On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:22:04 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:47:22 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I know what I said. You chose to read something else into it. I
did not mention or imply the word charity and was very careful to say
that there should be a voucher system to make sure that everybody does
get money to spend on healthcare. What I don't want is the
government operating the delivery and I do want the ability to spend
my heathcare provision where I want and to top it up if I wish.

No I don't. It's perfectly simple. Close the NHS. Provide people
with vouchers or equivalent means of payment for healthcare services
at a place of their choice. Allow them the freedom to add to their
healthcare provision if they wish.

Hi,

I think the sticking point you have missed out is who decides the
value of the vouchers, it better not be politicians from a certain
party!

There is already a system of costing for treatments and unelected
organisations already play God in terms of who is prioritised for
treatment and who is not.




I'd be happy for them to do so if all their health care was paid for
wholly by the vouchers and nothing more, but hell would freeze over
before that happens!

The state should at least provide sufficient funding for healthcare to
a basic level. It follows that if people wish to supplement that and
buy their own services that reources are freed up.

There is nothing inconsistent about this. The state no longer
provides *all* that is needed by way of a pension in order to live in
retirement, but supplements those who really need it.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to make their own
arrangements and having their own choices.





The point is that if I do use an alternative service then I am freeing
up resources in the state operated facility. Therefore the
government should contribute an equivalent amount to the cost that
would have been incurred in the state facility towards my private
healthcare requirement. This is not asking to receive anything more
from the state than anybody else would get.
As it is, that doesn't happen and moreover there is tax and national
insurance to pay on the private insurance premiums. That is not
reasonable.

Again, the problem is that the funding of the NHS could be run down by
parties of a certain political persuasion, in order to pay for tax
cuts. This would affect the less well off more than the affluent who
could pay the extra to go private.

I would envisage the NHS being shut down completely as a delivery
vehicle. By switching to a voucher based system there would be far
greater transparency on what is being delivered at the sharp end.
As it is today, obscene amounts of money are put into the NHS machine
and the customer is not getting good return.





As an aside, someone I know is getting a private hip replacement at a
cost of 10.5K.

Looking at the NAO website, the cost of a NHS hip replacement works
out at 4.6K

I therefore expect that if the NHS was funded to the same level that
the private sector was, queues would disappear quite rapidly!

This is accounting sleight of hand. The costs can be made what the
bureaucrats want them to be. I am quite sure that with all the
overhead costs included right back to the point of paying tax, the NHS
cost is hugely more that 10,5k


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl