Apparently if the NHS is privatised we wont have to pay for medicine.

[malificent7]

So says my Tory dad. Is he right?

We could ask the French and the Germans, whose governments pay for about 5-10% of healthcare. the rest is privately funded. It is all privately provided.
Or we could ask about the 50% of NHS money that has always gone to private providers in the UK.
We do have record employment and much lower unemployment than our European partners.

Not making much sense there, nanny. I think you are being critical of the Labour manifesto, which is fully costed, but I'm not sure. Anyway, here's the tree.
OP's dad is barmy, by the way.

I think people misunderstand the NHS privitisation bit. For many years now,bits of the NHS have been contracted out to Private companies(like Virgin for example) Also, if a local hospital has a long waiting list for hip replacements, they may pay a local private hospital to perform the surgery for the NHS. This has no financial impact on the patient. In the case of having your surgery in a private hospital, you might have a nicer room etc and some of the contracted out services are reported to be lesser quality than NHS. The private companies are obviously making some profit out of what they do or they would not be doing it, but they could be doing this by working more efficiently than the NHS not necessarily by cutting quality. The important thing to me is that treatment remains free at the point of entry(which it has so far and intends to remain) and that quality is maintained (which it has in some places and not in others.....) If private companies get contracts and people are not happy with the care they receive, they should complain and those companies, if they get a lot of complaints will surely lose the contract?
I personally think Foodbanks are also a bit misunderstood. You are only allowed up to 6 visits. They are there for emergency siuations such as lost job/can't pay mortgage/setting up benefits/messed up benefits/relationship breakdown etc etc. Many people use them a couple of times and get sorted. Whilst it is not good that more and more people need them, I am not sure how we eradicate the need. Any one of us could struggle if we were suddenly made redundant or our partner left/died. There have always been people living in abject poverty under every government and some of them did NOT even have foodbanks to fall back on. By the way, I am a floating voter and really struggling with what to vote this year. I also am an NHS worker but do not see it as on the brink of collapse or selling out. I see a very complex situation with more and more people living longer and longer and the demands getting greater and only likely to get worse. I see families as more insular/more stressed/less able to offer support and care. I see a lot of loneliness. I see many elderly people existing with no family support in large houses that they no longer have the strength to consider moving out of. There are more and more relationship breakdowns with the need for yet more housing to accomodate all the need and I am not sure why whatever government is in needs to take responsibility for all of it!!?? WE should be equallyt responsible. We should live in houses that hopefully meet our needs. We should downsize if and when able, before it becomes too much to think about and cope with, to free up more family homes rather than have to keep building more and more. We should try and care a bit more for each other and our family and neighbours and we should not just expect government to sort everything out! and here endeth my rant!

I suspect 'free at the point of entry' is Tory speak for 'your initial GP consultation is free, the rest you have to pay for...'

Ah yes because those pharmaceutical companies are so kind and caring that they'll give their medicines away for free.

I'm amazed really how it works.

Generally Tory voters are considered the most educated and wealthy of our country - how the duck can that be if they think private healthcare will be free

Your dad is a deluded idjit.

Tell him it's likely he won't even be able to see a doctor without handing over some cash each and every time as his co-payment...

I would rather co-pay and get decent service tbh. The government should not be delivering healthcare as a monopoly provider because - like all monopolies - it's a bad thing for service users. The NHS already gobbles up one third of all tax receipts in return for the worst cancer survival rates in Europe. We have much to learn about healthcare from our neighbors on the continent, none of whom (contrary to popular belief) allow poor people to die on the streets for lack of insurance

What part of private business = profit driven does he not understand?

Like the FACT that most GP surgeries are private businesses with the partner GP's being profit-sharing partners?

Or the FACT that most opticians and pharmacies and dentists are private businesses?

All these kinds of business provide free NHS services using a privatisation model.

It's being expanded, very successfully, into opticians (Specsavers) providing free hearing tests and hearing aids under the NHS. My OH recently needed a hearing aid and was given an appointment at our high st specsavers the following week - in and out within a couple of hours having had her hearing test and been fitted with her hearing aid. Contrast that with when I had mine - several appointments at different hospitals/health centres spanning over six months!

Sometimes, private providers can do things better and cheaper than the NHS!

I think people misunderstand the NHS privitisation bit. For many years now,bits of the NHS have been contracted out to Private companies(like Virgin for example) Also, if a local hospital has a long waiting list for hip replacements, they may pay a local private hospital to perform the surgery for the NHS. This has no financial impact on the patient. In the case of having your surgery in a private hospital, you might have a nicer room etc and some of the contracted out services are reported to be lesser quality than NHS. The private companies are obviously making some profit out of what they do or they would not be doing it, but they could be doing this by working more efficiently than the NHS not necessarily by cutting quality.

