What should the NHS not fund?

[Username721]

Saw a thread on IVF for lesbians and some people felt that IVF should not be for anyone on the NHS. So it got me thinking.

Is there anything you feel should be exclusively private treatment? The ones often debated are things like weight loss surgery, cosmetic procedures, treatment for avoidable illness such as smoking-induced ones, liver failure through alcohol abuse, drug rehabilitation…

Thoughts?

I agree, my dad is a lifelong asthma sufferer, he's spent a fortune on medication over his lifetime, through no fault of his own.

I'm going to be flamed for this , IVF should be funded to avoid genetic conditions and young people with conditions effecting fertility .My CCG offers funding for one cycle for IVF up to age 42 which is ridiculous as it's more than likely not going to work at that age and it's heartbreaking. A lot of people do delay having kids (not all) then except the NHS to pick up the tab when they aren't actually infertile they are old.

For obesity it's probably cheaper for the NHS to fund the weight loss surgery. Diabetes costs a fortune per year to treat and high blood pressure. It pays for its self.

Surely the discussion should be how the NHS is funded in order to properly cover all this-its not a case of simply believing in universal healthcare/free at delivery for all - its how we pay for it. The sheer amount of health care possible and the fact that an aging population needs more health care was simply not contemplated when the NHS was set up and its such a sacred cow that no-one will discuss it properly

maybe, but I think some of your "missed appointment" statistics are misleading.

I have a missed GP appointment on my records, and it is brought up repeatedly.

I was checked into hospital for an operation, when my GP surgery told me to come in and collect blood test results. I told them I was in hospital, they said I needed these blood test results before the op, and to come immediately.

I immediately got dressed, left the hospital, got two buses, arrived at the GP surgery.

They told me I had taken too long, and the receptionist refused to let me in.

The GP later told me I was 20 minutes later than she expected me, but I should have still been let in, after the patient they were seeing at the time, it would have taken about 3 minutes.

I then had to get two buses back to the hospital, where I thankfully had not missed my operations, although I could have missed that too.

So no, nobody should miss an appointment if it can be avoided, but I know I am not the only one who has missed appointments unavoidably.

Here is some more

• women without breasts chastised for missing mammogram appointments, women with no cervix chastised for missing smear tests - how many times do you have to inform the NHS that you dont need the screening?

-patients chastised for missing hospital appointments when they can't get time off work, and have spent all lunchtime every lunchtime for a week trying to get through to the clinic switchboard to tell them

-patients chastised for missing multiple appointments because they are dead.

I genuinely don't think this is the patients fault as often as it is made out to be, so maybe there are savings to be made in missed appointments, but some of that comes down to the efficiency of the NHS

As someone who had ivf due to a medical condition I’m extremely lucky and grateful that I have my amazing child. Ours was nhs funded and took years and years of ops and meds. Do I feel guilty? No because we both work really hard, pay high taxes and contribute well to society. As did our parents. If I am paying for a service that helps others then I deserve my turn in my time of need. Being infertile is a horrible, lonely place to be. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.

Something I believe would help is instead of letters telling people missed appointments cost on average £135 actually charge people for missing those appointments.

If people repeatedly miss appointments or don’t follow through with their advice then drop them. If they wish to be added back on then they pay a fee such as £250 to secure a place on the list. Plenty of people out there waiting for their turn on lengthy waiting lists.

Working in healthcare the main problem is we keep people going far longer than we should. People aren't allowed a natural quick death anymore. It's drawn out as long as possible with pain along the way ,they will be assessed for dysphagia given build up drinks , repeated antibiotics for aspiration pneumonia , utis. Given NG and Peg tubes while slowly wasting away. It costs billions.

I hope when my time comes when I'm elderly and develop dementia they give me lots of morphine and midozalam and let me go quicky. I so don't want to suffer slowly wasting and having a painful death. There is absolutely no respect for quality of life Vs quantity.

The American system isn't the only alternative to the NHS! In Australia we have Medicare which is similar to NHS. Parts of it have to be cofunded like some GP appointments where you pay and get your rebate back, usually out of pocket around $30, some practices will bulk bill so the patient is not out of pocket though.

Other things can be done privately to jump public queues, and insurance will pay part of it but there will usually be a gap. Number of appointments eg physio, are limited. Dental also falls under this, very little dental funded publicly, most of it is for children.

