Conservatives closing the gap on reform

[Pinkponyclub3]

Any conservative supporters here ?
Recent reports say the gap on reform is closing
Having watched some clips of kemi in action,I was quite impressed
But I don't know much about the party having never voted conservative,
Have they more of an insight in to current feeling than labour?

I think free Universal healthcare is a good thing. We spend less per capita than many other countries.

We have to be disciplined about it though- or we will kill it. We have to allow NICE to say no to things, we have to insist on innovation and efficiency.

It’s purpose is patient care, not a vehicle for union extravagance.

Japan and Singapore are good examples. They have co-pays (30% out of pocket) or a mixed financing model, but with insurance backed by the government and support for people on low income.

They work very well.

That's exactly what I think of your posts usually. Uncanny we both think the same!

Aaaaand more gaslighting. You think nothing of the sort because I fact check before I post and usually include a link. It actually pisses people off.

But you agreed with @ArseInTheCoOpWindow when the link she included was inaccurate. Did you fact check that?

Like I said, Japan and Singapore don't have free universal healthcare and aren't on that list. Those were just the two that came to mind (and then I verified). I'm sure there are others with similar co-pays and individually funded insurance (though often government-backed so that no one is refused cover, and with support - but often still not completely free - for those on low income).

Yes I’ll be voting for Kemi, she’s been performing well recently

But you agreed with when the link she included was inaccurate. Did you fact check that?

I don’t think I did. My post just happened to follow on from hers. You argued with my assertion that smoking related illness costs the NHS considerably less than tobacco tax raises despite actually quoting the figures that proved me right. The level of debate on MN is shockingly poor.

You're gaslighting us again I see.

Pot kettle.

Which was the point I was making. We agree again!

We don’t and never will.

Even Switzerland doesn't have free universal healthcare. It has a universal system which mandates private health insurance for all residents (but you get to choose your policy, since it's with a private company. ) There are out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and copayments.

Even France doesn't have free universal healthcare. You pay upfront, and are reimbursed by the state for a significant portion (e.g., 70% for GP visits, 100% for some long-term conditions). People often use private insurance (mutuelle) to cover the remaining cost. People on low income don't have to pay upfront, and have it additionally subsidised - but only very, very low income people get it completely free.

I mean, what was that article talking about?!? This is a really normal model in Europe.

NHS cost was less than the tax income, but overall societal cost was about twice as much. I don't think the pp had specified which she meant.

I didn't actually argue with you, just gave more accurate facts.

And you did start your post with 'Exactly'.

What did that 'Exactly' refer to if not agreement with the previous post? (Given that the one before was an opposing view)

She did specify. She was discussing costs to the NHS. Moving the goalposts doesn’t make me wrong.

And we could reduce NHS spending by a good 30% plus if more people took responsibility for their own health: cut back on drinking and smoking,

But then she specified that most of that 30% NHS saving would "come from a reduction in obesity related illnesses - Type 2 diabetes, heart conditions etc."

She then went on to say that "40 years ago, lung cancer would kill quickly at around the age of 60-65 at the end of an economically active life and usually after children had become financially independent. So little or no burden on the state"
(my bold and underlining)

Which clearly indicates that she's also considering wider societal cost. In particular, lost productivity and social care - which are specifically mentioned in that £15-£17 billion total societal cost.

There's definitely some ambiguity, but t's a chat forum, not a dissertation. Certainly not accurate to say that this is an example of "confident assertions that turn out to be utter bollocks"

Oh give over!

In fact, @ArseInTheCoOpWindow is more of a contender for "confident assertions that turn out to be utter bollocks", with her article link.

I can see where that went wrong.

Everyone was talking about free, universal healthcare.
@Snowonground "Of course universal health care for absolutely everyone no matter their ability to pay is a luxury."
@blossomtoes "It’s not a luxury. It’s a necessity for economic health"
@Notmymarmosets "There are a lot of thriving economies where free healthcare is not universally accessible"

Then @ArseInTheCoOpWindow changed the goalposts

Despite saying "Where are they? This names the countries without it. " (clearly referring to the free universal healthcare everyone has been talking about) she instead posted a link to an article about universal healthcare. Which I'm guessing is about central organisation - but nothing about how it's paid for.

There are many, many successful countries where the healthcare isn't free. Exactly as @Notmymarmosets said.

Careless reading / verification by @ArseInTheCoOpWindow ?
Or an attempt to gaslight?

I guess only @ArseInTheCoOpWindow knows...

What a joke.

Not with an answer. Just twisted to fit.

I find it quite telling that just as you and blossomtoes were so dismissive of other posters debate and facts... it was your own link which was "full of confident assertions that turn out to be utter bollocks"

Gaslighting indeed...

An apology to @Notmymarmosets would be appropriate after your sleight of hand and dismissive tone, given that she is indeed right that "There are a lot of thriving economies where free healthcare is not universally accessible"

Yes it was odd, the pp was right.

I already gave an answer, in case you missed it: Singapore, Japan, Switzerland, France and many other European countries.

In those countries, healthcare is subsidised and supported out of taxes,, but not free at the point of use. Citizens are expected to pay up to 30% themselves, with support where needed,and sometimes covered by private medical insurance which citizens are requited to take out themselves

France has an effective Free at the point of use as the insurance pays the costs the state doesn't plus they prove free care for those without insurance.

Same with Germany.

These systems are admin heavy and well regulated to avoid profiteering (something, based on what we usually do, wouldn't be the case in the UK)

Countries like Portugal and Italy use a very similar model to the UK, with v small co payments.

Plus all these system rely on businesses paying a lot more in taxes, something that is apparently causing all our economic problems, according to you and other right wing posters on here.

A lot of healthcare is absolutely not free at point of use in France. As I said, for most healthcare you pay up front unless you are very low income. The government reimburses part of it. You can choose to pay for private insurance (mutuelle), which pays the rest. Some things aren't fully reimbursed, even by the mutuelle.

It creates a good balance where both patients and providers take the costs seriously.

Here in the UK, I once sat in a phone queue for more than an hour to cancel a specialist hospital appointment, which I'd had to wait months for (I chose to progress with a different hospital - less well-known for the specialty, but which didn't have the crazy waits). They were really surprised that I'd waited on the phone to cancel. Given the shortage of appointments, I felt a responsibility to do my bit - but clearly no-one else (either patients or hospital) felt the same.

If patients paid even a small contribution, you can be sure that wouldn't happen. £1billion per year is lost in hospital appointments, and £200million from missed GP appointments. A drop in the £231billion NHS budget, to be sure - but there are limited doctors, and that cavalier attitude makes care worse for everyone.

I agree that it wouldn't be trivial to set up that European model in the UK - and people wouldn't respect it.

I'm merely pointing out that there are many effective ways for governments to support healthcare. Our 'free at the point of use' system isn't the only way and it's important to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives.

To me, the important thing is that everyone needs to be able to access healthcare affordably, and also without people taking the piss given that we all fund the subsidy.

Affordable is a sufficient goal - and may be easier to combine with 'not taking the piss' than free. I'd be more in favour of small co-payments than all-out reform - which would be expensive snd as you say, probably end up with different problems.

What we absolutely can't have is a free, all-singing-all-dancing system for one tier of people (Labour's favoured benefit recipients) paid for by people who don't have access to it and must pay for their own healthcare on top. That simply won't work.

And unfortunately, the NHS is moving that way by stealth - as long waiting lists mean that anyone who can pay for care themselves does, despite the huge cost they're already paying in taxes. That doesn't happen in France. The taxpayer subsidies are there for everyone.