Inevitable slide away from NHS?

[Ataraxy]

It seems to me that NHS/healthcare starter posts these days are inciting debate towards the USA healthcare system? Eg

1. We should charge certain groups of people for their healthcare.
2. We should have insurance to pay for our healthcare.
3. We take our children to the doctors too often and should use over-the-counter instead.
4. IVF shouldn't be available on NHS.

Added to the recent programmes on paying for the NHS, the 'secret' TTIP agreement between the EU and USA which will allow USA organizations to take over NHS services, and Manchester having its own NHS budget. AIBU to think we being prepared for the inevitable collapse of the NHS in favour of private healthcare?

I'm not accusing OPs of being of the four footed variety. It's just that I'm picking up a worrying trend.

BTW my new name isn't connected with this post, it's coincidental. I've been on MN a lot of years, but I was just outed by a friend of mine.

Privatisation is well underway in the NHS, albeit very stealthily. School nursing in my area is now run by a private company, next year the health visiting service is going out to tender. Neighbouring trusts have already lost their health visiting to private companies. Some health visitors now work for Virgin! Smoking cessation and family planning clinics in my area are also now run by a private company. The public health system is already in the midst of being broken up and sold off.

I support some charges being introduced. A lot of countries charge people for visits to GP's and so on. Which I can't see anything wrong with. But of course certain groups would be exempt from the charge. Children for one. And I don't think IVF should be a priority for an already over burdened health service.

I hadn't considered the European system. Vivienne I see your point re children being exempt but the problem occurs when a child reaches the cut off into adulthood. Would we continue to fund or simply stop treatment?

Thank you ladies for your replies.

Atraxy, when children hit 16, or 18, they would then need to pay to see the GP. In many countries it is a nominal fee, not too excessive but usually enough to make people think about whether they need a GP or a trip to the pharmacist.

It may be enough to make most people think about whether they need a GP but there will be some people for whom that decision is moot because that fee means they don't eat. It would be a different matter if we had a social structure that meant no-one was too poor to afford a fee but we don't.

I think a nominal type of fee might also encourage other people to visit their GP more often as would be a service they could buy and not need any social awareness in doing so, even if that fee didn't cover the true cost.