BUPA and healthcare.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

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.

Comments

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

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.

[ygrii-blop.livejournal.com]

Here come all the sheep bleating about, "Why should I pay for some lazy worthless piece of human filth's healthcare?"

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How long until someone in the UK tries to ban it?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

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.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

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.

[thedinglestarry.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think our NHS / BUPA system is good. I'm not gonna say it doesn't make me uncomfortable to think that poorer people often get a shittier service, BUT before I get jumped on, that's not the fault of BUPA. That just means that the NHS needs to improve its regulation, infrastructure, monitoring, organisation, etc, to make its standards better. And as you pointed out, people who can afford to switch to BUPA are actually facilitating that by relieving pressure on the NHS. So yeah, I think it's good.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, we know that in civilized developed countries like Canada and the UK that have grappled with and tamed the health care distribution problem y'all have the luxury of having these kinds of debates. But you have to understand that to us poor sods living in the US it comes across as a bit like arguing about whether or not to have ice cream with your apple pie. We're in an 8 tier system with tiers 1-2 being, essentially, "get sick and you're utterly fucked".

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

By what I've seen living in London, people with serious complaints get seen first, and thus serious complaints tend to go to the NHS. I had a severe (and possibly deadly) allergic reaction a few years back and was kept under observation all night and met with a specialist within 24 hours.

On the other hand, if your complaint is not life threatening/does not impinge on your quality of life much, it would be best to go private because you'll be waiting for a LONG time. My mother had a painless lump on her finger which somewhat reduced her ability to use that hand; as soon as they realised it wasn't cancer or otherwise a threat, she had to wait several months to be seen. My brother has troubled breathing through his nose, and had to wait almost six months until they gave in and went private.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

It's a good thing. The best way to allocate limited resources is the free market, where people get to decide how much a particular service is worth TO THEM. As long as everybody gets basic service, what's wrong with have two tiers? The only problem comes if the bottom tier's service is unacceptable. And if it is, well, that needs to be fixed. Forcing the rich to suffer unacceptably poor service is not the way to make things better.