see where the challenge is to the NHS. This just does not make sense.

A stupid response like your first sentence does not encourage me to waste time on answering the point you make in the second sentence.

 

[Unkraut]

I am slightly conflicted on this issue as I believe the country benefits from a strong, effective NHS and am happy to pay even more in taxes to support it, but for selfish reasons am on the border of paying for private consultation and treatment if necessary.

I know exactly how you feel on this. I was offered BUPA whilst working for a local authority in the early 80's, but turned it down on the principle that you shouldn't be able to buy your way out of waiting lists. Easy to do when you are younger and healthier.

Governments of various hues have had decades in the meantime to put right what is wrong with the NHS, and don't seem to have made much progress. My view now if I returned to England would be to pay for treatment if I could afford it rather than endlessly wait, even though I don't like the idea.

I remember a teacher friend of mine spending quite a chunk of his lump sum retiring allowance on private treatment after the NHS had given date after date for a much needed operation, only to cancel it a few days before. My sister also had private treatment for an eye condition that gets worse over time and cannot be cured, only stopped from getting worse. She would have had significant loss of vision if she had waited for the NHS.

Whilst still not keen on private treatment, at least the money spent on it overall increases the amount of healthcare available over and above that provided by an underfunded state system. I'm not convinced, however, that finance is the only problem with the NHS, may be the way it is run could do with scrutiny.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

A stupid response like your first sentence does not encourage me to waste time on answering the point you make in the second sentence.

Hahaha, you will find any reason not to expose your total lack of understanding on this subject won't you?

 

[BoldonLad]

My simple world view is that every person that goes privately moves somebody less fortunate up the waiting list.
I wish it wasn't so, but that's the reality....

Seems a reasonable view.

Some years ago, Mrs @BoldonLad was diagnosed with cancer. At the time, she had Bupa cover, via her employer. She had treatment in BUPA hospital. Her Consultant was the same chap she had been diagnosed by in the NHS, presumably working a few extra shifts for BUPA.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Hahaha, you will find any reason not to expose your total lack of understanding on this subject won't you?

If I thought you were genuinely interested I would have explained my reasoning, but post #10 showed that you had not actually read my op and were more interested in kneejerk confrontation than illumination.

If you ask nicely, and say pretty please, I may reconsider.

 

[The Crofted Crest]

Knee jerk,
where thought
don't work.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Seems a reasonable view.

Some years ago, Mrs @BoldonLad was diagnosed with cancer. At the time, she had Bupa cover, via her employer. She had treatment in BUPA hospital. Her Consultant was the same chap she had been diagnosed by in the NHS, presumably working a few extra shifts for BUPA.

I have absolutely no problems with your wife's choice, we would have done the same in those circumstances, but the reality is when complications occur in cancer (or virtually any other) treatment, as they did with my wife, who had to spend nine months in hospital, including a month in intensive care with 10 days in a coma, the private hospitals can only offer their treatment because of the safety net provided by the NHS.

Edit: I am not sure it is a case of the consultant just working "a few extra shifts" for BUPA, rather that he works part-time for BUPA and part for the NHS.

 

[BoldonLad]

I have absolutely no problems with your wife's choice, we would have done the same, but the reality is when complications occur in cancer (or virtually any other) treatment, as they did with my wife, who had to spend nine months in hospital, including a month in intensive care with 10 days in a coma, the private hospitals can only offer their treatment because of the safety net provided by the NHS.

Thank you for your approval.

My points really were:

1. The Medics (at Consultant level) are part of the "plot"

2. When it comes close enough to home, principle's wither

Good luck with your treatment (and your wife's), I trust you are both soon fully recovered.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Think the problem is more when the situation becomes hybrid, @BoldonLad already gave and example of an consultant now you can say from a consultant it's in fact often an self-employed doctor so if he chooses to work for both it's his choice. But what about a dental practice that has a hybrid model, so they fund part of their practive with NHS funding and the other with private, so that an client for the NHS dentist has to go 5 towns further of they need an procedure under full anesthetic and the private one can just walk upstairs. In my view this are the points where it goes wrong, and i took the dentist as that is the most clear example. a other is the outrages amounts they(for example a GP in this case) ask for a simple letter confirming an disability because it's considered ''private''.(anywhere from £25 to £75)
The ''jumping queues'' thing shouldn't be a thing with adequate funded heatlhcare so isn't really an issue off private vs NHS but more off underfunding vs enough funding.

However ''enough funding'' goes and stands with overal healthcare cost, i don't believe ''enough funding'' is possible at the moment because the healthcare cost per capita are simply to high, in other words we have to get healthier in general to be able to afford an good NHS services.

 

[presta]

The private sector has an advantage over the NHS in that it can afford to pinch fully trained staff that the NHS can ill afford to lose.

That's what the NHS does to the third world.
Poor countries paying to train medical staff for one of the richest countries in the world as well as their own.

 

[Salty seadog]

My simple world view is that every person that goes privately moves somebody less fortunate up the waiting list.
I wish it wasn't so, but that's the reality....

So many swings and roundabouts there. More people paying for private leads to more NHS staff leaving the system for the money that doesn't come with a socialised model. It's gaining traction at and I don't like it

 

[Fab Foodie]

So many swings and roundabouts there. More people paying for private leads to more NHS staff leaving the system for the money that doesn't come with a socialised model. It's gaining traction at and I don't like it

Indeed.
Much the same with private schooling....
The free system should be made good enough such that the private sector in both cases shrinks to almost a niche service - there will always be those who will pay for 'special service'.
But the Tories have holed both education and public health below the water line and I find it hard to blame those that use their hard earned means for using the private sector. I just wish it were otherwise. Would happily vote for paying more tax to fund both public services. But hey, red bus right?

 

[presta]

The free system should be made good enough such that the private sector in both cases shrinks to almost a niche service

The trouble with that is that you then have a monopoly, in fact, the problem with healthcare in this country is that we already do have a monopoly for the majority who can't afford private. Even for those who can afford private, they're still dealing with the same NHS doctors. The conflict of interest in having HMG as the funder, provider, regulator, inspector, and policeman of healthcare ought to be obvious, but it apparently isn't.

Every time anyone tries to start a debate about how healthcare is run in this country they just get the American system thrown in their face, but nobody else in the world does healthcare like either the USA or the NHS, they're both odd ones out. There's no reason why healthcare has to be state owned and run in order to make it free at the point of use.

 

[Fab Foodie]

The trouble with that is that you then have a monopoly, in fact, the problem with healthcare in this country is that we already do have a monopoly for the majority who can't afford private. Even for those who can afford private, they're still dealing with the same NHS doctors. The conflict of interest in having HMG as the funder, provider, regulator, inspector, and policeman of healthcare ought to be obvious, but it apparently isn't.

Every time anyone tries to start a debate about how healthcare is run in this country they just get the American system thrown in their face, but nobody else in the world does healthcare like either the USA or the NHS, they're both odd ones out. There's no reason why healthcare has to be state owned and run in order to make it free at the point of use.

A public health-care 'monopoly' that works for all, free at the point of use, and is affordable to the nation would be a good start.

There will always be room for alternatively funded services but we need to make sure that the basic health-care service is in place for all and fit for purpose. I agree that there are many ways to achieve this.....