Gav's View

This is the bit where the market socialist in me kicks in. NHS should be broken up into self governing hospital trusts that are non-profit charitable trusts owned and managed by a mixture of employees, representatives of LAs and a few central reps (very few). GPs should be independent practitioners free at point of delivery, the whole thing should be funded by an insurance scheme.

Nationalised provision doesn’t work, private sector profit (as in the US) doesn’t work, a middle ground that allows for competition but remains free for the user is needed.

Apply markets, but not profit motive; any profit made by the trusts gets ploughed back into service provision, etc.

Absolutely. BUPA is liked by the public just because it is not profit-making.

A more complete system of healthcare provision is needed as you indicate.

I have many friends in the NHS and one thing they do not moan about is the investment that has happened under Labour. And many of them can also remember the breaking point the NHS is was under during the last Conservative government. I think they’re all pretty scared about any ‘reforms’ that the Tories would bring forward – for patient care and for themselves.

I always saw the NHS as a symbol of a progressive, forward thinking society based around people not money.

But it really isn’t John.

There’s absolutely no justification — none — for the amount of money being spent to provide what is, let’s face it, a poor service.

The fear of reforms that you mention is the exact reason that Labour is wasting so much money on the NHS. The largest employer in the EU (which the NHS is) provides a guaranteed voting bloc for the Labour party.

Read the NHS Blog Doctor’s blog and AJD’s blog for an insight into the relative ease with which people obtain medical treatment in other countries.

The NHS is principle is laudable — free healthcare for all with no-one being denied treatment on the basis of cost. But that’s not the reality. If you live in Scotland or Wales you get more drugs than are available in England and you don’t pay for prescriptions. If you visit an NHS doctor they will hurry you through and, sadly, people are dying because diagnosis is not taking as long as it should.

What we need it a health service that doesn’t turn people away and that is free at the point of use, but that is not used as a political lever to ensure votes and which isn’t subject to the targets and whims of politicians very few of whom will have ever had anything more than a patient relationship with the NHS themselves.

Also, you should be able to find far more choice of private doctors if the market was truly set free. If you had a choice between a reasonable NHS and a safer private healthcare provision, you may make the choice to spend some of your own money on visiting a private GP (without being forced to as you are currently by the NHS dentist botch)

Yes, Gav, agree with you there.

After having lived in Germany and been able to see a specialist on the day that I decide to (after shelling out 14% of my gross income on mandatory insurance), I have to say, the NHS as a system (not the people) is an oppressive statist behemoth which must be reformed.

As Hayek said: the final outcome of the free market may be the bailiff, but the final outcome of socialism is the hangman. (or something like that).

Also, people misunderstand the American system. It is not necessarily a free market either, there is rationing there, too. Because health insurance is an expected benefit of most jobs, everyone treats it as if it is free. That is why it is so expensive for that minority who wouldn’t have insurance; supply and demand. Therefore, like the NHS, it has to be rationed to achieve “efficiencies”. If insurance in the states was based upon the individual rather than his company’s group insurance scheme, I suspect the non-insured cost of healthcare would eventually drop.