http://green-man-2010.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] green-man-2010.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2010-11-18 12:25 am
Entry tags:

BUPA and healthcare.

In the UK, a company known as BUPA is offering private healthcare to anyone who wants and can afford it.

This is not a replacement for the NHS, but rather, it runs alongside it.
A lot of firms will take out health insurabnce on their top people, or even offer it to their rank and file employees as a tax deductable 'perk' of the job.

Now, this might mean that you have an accident or illness, and instead of going on a six month waiting list to get seen on the NHS, you get the option of 'going private' and getting seen to sooner.

Now, to some , this is seen as grossly unfair. If you have money, you can ' jump the queue', they say.

However, those in favour of BUPA look at it another way - they still pay for the NHS, however, by taking out private Healthcare on top of this, they enable the NHS to get to other people faster- "let's be honest, if I never had BUPA, I would be in front of someone else in the queue - by taking myself off to BUPA, I free up a doctor, an operating theatre and a hospital bed for somebody else. And I still pay for that in my taxes", thus argues one BUPA patient.

Of course, the 'safety net' is still there for those who cannot afford BUPA, and for all that people from the Daily Mail talk about "Britain's third rate, Third World health service", you really have to go to the Third World yourself and take a look.

Ok, we call it ' the developing world' these days, but go there sometime and take a look.
Fact - in hospitals in the UK, we have incubators for premature babies, we have CAt scanners and ECGs, we have vaccines and specialists and X ray machines.

In some countries in the world, they do not have electricity or even proper sanitation.

The NHS may not get to see you as soon as you like, but I will maintain that in the UK, you stand a better chance of living to be five years old, and living longer past your 50th birthday than you would in a lot of other places. If you know different, then show me.

Britain is one of the few places on Earth where you get a public *and* a private healthcare program to take care of you. I wonder what our community makes of this.
A two tier healthcare system : Is it a good thing, a bad thing or does it make no difference? Why do you think so?
Over to you.

[identity profile] the-rukh.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 12:38 am (UTC)(link)
I think when it comes to healthcare, a two-tier system is ideal actually. Healthcare is a baseline necessity, but if people want to pay for top-of-the-line service, they should be able to do that too.

[identity profile] ygrii-blop.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 12:48 am (UTC)(link)
Here come all the sheep bleating about, "Why should I pay for some lazy worthless piece of human filth's healthcare?"

[identity profile] nikoel.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
I agree. There should definitely be care for all and then if you can afford it, you can spend your money to get faster care. As long as there are incentives for good, quality doctors to treat the lower tier, I'm all for it.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 12:55 am (UTC)(link)
How long until someone in the UK tries to ban it?

[identity profile] nikoel.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 12:55 am (UTC)(link)
It really seems like the only honest compromise between the left and the right.

[identity profile] mrsilence.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 01:18 am (UTC)(link)
Why would they do that? Seriously.

If we are talking about either side of the political divide, the only people with any kind of mandate or major popular support who might to ban this, is the far right wing who want to stop paying for NHS altogether, something which I don't think they have nearly enough public support to make any real headway on.

[identity profile] devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 02:06 am (UTC)(link)
I guess that contributes to the fact that Great Britain's infant mortality rate is much better than the U.S.

[identity profile] devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 02:24 am (UTC)(link)
(estimated for 2010)

U.S. - 6.14 per thousand live births

United Kingdom - 4.69 per thousand live births

...not to mention the other forty-five countries who beat the U.S.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 02:48 am (UTC)(link)
Why would they do that? Seriously.

This was law in Quebec for a time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_General)).

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 02:48 am (UTC)(link)
I'm hoping we dismantle federal health care entirely.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 02:54 am (UTC)(link)
The government in that case is the employer. I'm not sure I'd support barring any employer, no matter who they are, from offering insurance as a benefit.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 02:57 am (UTC)(link)
I don't see where an employer offering a benefit is socialism.

[identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 03:24 am (UTC)(link)
This is what we have in Australia and I think it works really well. Everyone pays for and has access to the safety net, but those with more economic resources can exercise their choice to have a greater level of luxury, speed and choice.

[identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 03:37 am (UTC)(link)
A few other aspects of it:

-The government kicks in 30% of the cost of private insurance for those earning under $250000. If you don't have private insurance by the age of 30 this drops 1% per year (ie: if you first take it out at 40 they pay 20%, 10% @ 50 etc)

-If you earn over $75000 and don't have private insurance you pay an extra 1.5% income tax.

-The best cover is around $250/month for singles $450/month for a family. The cheap options are $50 and $150/month (less if you want just hospital cover or just extras cover). From what I can tell, this is HEAPS cheaper than in the US.

[identity profile] badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 03:45 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, I'm a fair one.

[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 03:51 am (UTC)(link)
it is immoral that people can make money out of sickness and suffering

Just think of all those evil doctors expecting to get paid for thier time. The horror.

</Sarcasm

[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 03:52 am (UTC)(link)
Yes it is.

[identity profile] the-rukh.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 04:44 am (UTC)(link)
Yes, but you'd have a revolution if you made rich Americans pay 1.5% more tax.

[identity profile] sealwhiskers.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 05:47 am (UTC)(link)
Let me just say, as a person who've tried Swedish NHS, British NHS, used private clinics with my own money two times in those countries (for non life threatening things), that any variation or composition of this was still not anyway half as expensive as what I'm paying for equivalent health care services today, in the US.

[identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com 2010-11-18 08:08 am (UTC)(link)
Funnily, fought and paid for by poor Americans...

Page 1 of 3