I think you're the ones who's misunderstood it. Privatisation and PFI's are costing the NHS billions upon billions of pounds. People are dying due to the shoddy quality. Contracts are costing millions then the private companies are cancelling them before they even start. NHS trusts are losing out on bids to private companies, losing even more money. Shocked at your statements if you're actually an NHS frontline worker.

Lot's of the NHS is privatised already. About 50% i think. All GPs are private, all pharmacies etc

Of course he's not right.

Sometimes, private providers can do things better and cheaper than the NHS!
I'd query better, and point out that when they are cheaper, it's usually because they have put in a bid that relies on fewer, lower paid staff and lower quality resources.

I'm British but it's my bet they'd go for something like the Australian system.

We basically pay for most things...if you're on a lower income (ie..a UK person's income who would get tax credits) then you get SOME help via medicare.

So..a simplified version is that my children get free dental care and free doctor's appointments...but we pay for medicines.

I have to pay for all my dental care and all my doctor's visits. And it does put you off going!

However...we don't pay council tax...we've not been here long so are still sorting things out....so we've decided to get insurance as we'd be spending that on council tax anyway in England.

If I needed an emergency doctor visit at home though...I can get one for free.

There's never any waiting for appointments to see a doctor and they seem to have a lot of time to spend with you.

I meant to say "I'm British but live in Oz"

Anyway, here's the tree.

If it's so easy to raise nearly £50bn without it harming the UK, it makes you wonder why the last Labour government didn't do it during their three terms in power? In fact it makes you wonder why Gordon Brown actually reduced corporation tax rather than raise it and why he allowed the "tax gap" (evasion/avoidance) to get even wider in all those years he was Chancellor and then PM?

Perhaps it's not that easy after all!!

Don't forget it was Brown/Labour who allowed the deficit to get bigger when the country was supposedly in "boom years" before the banking crisis/recession! The reality was that there was no "boom" - he was just borrowing to spend to give an illusion of the garden being rosy!

LOL oh my your dad sounds crazy - if privatised he won't have to pay for medicines.... the point of private is you pay for everything - go look at the Aemrican system.. take out an insurance policy but hey ho if you have pre existing conditions - you will struggle.

Tell him to read the Naylor Report as well - selling off land and other assets with incentives to buy it. Privatization is a coming if the Tory party get their way.

Just leaving this here

appendicitis bill in America

Don't privatize guys. DON'T DO IT

PS Virgin have been contracted to provide children's services for some time now and time on the wating list has soared... private doesn't necessarily mean better or quicker. Branson's empire run lots of bits of health and social care and the parent company reside off shore .... they make huge money but the service is no better than before... in fact in parts of the country the waiting list is long and getting longer - go join a parent forum for children with SEND and see what problems private provision has made for them.

@wiltingfast Do you not think that looks like the bill the NHS get for an appendicitis operation - or do you think they just magic it up for free?

Sometimes, private providers can do things better and cheaper than the NHS!
I'd query better, and point out that when they are cheaper, it's usually because they have put in a bid that relies on fewer, lower paid staff and lower quality resources.

Regarding the Specsaver hearing aids, they can do it far cheaper because they're organised and efficient. As I say, a single appointment. When I had mine, it was 6 appointments (6 different people) across 3 different hospitals/health centres. Each of those appointments needed action by an appointments clerk, a posted appointment letter, a receptionist, a HCA, and finally either the nurse/consultant or audiologist, and each time followed up with consultation notes and more admin. None of that with Specsavers, an audiologist did the lot in one session.

The government should not be delivering healthcare as a monopoly provider because - like all monopolies - it's a bad thing for service users.

The Government is not delivering a monopoly service. You are perfectly free to pay for private medical care. What you will find is that some services aren't profitable and aren't offered e.g. there isn't much private maternity care outside London.

Off topic user but don't forget to take council rates into account. Depending on your situation/location these can run into the thousands.

Ask the Americans who pay 3 times the amount per person on healthcare than the UK government. In fact most countrys spend much more than we do per person.

This is the problem we are facing is that we are under funding our NHS severely.

It is not broken or at least if it is is being done intentionally to pave the way for more privitisation.

I urge anyone interested to read the Naylor report that TM backs and wishes to implement.

It involves selling off the NHS assets (mostly land) and will be refused funding if they refuse to do so.

Do you not think that looks like the bill the NHS get for an appendicitis operation

I don't believe for a second that the NHS has costs of $50,000 for an appendectomy, no.

Anyway, here's the tree.

The £52bn raised is at least £11bn too high (IFS figures), so £41bn against £49bn spending.
The £49 bn does not include lifting the freeze on benefits, or the £30bn for buying back student loans, or the costs or privatizing trains, water and energy.
The manifesto is not costed at all.