There’s a separate thing I find interesting about the idea of asking employers to fund PHI instead. Surely the more business friendly approach is to say that the state covers healthcare costs so businesses don’t have to?Look at how France manage it. It's capped at a low level so it's not exclusionary but equally, stops overconsumption of services.
Continually bringing up the boogeyman of US style, purely privatised healthcare is genuine barrier to reform and risks the long term future of the NHS imo.
For example, I'm happy for prescription style exemptions/refunds be in place for pensioners, children, low/no income individuals.
There’s a separate thing I find interesting about the idea of asking employers to fund PHI instead. Surely the more business friendly approach is to say that the state covers healthcare costs so businesses don’t have to?
Is your thinking that people are spending more time in hospital than medically necessary?
I mean, of course they do in some cases.Is your thinking that people are spending more time in hospital than medically necessary?
That’s their choice in part made possible by offering inferior pension schemes, but you’re still effectively asking the state to cover health insurance costs through a third party. Why the need for a middle man?Employers already do offer PHI, my current role has PHI and my next role does. My view point is to incentivise PHI by scrapping VAT on it and to give tax breaks to businesses, self-employed and individuals who get PHI.
The idea is twofold; expand the private sector and get less people relying on long NHS waiting lists.
Which again makes it all the more stupid that benefits in kind and salary sacrifice schemes are going to taxed more from 2029.
Tonester where have you pulled this 200k figure from?About 28 million people attended A&E in the UK last year. Charging people £10 a visit in some moronic idea it will possibly stop 200K possibly attending A&E to improve everyone else’s experience is for the birds. Aside from the fact that 200K is not even trimming around the edges you’re not going to stop 200K because people will still come and pay it. Then there’s the wider issue that poverty and health are intrinsically linked. Here’s a statistic for the experts on here, 14 million. 14 million is the number of people living in the UK with health issues linked to poverty. Now try engaging your brain, not even your heart, just your brain. Is charging £10 a visit going to deter the 200k who don’t need to attend A&E or the potentially 14 million people living in poverty with health conditions and a far higher likelihood of needing A&E.
It boils down to what kind of country you want to live in. A compassionate country with free healthcare or a fucked up place like the US.
There’s a separate thing I find interesting about the idea of asking employers to fund PHI instead. Surely the more business friendly approach is to say that the state covers healthcare costs so businesses don’t have to?
Is your thinking that people are spending more time in hospital than medically necessary?
About 28 million people attended A&E in the UK last year. Charging people £10 a visit in some moronic idea it will possibly stop 200K possibly attending A&E to improve everyone else’s experience is for the birds. Aside from the fact that 200K is not even trimming around the edges you’re not going to stop 200K because people will still come and pay it. Then there’s the wider issue that poverty and health are intrinsically linked. Here’s a statistic for the experts on here, 14 million. 14 million is the number of people living in the UK with health issues linked to poverty. Now try engaging your brain, not even your heart, just your brain. Is charging £10 a visit going to deter the 200k who don’t need to attend A&E or the potentially 14 million people living in poverty with health conditions and a far higher likelihood of needing A&E.
It boils down to what kind of country you want to live in. A compassionate country with free healthcare or a fucked up place like the US.
Tonester where have you pulled this 200k figure from?
I think that's NHSE saying "don't blame us for the unending decline of the NHS since we got hold of it"It’s incredible when you look at it
NHS England » A&Es under siege from hiccups and ingrowing toenails
NHS England » A&Es under siege from hiccups and ingrowing toenailswww.england.nhs.uk
I think that's NHSE saying "don't blame us for the unending decline of the NHS since we got hold of it"
Yeah, I think the average list size is ~ 10kI was speaking to a bloke the other day who lives in Melton Mowbray.
He said there's only one GP surgery in the town, with something like 30k patients! It's the largest 1 practice town in the country apparently.
You currently get offered appointments for March!!
A simple charge of £10 per A&E visit should suffice
Sounds simple in practice, how would it work in reality. Firstly who is responsible for the administration of this charge and how much does doing that admin cost. What happens if people can't / won't pay, does an expensive debt recovery process start for the sake of £10? Presumably you can't just ignore non-payment or nobody will pay.It's like the whole £10 'no show' fee the Tories tried to introduce, if you just charged that for a GP appointment, who cares if someone turns up or not?
When I go to pick up my prescription there's an ad playing for 'be seen immediately, private GP appointments at £65 a go.I think that in time it's probably likely that primary care becomes a privatised service (it's already run by private practices) but I can genuinely foresee that it will be funded privately too.
I don't think it is the direction GPs necessarily want to go in TBF. NHSE has created a range of new posts described as medical associate professionals (MAPs) these are not qualified doctors or people with a medical degree. They provide funding specifically to employ these roles whilst not recruiting GPs.When I go to pick up my prescription there's an ad playing for 'be seen immediately, private GP appointments at £65 a go.
If I go on to the app my surgery uses for basic admin it pushes a similar service. Not hard to see the direction that GPs want to push things in.
It still doesn't solve the capacity issue of a full appointment book does it?It's pretty normal in social insurance based systems (e.g. France/Germany) to have symbolic charges in place. Like most things that are completely FOC, people take the piss.
It's like the whole £10 'no show' fee the Tories tried to introduce, if you just charged that for a GP appointment, who cares if someone turns up or not?
There is no major private sector capacity that is untapped waiting to be usedEmployers already do offer PHI, my current role has PHI and my next role does. My view point is to incentivise PHI by scrapping VAT on it and to give tax breaks to businesses, self-employed and individuals who get PHI.
The idea is twofold; expand the private sector and get less people relying on long NHS waiting lists.
Which again makes it all the more stupid that benefits in kind and salary sacrifice schemes are going to taxed more from 2029.
They have these at my surgery and give you no indication you are seeing on of those rather than a qualified GP. Unless you hit the point of them telling you 'I can't do that, you need to see a GP'.I don't think it is the direction GPs necessarily want to go in TBF. NHSE has created a range of new posts described as medical associate professionals (MAPs) these are not qualified doctors or people with a medical degree. They provide funding specifically to employ these roles whilst not recruiting GPs.
Perhaps the plan is for a poverty NHS primary care service provided by these people with GPs reserved only for those who pay.
Nigel Farage reported to police over 'election fraud' allegations
The Reform UK leader, 61, has been accused of falsifying his election expenses during his successful bid to become an MP last year.
runs in the party it seemsSuch a grubby little man
But have you thought that through?We really ought to establish charges for GP, A&E and even overnight stays in hospitals. Prescription charges were introduced because demand was too high and people would get medicines they didn't need e.g. paracetamol.
A Government serious about 'fixing' healthcare provision in the UK needs to consider getting as many younger people on PHI and incentivised via employers or tax rebates and so on. This government is already doing by the back door by getting private sector practices to fill the gaps - at significant cost to the tax payer.
SOME employers offer PHI.Employers already do offer PHI, my current role has PHI and my next role does. My view point is to incentivise PHI by scrapping VAT on it and to give tax breaks to businesses, self-employed and individuals who get PHI.
The idea is twofold; expand the private sector and get less people relying on long NHS waiting lists.
Which again makes it all the more stupid that benefits in kind and salary sacrifice schemes are going to taxed more from 2029.
Budgets going up below inflation while demand due to an increasing and ageing population getting ever higher. It's a reduction in the per patient spend and in effect austerity and in many cases over the last 15 years designed to further enable the creep of private healthcare. As I've said before you give private healthcare the scope and scale of the NHS and I guarantee it would be less effective in outcomes and less efficient in working than the NHS is.lol - even though the budgets were never actually cut. 'The Left' blames everything on 'austerity' when in reality its been an exercise to reduce the rate public expenditure was increasing. The bigger issue is that public bodies are spending money like drunk sailors and there's usually v little accountability on where the money is going.
One such example is the NHS spent £1.3bn on decarbonisation and it's yielded no results. Or, the massive increase on middle managers on 5 figure salaries (e.g. Directors of DEI on £100k+).
SOME employers offer PHI.
IMO ALL employers with large workforces should have to provide healthcare for their employees. If there are sites with lots of workers on even employing an onsite doctor. And the biggest selling point of that is the amount of money companies lose each year due to absenteeism, although there probably should be some form of tax break for both the individual and the business to incentivise it too.
And as I said elsewhere expanding the private sector doesn't increase capacity - it's the same doctors and consultants. So either they can't spend that time on private healthcare patients, meaning people still have to rely on the NHS, or they do spend that time with private healthcare meaning less people are seen on the NHS and the waiting lists don't go down.
Not if it's provided free by the employer and you exempt it from any kind of BiK.The take up would be negligible amongst most workers due to cost
Police are on itThere’s loads across other social media Oete, it needs collating and cataloguing or it might just look a bit salty after a loss. I saw one list from a lady saying her grandson had lost teeth and others about being hit.
Prescription charges were introduced purely because medicines are expensive. If it was about them being inappropriately prescribed it would be dealt with another way.We really ought to establish charges for GP, A&E and even overnight stays in hospitals. Prescription charges were introduced because demand was too high and people would get medicines they didn't need e.g. paracetamol.
A Government serious about 'fixing' healthcare provision in the UK needs to consider getting as many younger people on PHI and incentivised via employers or tax rebates and so on. This government is already doing by the back door by getting private sector practices to fill the gaps - at significant cost to the tax payer.
Try and sell your plan to a local SME, I'm sure they'll be buzzing about the VAT savingEmployers already do offer PHI, my current role has PHI and my next role does. My view point is to incentivise PHI by scrapping VAT on it and to give tax breaks to businesses, self-employed and individuals who get PHI.
The idea is twofold; expand the private sector and get less people relying on long NHS waiting lists.
Which again makes it all the more stupid that benefits in kind and salary sacrifice schemes are going to taxed more from 2029.
Ah but that's on the BBC what are the others saying?Unwelcome, if not unexpected news
Covid scheme fraud hit almost £11bn but much 'beyond recovery', report says
The response to the pandemic led to "enormous outlays of public money which exposed it to the risk of fraud and error", a report says.www.bbc.co.uk
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?