to get slightly annoyed when people refer to the nhs as free?

[rootietootie]

Its not bloody free, well maybe at point of service, but everyone who works pays for it.

Sinister,

No, it is a different system. In a sense, with the NHS, we all insure one another with the higher tax payers paying more. However, it is still far from cheap and people need to realise that.

And, things are rationed on the NHS, maybe not by money but by age, prognosis etc.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion about the NHS without someone saying how wonderful and "free" it is. It has some good points and some bad, and, in terms of money, is neither the cheapest nor most expensive system around.

even with good insurance in the states (which will be a few hundred dollars a month) it does not mean you will not have to pay out more.

my dad had to remortgage his house to pay for his second round of cancer treatment, my brother had to pay out $4000 on treatment because the virus he picked up was in sri lanka not in the states so had to pay for so called specialist treatment

larry- take the eample of someone who has never worked. The taxes that they pay cover the cost of their education, health as a child and benefits etc. By the time that they have an illness or pregnancy, there often would be nothing left for their healthcare costs, so, if needed, it is free at the point of service. The NHS is the best thing to have ever happened for the WC and low waged.

I completely agree with the point made by bohemian. There is this attitude around that we should be gratful for whatever we get on the NHS, however shoddy it may be, because it is "free". It's BS. Every tax payer pays for it (and not just workers through income tax but also anyone who buys anything subject to VAT or pays car tax, etc).

Birds,

Cannot disagree with that! Socialism is always optimal for those who do not work. Then it comes down to the general debate of motivation versus redistribution and a concept of "fairness" in society.

You have to also consider the quality of care and drugs. With the introduction of the NHS came the regulatory bodies for HCP. Although there are occassional problems, there doeasn't seem to be the problem that there can be in the US of finding a doctor/nurse who you can trust and is actually qualified. The safety of drugs and treatments are also of a concern in the US.

I've read quite a few horror stories from the US where people can't afford insurance, their job doesn't provide it (bit like pension contributions here, I think it's quite common) and they've had an accident or illness or even had a difficult birth and have had to declare themselves bankrupt after being presented with a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We are so lucky to have the NHS instead of that shitty system.

Birds I'm originally from the US and really disagree with what you say. Except maybe in rural areas, I don't think there's a problem finding qualified doctors 'you can trust' (whatever that means). If anything, it's often easier to find doctors as you can choose from a large network and not just the one or two GPs in your catchment area (you can also often access specialists without a referral). Also, drugs and treatments are heavily regulated in the US, and because of the lawsuit culture people usually proceed cautiously with them.

The terrible flaw in the US health system and of course it IS flawed is not quality, but access. The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses. I find that horribly immoral.

I think the universality of the NHS is terrific and I don't like to bash the NHS generally. But I think in some areas it could really be improved, and I don't think we should feel so grateful for its being 'free' that we don't address these concerns.

dreaming I think in terms of trust for me would be this - noone in the UK takes a degree in medicine and becomes a doctor in the hope of becoming a millionaire.

I live in Switzerland, where we have at least the fairness of basic medical coverage for everyone - ie a medical insurance company cannot turn you down for the most basic of care.

Everything else - you pay through the nose, and there are limits to prescription costs, certain types of drugs, private rooms, you pay for the particular level of "specialist" you want.

If I'd gotten pregnant in my first year of insurance and not declared my intention i'd have had to have paid for the lions share of the bills.

I have to pay my doctor and them claim the money back. i have to pay £350 a month for basic care and the first £1500 of treatment and 10% of the next £700.

I have to argue on every detail and understand the small print in medical level detail. I have to chase up receiving my money. I have to spend weeks looking at new insurance providers every october.

And scariest of all if I get ill in another Kanton (county) i have to stump up for an ambulance back to my home hospital - or get myself back there independantly - or pay for all the medical bills.

If I come to the UK and slip and fall, I walk into the A&E dept without stress or worry. And I don't have to pay a penny.

Treasure the NHS, if you've lived the other side you'll never slate it again. Try paying £480 for some iron to help your anaemia. My doctor charges £42 per 15 MINUTES.

Even if it isn't free for NI payers the NI is still less than I have to pay for medical insurance for my family here (on top of social care payments I might add).

Those of you who are comparing the NHS favourably to an insurance-based system in the US are completely missing the idea that you can have an extremely effective insurance system based on socially fair contributions. It's the system used in many northern European countries.

Yes, you pay contributions directly to an insurance agency of your choice (and there are minute differences between them), but these are based entirely on income and the employer has to pay half. The unemployed and disabled are entirely paid for by the state and receive exactly the same service as anybody else. Contributions are not related to your history of illness and agencies have to take anybody regardless of a chronic health condition and charge them purely according to income. Children (at university up to the age of 25!) and dependent spouses are insured with the main earner in a family, with no extra cost. Far more is covered than in the UK - eg preventative health and home helps to look after older siblings after a birth. You can see a specialist of your choice straight away without battling through a GP (although a good specialist might have a waiting list of a few weeks). Dental care is not entirely free for major procedures, but standard check-ups, fillings etc are all included. There are special insurance-free clinics for the homeless.

