Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Traduk,
No idea of your age, and unsure of the relevance of my age, I'm more than old enough and have more than enough life experience to have lost the egocentrism of youth but perhaps you'd care to re-read my post? I'll quote the relevant bits and highlight them for you.
Not caring about the NHS and not caring about public healthcare are not synonymous. Quite frankly they are quite the opposite now, clinging on to the NHS like some long lost friend is precisely what will hold healthcare back.
|
Twice your age + 1.
What you fail to take into account is that this country is based on elements within society being totally free at point of delivery. We do not have the structure which allows for co-pay or full pay for the services that are inherent within the system and have been since the initiation of the welfare state.
Your views generally are very right wing but as a generality talent is not rewarded in a manner that facilitates pay as you go. An example would be a surgeon on about the money you appear to earn who has left these shores for foreign parts for 2.5X UK salary. Even at highish tax rates he can co-pay for whatever is needed albeit it takes a move half way round the world to change the economic scenery.
I have used private dentistry for decades and without doubt I get the best that money can buy but it costs thousands for almost anything restorative. My choice forced by an absence of NHS facilities or even if available restricted to the bear minimum for oral health. That part of the NHS is already co-pay and beyond the basics of drill it, fill it or pull it, it costs. It is a basic and IMO poor service. It is one that I wouldn't want to see medicine follow but suspect that it will.
I latched on to your post because there was an element of "I'm alright Jack" within it as there is with a lot of your posts. What you fail to recognise over and over is that somebody has to pay and trying to ameliorate your suggestions with wishing for the best treatment at the lowest cost cannot mathematically square with any change to what exists currently on a cost basis.
Your comments which you kindly highlighted for me advocate co-pay. The government is pursuing policies in other areas (universities) on where co-pay goes. It starts low to get the ideology accepted and then to save costs on the public purse the burden falls more heavily on the user. That is in action at this time.
If the same principle gets into health everybody's future looks dire because invariably the time of greatest expense on and for an individual is when they are least able to afford it. My reference to your age is not personal but at your age insurances whether life or health are relatively low cost. As with both of those types of insurance as years progress and they become most needed they are priced according to risk and are prohibitively expensive, even for people with substantial financial backing.
I read your posts and frequently see a lack of differentiation from where this country has been to where it appears to be going. Private pensions have always been historically linked to state provision with supplementation taking place one to the other. With the movement of retirement age that model is now bent moving on towards broken. Total self provision will not occur with historic co-pay (employer\employee) relationships. Both need to be doubled with pot\s being filled at around 33% of salary per annum over a working lifetime.
In retirement it is necessary to be fairly wealthy in untouchable money in order not to be poor. Heaven help us if this lot throws medical costs into the equation.