To think the NHS is bloody wonderful and that we're very, very lucky?

[ScaredyDog]

I know everyone will have had a bad experience (I know I have) but generally, I think we're so lucky.

I've been to one hospital today as an emergency and been referred elsewhere. I don't have to pay to see a doctor, the staff have been absolutely lovely (which I hope they will also be at the other hospital) and I was seen immediately. We even had a laugh about my ridiculously sized elephant foot :)

I know prescriptions can seem expensive, but really, that's the only bit we pay for upfront so to speak (and most people don't pay for their prescriptions, I'm told).

Hoping for another good experience at the next hospital anyway :) Yay for HCPs and the NHS.

You're paying a higher premium because you're female and you don't think insurance penalises people for needing care?

but it's difficult to access because dentists haveeffectively withdrawn their services in favour of chasing money elsewhere?
there are still just as many dentists if not more

Another point about private health insurance is that once you have been treated for some conditions, they can remove it from your insurance cover. This happened to a friend's mother - she had cancer, it was treated, but she was then refused cover for it happening again.

If you have a pre-existing health condition before taking out some private health insurance, they can and will often refuse to cover that as well - I, for example, could not get cover in the UK for back problems because I stupidly confessed to having had sciatica on a life insurance form (for mortgage extension).

minimally women have a greater life expectancy and are healthier than men?

I think (but I don't know ) that euro type insurance systems can't refuse cover?....
am I right?
type 1 diabetes is surely something they would be looking to exclude if they could

(interestingly the idea of the Dutch visitor thing described earlier makes me want to run a mile or should that be km )

No. The government decided that it didn't want pay for free dental treatment anymore. It wanted to pay less. So it decided that it would make it unviable for dentists to do solely/mostly NHS work by cutting payments for many preventative measures amongst other things.

What do you think would happen if the NHS suddenly offered anaesthetists £5/hr?

Why should you have to pay more because you actually used the services you already pay towards? Why should you be penalised for being ill?

Londonlottie - it is not unlikely (though obv I don't know for sure) that your system in switzerland is more tightly regulated/legislated than it most likely would be here. You have to remember that the govt at the moment is a big believer in small government and is really anti-regulation. Therefore if the NHS was abolished tomorrow they would leave private providers to effectively regulate themselves. So they would have no "basic" obligations to fulfil. IMO Insurance companies are gits and quibbling on even house insurance policies is common.

And no it is not a conspiracy theory - I saw it every day until I fled back to the NHS and the knowledge that clinical need was paramount above profits!

Narky we're going round in circles here

Did the government really suggest paying dentists less than the min wage?

I can't remember all the details they were trying to reign in NHS costs remember this is the system you are all defending as being so wonderful this was NHS dentistry, the gov wanted to control costs dentists opted out we're left with the mess

labour gov wasn't it?

Lottie, I think that IS the problem, yes. The UK experience of private insurance (of almost anything, in fact) is that they try to pay out as little as possible and will exclude as much as possible - so fear is a big factor, which is entirely understandable.
I wonder if the US health insurers have the same attitude as the UK private health insurance companies? I know here in Australia, we joined a private health fund as well as Medicare (because it makes sense to do so here unless you are really poor) and they didn't ask about any pre-existing health conditions so nothing has been excluded, so it would be interesting to know how the USA systems deal with that.

YANBU - I think we are very lucky indeed.

holidaysoon - no, I think it was the previous Tory govt that started that one. Pretty sure it was while I worked in Oxford, and that was definitely Tory time.

"minimally women have a greater life expectancy and are healthier than men?"

Women are more likely to need medical treatment thanks to things like menstruation, childbirth and contraception.

londonlottie "If I'm going to live longer and have children and use a service more, why shouldn't I pay for it?"

The problem comes in when you have a long term health problem which already disadvantages you (eg. harder to work, higher costs). Although paying more for using more services does make sense in a totally coldly logical way. It makes less sense when you take into account that long term health problems often mean less money anyway.

I suspect I'd struggle in an insurance based system. Bearing in mind that for the past 3 years I've been at the GP almost every week, have been on up to 5 different medications at once, and have had regular appointments with specialists. At least with the NHS, I know I can get all the treatment I need without having to worry about cost and/or whether I'd be charged more insurance for it.

london you're paying an annual premium not a lump sum so your better health should drop your premiums yes?

do sterilised women pay less than the fertile?!!!

anyway when we say insurance I'm right aren't I that it's not like car insurance (that was to anyone BTW)

Thumb Going by some of my friends experiences in the US, their insurers try to cover as little as possible. :( Often leaving them to decide between affording food or getting medical help.

There is also the simple fact that insurance companies have to pay employees. That alone adds another tier of cost to the system which is before you even get to the issue of shareholders...

Your examples are dirt cheap empusa (except some childbirths)
sorry thumb i thought the link I didn't read was called 2006 so I guessed that and the fact we had a labour gov for sooooooo long

men have more accidents maybe that's it?

thumb I'm pretty sure in the States some things can be excluded can't you also exceed your available funds?

Germany

77% government funded (2004)
total spending on healthcare = 10.8% of GDP (2001)

France

Approx 77% of spending covered by government funded agencies
total spending on healthcare = 11.2% of GDP (2005)

Switzerland

Compulsory insurance
total spending on healthcare = 11.6% of GDP
Complicated system

UK

Spending on healthcare = 7.1% of GDP in 2001
It was up to 9.4% by 2006
Maybe another 2% or so would help

londonlottie I'm glad it works for you. I just don't trust the insurers over here to be so good, I fear they'd be more like the US. In which case, I'd be utterly fucked.

agree have to go to sorry
wont pretend to know the answer either

(just wondering whether the Euro companies have shareholders? or are they co-op type organisations)