This system is also 'free' in the sense that what you get out of the system is not related to what you put in (unlike the US), but the actual treatment EVERYONE receives is 1000% better than the NHS. This whole 'it's free so we should be grateful and put with any old shit' attitude is totally counterproductive if you want to improve the service. People need to think instead 'no, the NHS costs each of us a lot, and that's a good thing. In fact, it should be costing each of us a lot more if our health is important to us'. There's no such thing as a free health service (but it should be accessible to everyone, regardless of ability to pay).

'I have to pay my doctor and them claim the money back. i have to pay £350 a month for basic care and the first £1500 of treatment and 10% of the next £700.'

That's exactly the kind of medical insurance I'm NOT talking about.

The treatment that everyone in these countries in northern europe receive is 1000% better than the NHS?

That is an awful awful lot better. Unbelievable really.

I'd love to see the empirical data for that.

1000% is of course hyperbole to express that it's an enormous amount better. Maybe I'm just bitter because several very close relatives have died under the NHS due to GPs refusing access to consultant care for potentially fatal conditions until they were too late to treat and WERE fatal. So yeah, if it's the difference between good healthcare and being dead, I'd say it's 1000% better. Why don't you address some of the points I made on ways to achieve better healthcare instead of getting caught up on a figure that was never intended to be 'empirical' data?

Handbags.

How are people supposed to respond to your points if you don't say where you are talking about and state that the healthcare there is 1000% better?

I can't be arsed actually.

Most people who are treated under the NHS do not end up dead. Some of them actually get better

But the NHS is free to lots of people. Plenty of people don't work, and if they do they don't pay enough to cover the cost of having one baby on the NHS, let alone enough to have that child educated for free as well.

Just because most of us pay tax, not everyone does. So the NHS is free to them because they pay nothing into the system and get exactly the same treatment as higer rate tax payers.

Some get better, some don't. And that is the same in any system. The UK does not score extraordinarily well in most outcomes compared to its competitor countries, and waiting times are very long. Nor is it especially cheap.

Free at the point of service is fantastic for the very poor, not so great for those in the middle and fairly awful if you pay a high amount of tax. And it also means that A&E is packed with alcoholics and drug addicts, GP's surgeries are blocked by the worried well etc etc.

As a family, to date, we have had one wonderful experience (when our 5 week old needed help breathing) and several shockers. My wife was left in a side room in a "high risk" labour as there was no room on the maternity ward, my pregnant wife hospitalised with flu but "no obstetrician available" to check on the baby despite it being severely tachycardic as observed by GP and my father left in a general ward for the entire weekend after suffering a heart attack and being so congested it was too painful to lie down.

I really can see the advantage of some co payment dependent on means. It makes people take responsibility for their own health and also makes the health professionals realise that they are working for the patient and not for some amorphous state.

Actually isn't the best healthcare in the world seen to be France, where they have Universal Health Care as we do?

'Most people who are treated under the NHS do not end up dead.' Well, I seem to be rather unlucky that most of my family have suffered badly from NHS care. What annoys me is the amount of painful, horrible suffering it generates unnecessarily - with more funding that would not happen. I read stories on here every day detailing unnecessary suffering, and it is appalling. I'm thinking of WannaBe suffering from an abscess and unable to access same-day dental care. That's not a sign of a first-world healthcare system. What is truly shocking is that you are attempting to defend this.

The tragedy is that the NHS really has the potential to be the best in the world - it has excellent, caring, well-trained staff when they have the facilities to treat people humanely. It was actually a brilliant idea when it was set up, but it's not 1947 now - the goal then was to give all people a very basic level of healthcare to prevent them dying, surely you can do better than that now - and what it needs most of all is a MASSIVE injection of funding which can only come from more well-off people realising they have to pay more on average for their health.

The system I'm talking about is Germany, but I think the situation is similar in other countries in northern Europe - especially Scandinavia. I don't know, perhaps people in the UK just prefer buying expensive mobile phones and - to quote linerunner - handbags instead of ensuring good health.

Binfull yes France is seen to be top -- and it has the kind of system Tenebrist is talking about (universal but with some patient payments depending on income)

We moved here last summer and just anecdotally, I've found the healthcare system to be much, much better than what I experienced in London

We are classed low income (but not the lowest) and paid 7 euro per doctors visit, which I don't think is too bad. That's now 1 euro since we've gotten health insurance.

I'm particularly pleased that we don't need referrals to see pediatricians and gynecologists.

What i dont get is how the government can get away with reducing the nhs when the tax payer pays for it! Therefore no its not free, but ther government treat it as it is and say it costs the government x amount per year! It doesnt it cost everyone that works!

Oh dear, do find a grip and get hold of it OP! Many people pay taxes yet get far more back in terms of monetary value than they could ever pay in tax in their lifetime! We have it good, just because there are flaws in the NHS (as there are in every private organisation too) the good far far outweighs the bad.Our health services are equal and available to all regardless of income and what level of cover you have like in other countries.

People really are spectacularly naieve if they think the NHS doesn't cost the government as its all funded through tax...people CONTRIBUTE to the NHS via national insurance and taxation- it raises a percentage towards the cost of running such a huge organisation