Why would Reform voters accept that they will scrap the NHS?

[NEGUY82]

Even when you present them with pretty undeniable proof they wants to do it they just say "lefty propaganda, he said he won't" - well of course he says he won't it would cost him the election.

Can you provide some evidence of him wanting that?

I've worked in the NHS for 27 years. The NHS and social care system is broken, it needs vastly overhauling. There are a huge number of successful healthcare models between the NHS and the USA system, it is hyperbole to think that scrapping the NHS automatically means an American system.

What EU model? Every EU country is different.

Why? Many of us think the NHS isn’t fit for purpose and would welcome changes.

This

You do not. My family of four pay £2,500 per year in total.

In the UK we pay about £100,000 per year for NHS cover.

The French system consumes a higher proportion of tax revenue than the UK. The issue here isn’t the funding model, it’s how the money is spent.

The NHS is no longer fit for purpose.

Let's follow the central European or Scandinavian models and make it GREAT again!

True at first but PFI did amount to a huge part of this funding

I was thinking of a conversation with my friend. Her husband is retiring, private health care will end and as he has a cancer diagnosis, now in remission, private medical care is proving unaffordable.

He’ll be fine with a cancer diagnosis, in fact his care will probably be better. Oncology is the NHS at its stellar best.

So what! GPs are private contractors. If we went to a private system, they’d not suddenly improve their services. It would just get more expensive with copayments and we know from studies exactly what happens when healthcare costs cash, people will not see a doctor until it is an emergency and many more excess deaths will happen.

Switching from the government paying the bill to a private contractor to individuals and insurance companies paying isn’t going to result in better service, just more expensive service.

@GeneralPeter Thank you for the AI tip:
For example, Barts Health NHS Trust in London paid upwards of £145m in PFI repayments in a single year, which heavily contributed to multi-million-pound trust deficits. Because contracts can last for 25 to 30 years, this money continues to leak to private lenders instead of the local clinical frontline.

In some places ….

Im not smart enough to really understand how it works. I have a condition (deficiency of a protein) and the medication is expensive. I know this because my consultant told me.

Its not a disability and perfectly manageable if i take this injection once every 2 weeks. I could never afford this without the NHS. Without it, worst case i could die (extreme but possible. Otherwise it makes me unwell to the point of not being able to do anything at all)

How would an NHS-LESS world work for me? Super expensive insurance? Me contributing to the cost?

Totally clueless (username app for this comment!) But I would be interested to know.

I know. I couldn’t agree more.

The Tories poured billions into it, more than ever before.

Blair and Brown did exactly the same.

Reeves is doing the same.

It's all failed.

The model no longer works.

The only thing that could have worked was the PFI and PPP that Blair and Brown brought in. But they were poorly managed.

Odd that it was a left wing government that tried to improve the NHS by partially privatising it (ie ear syringing), but there we go.

We need to follow the European models..

And we need to do this quickly.

The European models cost more. Ffs why do people keep blindly repeating this nonsense?

I think their services would improve. people will vote with their feet if they’re paying directly and medics and GP practices with toxic staff will lose patients to better ones.

If you’re paying 25k a year NI you’re rich, you’ll be fine anyway.

Not if there is no free at the point of access NHS (which is what the thread is discussing)

You are not charged for GP appointments. Its true that there is the risk excess, but its 385 euros not 500 and only if you get prescribed something. The GP appointments do not count towards this risk excess. Kids dont have an excess.

If you earn 30k a year you get 126 euros a month subsidy. You get subsidy until you are at 40k, that is for single people, a couple can earn up to 50k. Fulltime minimum wage is 30k, so if you earn less than that you get the full subsidy amount.

By the way the cheapest health insurance is 142 euros, not 166.

So the max someone on less than minimum wage has to pay is 142 - 129 = 13 euros per month, plus the annual risk excess of 385 euros. Most councils have local subsidies for the risk excess too, for people on benefits.

If you pay the health insurance you can access the care, nothing to do with far right immigrant issues. My British husband has had no problems accessing care.

At least care is accessible here, unlike on the NHS, which put my husband on a year waiting list for physio when what he really needed was an operation. I've also not had grandparents on a trolley in A and E overnight, my husband has. I know which system I prefer.

I do not what? These are the exact monthly insurance costs my relative pays for herself as a single adult. She has Basic Health Insurance (Basisverzekering)
Which is mandatory for anyone living or working in the Netherlands
Covers essential care: GP, hospital care, medication, maternity, emergencies
Insurers must accept everyone.

The average Dutch basic health insurance premium is around €159 per month (2025), depending on your chosen deductible. So her €166/mo is totally average.

If your income is below a certain level, you may qualify for a zorgtoeslag (healthcare allowance) - up to €131/month for singles or €250/month for families, provided by the Dutch tax office.

My relative doesn’t qualify for the zoegtoeslag as she is on a graduate visa.

Your family of four can’t consist of four adults, meaning some of these are children who are free under the Dutch system.

There is no evidence that mismanagement can be turned around in the NHS, as no one is directly accountable for anything.
All Blair's Government did in the late 1990s (which I voted for) was increase the funding, increase PFIs and get waiting lists down a bit. The system still rationed care with waiting lists though and I remember my DH going to Belgium for a MRI, as the NHS waiting list was 2 years!
I am now a Conservative voter not a Reform supporter but the NHS needs extreme reform, as it will only get worse if things continue with ever lengthening waiting lists for diagnosis as well as treatment. More and more people will opt out by paying BUPA premiums alongside effectively paying twice. Doesn't yet work in emergency though. More employers will offer private medical cover.
You only have to look at the growth in private online GP appointments to see that it will go the way of NHS dentistry, as people understandably vote with their feet, when they want to receive diagnosis or care.
I pay for BUPA cover and can in theory get a face to face BUPA GP appointment but I haven't used this option yet. I am generally healthy but if I need something from my NHS GP, I will have to fill in an online form and then will probably be dealt with by a nurse practitioner or similar so I can imagine that one day I will avail myself of the BUPA option which I am already paying for.
All because the politicians are too scared to reform the system in a sensible manner.

Why is it wrong for it to cost more if you get better care?