Extras Health Insurance and hospital cover do cost a lot. My extras (most medical but no private hospital) costs around $2,000 a year. At the moment I am slightly ahead every year due to DSs having braces.

Our system is far from perfect and we also have long waiting periods, but not like in the UK.

Do you eat margarine? Do you eat processed food?

If you eat these and become diabetic, do you agree to pay all the costs related to diabetes, as it is self inflicted by your diet choices?

Or do you think they should be withdrawn from sale?

Surely it makes more sense to raise the tax on these products sky high instead?

Agree wholeheartedly with this. Those products should cost 10x what they do.

no they are not - same theatres, same anaesthetists, same theatre staff, in some cases same surgeons, for example doing mastectomies and "top surgeries"

We have loads of people that are in this country but denied the ability to work as their claims are not processed as they should be by the government. Many are qualified professionals including healthcare workers. So we don't need to keep having children to fill employment gaps.
To the person that mentioned human extinction, why is that a problem?
In terms of euthanasia, I'm hoping that we'll have some type of government that won't be too frightened to bring in this legislation by the time I need euthanising.

HRT is a damned sight cheaper than treating repeated broken bones due to osteoporosis, vaginal prolapse, anxiety and depression, sleeplessness, brain fog, palpitations and heart problems and all the other delightful conditions that can be reduced or eliminated with the right balance of hormones.

How ignorant.

Or you are assessed charges and pay them over time, like any other loan.

Fellow citizens should not have to pay for endless self-indulgence & failure to use contraception.

Sterilization and vasectomy are cost effective and should be free.

Many of us made it through menopause without HRT. It may be beneficial for some but is not necessary for survival & should be PAYG.

HRT is not the female equivalent of Viagra, either FFS.

Necessary for survival is a particularly stupid argument.

Defences of pervert doctors. A few operations could be had for defending those wankers

I don't think prescriptions should be free based on age. Is it over 60s get free prescriptions? It should be means tested. Nor do I think that having chronic condition A should mean that every subsequent prescription for unrelated condition is fully covered.

Those critical to physical health and quality of life should be priority, and many are ranked by that.

Physical procedures for mental health reasons have to be very carefully weighted and shouldn’t be ideologically driven, I’d say a lot of cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment surgery/drugs, those which do not have a very clear evidence based medical positive outcome should be limited (and often are limited).

IVF should be limited but available to most who cannot conceive naturally including lesbians I feel, it is a massive thing to not be able to conceive, but limited.

A huge cost to the NHS is prescribing, and much of that antidepressants, too much antibiotics and over use of pain killers. Many of that could be given alternative just as effective treatments which are low cost eg exercise.

IVF
Treatment after someone has had cosmetic or bariatric surgery on the cheap abroad, and it's gone wrong.
Gender reassignment surgery.

That’s why it’s called insurance.
If your house burned down I doubt you would have paid enough insurance premiums to rebuild it but as millions of other people have then you get paid out.

Same with health. A civilised society provides a health service by taxing all citizens according to their income. We also pay20% vat on most goods.
If Jeremy Hunt can promise another £11 billion on defence then he can fund the NHS properly.

I agree with others who say we should remove funding for anything that doesn’t affect me or my close family.

The system here in Australia is a mix of the UK and US models, where emergency care in hospital is free, but elective or scheduled care is either waitlisted (free) or done privately through health insurance that most people pay for themselves. GP visits are subsidised such that some are free but most you pay a top up amount.

Having lived in the UK for many years, I found it crazy that I was given so much for free, when I was in a position to cover some costs, but other things that I needed I couldn't get access to. For instance, I suffered secondary infertility, but couldn't get the scans and help I needed without going privately and costing me a fortune.

When I came back to Australia I sought help, got the diagnosis I needed plus ivf. It was all subsidised 50% by the government, no limits on the number of cycles, and my private health insurance helped with some of it.

Just to say that the black and white funding of the nhs seems such a bad idea, and with some nuance you can provide more and better care to more people, with those who can afford it paying a bit and taking themselves off wait lists, which benefits those who can't pay.

The way to save the nhs is properly funding social care

GP visits - at least people should pay a small amount