To think the time has come to abolish the NHS healthcare model

[OptimismvsRealism]

Free at the point of use also means denial of care to a lot of people. What torture to know that new medications are arriving regularly (eg lecanemab) but it's only for the very wealthy.

The UK is different from how it was in 1948. We should be brave enough to move on from then.

Sure, privatisation’s worked so well for the railways, water, utilities, hasn’t it? We already as a country can’t ‘afford’ the NHS, where’s the profits that private companies require gonna come from? That’s right, cuts to services and staff pay and conditions.

Unfortunately you are paying for those that don’t pay in , most of us under 60 pay ( ok I’m older).
Be glad you can pay, sorry about your parents, if you have the money, pay for them?

I understand different healthcare systems around the world.
Free at the point of use saves lives. It isn’t perfect, but it’s the best system in the world.

Absolutely agree.

Why do you think another model wouldn’t have the same issue? Do you think some models contain every type of drug, treatment and are at an affordablw tax and co-pay rate for all residents?

Why are you paying for ADHD medication, mine was free when I lived in the UK. Again NICE approves herpes medication for longterm use rather than just during outbreaks.

You think it would be any different with a different model?

YANBU.

Problem is finding someone prepared to take on the job. It's too huge and includes of middle management and secretarial staff losing their jobs which is impossible under their current system cos of legal, nobody in their right mind wants to do it.

This link not only shows different countries’ healthcare spending, but also the split between public and private funding:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283221/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/

I agree Op, I like the idea of it. But not enough people pay into it to balance the amount taken out of it.
It just doesn’t work. There’s a reason hardly any countries have our model.

I also think it needs to be run a LOT better, that would save us some cash, but our governments (any flavour), seem unable to do this.

I'm guessing because it adds a level of competition. I have seen far too much complacency in the nhs, staff doing just enough work to keep their jobs, bad attitudes to patients.
And patients also behaving badly, but we can't discharge as no alternatives. But a business can ask a person to leave if they treat their staff badly. So if there are alternatives, we can refuse to treat an abusive patient.

What relevance has San Fran got? There are many successful models of healthcare, why would we look are the failed American version?

What funding model do you propose?

Why are those systems better? Is there a reason beyond the fact that people pay in more via often very high monthly insurance costs, and the government too puts in more funding than ours?

Basically I am asking if it’s actually the model that’s better, or if it’s the fact there is more money in the system.

If the model itself actually leads to better care, regardless of funding, id like to understand why.

Absolutely! Anything perceived as free will get abused. It’s not free but so much messaging has been that it is and that it’s there to serve the public which breeds entitlement and attitude problems. I’ve spent a lot of time in waiting rooms for nhs treatment and the amount of people who show up ridiculously late and don’t even say sorry I’m late just expect to be seen was astonishing and showed how little they cared about the system

And the point @Nsky62 is that I don't really have the money. Obviously I don't have the money to pay for my parents. If I were that wealthy I'd buy a passport to live elsewhere.

Whats preventing you getting a free cholesterol check? It can be done at both the GP surgery and many pharmacies.

Such vitriol.
This is a really unpleasant, unfair and downright nasty opinion

I don't think the insurers improve care as such, beyond the mechanisms by which statutory insurers compete for members by covering stuff that isn't required to be covered in the corresponding legislation (e.g. some travel vaccinations, or (say) orthotics for three pairs of shoes a year instead of two). They're simply the admin mechanism really. But the statutory ones work to strict laws and criteria. I suppose in theory you could have one massive national statutory insurer and things wouldn't change much. But (where I am anyway) this is the way it's organically grown, since the late 19th c.

Nice approves all sorts of things the NHS refuses.

I'm heart broken for you brother but this happens in every healthcare system

And on the US people then have to battle their insurers too

Why is it nasty to be furious about suffering so other people can live lives of leisure?

Can you share with NHS health authority doesn’t prescribe ADHD medication or herpes treatment?

Because you called them.slugs and said you hated them.

Social care needs to be seen in the same way as childcare - the financial responsibility of the individual receiving it or if preferred their family if they wish to retain the family 'wealth'.

It is not healthcare. It is a predictable part of ageing that needs to be planned for in the same way that people should plan for children.

it's not just an age thing. Many people with various disabilities need social care from a young age