Meanwhile in news not about Brexit...

[jakswan]

Off the amount spent on private health care according to your link? Are you sure?

From the link  "This data includes private spending on health care, which in the United Kingdom is only 1.5 per cent."

And you want a doctor in A&E to refuse to treat someone in pain till they cough up more money then they have?

No, can be done later.

Oh and charging at the point if delivery in this way isn't privatisation.

Yes I know but it will be spun that way.

[Nearly Sane]

From the link  "This data includes private spending on health care, which in the United Kingdom is only 1.5 per cent."

No, can be done later.

Yes I know but it will be spun that way.

So 40% of care is covered from 1.5% of the spend?

[jakswan]

So 40% of care is covered from 1.5% of the spend?

Private spending, most GPs are self employed, Chemists, Opticians, Dentists many work for the private sector paid for by NHS.

[Nearly Sane]

Private spending, most GPs are self employed, Chemists, Opticians, Dentists many work for the private sector paid for by NHS.

so where is the 40% of the care covered? It isn't in your link How does being self employed mean that from the point of the provision and being part of the NHD mean it is 'private'?

[jakswan]

so where is the 40% of the care covered? It isn't in your link How does being self employed mean that from the point of the provision and being part of the NHD mean it is 'private'?

Yes many GP's, opticians, chemists, dentists are not in the public sector.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes many GP's, opticians, chemists, dentists are not in the public sector.

if they are being paid via the public NHS to work in the NHS then they are not providing care to the patient in the private sector. Where is the citation of the 40% of care claim?

[jeremyp]

We don't spend enough on it:-

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/health-care-spending-compared

I think it should be a subsidised service unless you have a chronic condition. Doctors appointment c. £10, A&E £50, etc.I know the left will go hysterical over "privatisation"  but last I checked 40% of the care is delivered by the private sector now.

We already pay for it. Why not just raise taxes a bit?

[jakswan]

if they are being paid via the public NHS to work in the NHS then they are not providing care to the patient in the private sector. Where is the citation of the 40% of care claim?

It could be 5%, the point I was making is that the left forward a anti-privatisation (services paid for NHS but done by private sector) argument yet don't make argue against services that have long been provided by private sector, e.g. chemists, GP's, etc.

[jakswan]

We already pay for it. Why not just raise taxes a bit?

Because if you give anything away for "free" the demand is going to rise.

[Aruntraveller]

Because if you give anything away for "free" the demand is going to rise.

What?

As already established it isn't free - we pay taxes.

And the idea that people check themselves if to A & E for 'free' is, quite frankly bizarre and strange.

I'd like to know what's happened to the real Jakswan - because the poster masquerading as he, seems to be some Hunt or other.

[Nearly Sane]

Because if you give anything away for "free" the demand is going to rise.

but then suppressing demand by charging for appts may be a false economy if it puts off people from prompt treatment. Have you got a set of figures which backs up your proposal?

[jakswan]

What?

As already established it isn't free - we pay taxes.

And the idea that people check themselves if to A & E for 'free' is, quite frankly bizarre and strange.

I'd like to know what's happened to the real Jakswan - because the poster masquerading as he, seems to be some Hunt or other.

Far from it the Tories are completely committed to free at point of use as far as I know. No political party would advocate this system because it prompts hysteria from the electorate, your post is a case in point.

[Aruntraveller]

Far from it the Tories are completely committed to free at point of use as far as I know. No political party would advocate this system because it prompts hysteria from the electorate, your post is a case in point.

No - I've re-read my post several times and I see no trace of hysteria. I see incredulity at your post but that is not hysteria. In fact I feel quite calm and serene today.

[Nearly Sane]

It could be 5%, the point I was making is that the left forward a anti-privatisation (services paid for NHS but done by private sector) argument yet don't make argue against services that have long been provided by private sector, e.g. chemists, GP's, etc.

sorry what could be 5%? The 1.5% in the link for spend, or the 40% figure for care you suggested and have provided no citation for? Either of them are so far away from a 5% figure that this appears to make no sense.

[floo]

No - I've re-read my post several times and I see no trace of hysteria. I see incredulity at your post but that is not hysteria. In fact I feel quite calm and serene today.

I see no trace of hysteria in it either!

[jakswan]

No - I've re-read my post several times and I see no trace of hysteria. I see incredulity at your post but that is not hysteria. In fact I feel quite calm and serene today.

Incredulity works just as well.

[jakswan]

http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/19/a-freakonomics-proposal-to-help-the-british-national-health-service/

Something like that?

[Nearly Sane]

http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/19/a-freakonomics-proposal-to-help-the-british-national-health-service/

Something like that?

err no, that is a proposal that specifically does not have figures if the cost of delaying treatment and it's coverage in caused 'catastrophic care'. It is like much of Levitt's  work based on idealised assumptions and little real figures.

[Aruntraveller]

Incredulity works just as well.

Ah -  so you are practicing being an inscrutable Hunt.

[Udayana]

Must be worth thinking about alternative insurance and funding systems, especially if including care as well as medical costs.

However, remember that if people do not get minor issues sorted, eg because of cost, they can easily turn into major issues with major costs.

I think there have been some suggestions for funding systems separate from general taxation - so people can see where their money is going and when they are getting the benefit of it.

[wigginhall]

But it's also about shrinking funding, isn't it?  Before Blair, NHS was costing about 6% of GDP, then he raised it to 8%, now it will shrink again, so people end up lying on trollies for 12 hours.  But remember, if you die, you have saved the government some money.  Or have you?

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2016/01/how-does-nhs-spending-compare-health-spending-internationally

[jakswan]

Ah -  so you are practicing being an inscrutable Hunt.

Drop all pretence of debate and just go for insults, nice.

[jakswan]

sorry what could be 5%? The 1.5% in the link for spend, or the 40% figure for care you suggested and have provided no citation for? Either of them are so far away from a 5% figure that this appears to make no sense.

Forgot all the figures its irrelevant to the point I made.

[Aruntraveller]

Drop all pretence of debate and just go for insults, nice.

I'll think you'll find as with all threads we are all guilty of that at one time or another.

Let he (or she) who is without sin etc, etc.

[Hope]

But it's also about shrinking funding, isn't it?  Before Blair, NHS was costing about 6% of GDP, then he raised it to 8%, now it will shrink again, so people end up lying on trollies for 12 hours.  But remember, if you die, you have saved the government some money.  Or have you?

Wiggi, how much of the 8% was effectively being spent on hospital-based social care, as opposed to hospital-based medical care?