Household tax bills need to rise by £2,000 a year to save the NHS and help it reach its waiting time targets, economists warn

[*]Institute for Fiscal Studies warns tax will have to rise for NHS to keep running 
[*]It warns spending on healthcare will have to increase by 3.3% over next 15 years
[*]Ageing population, more complex illnesses and rising cost of drugs are to blame


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5764763/UK-households-forced-pay-2-000-extra-tax-year-save-NHS.html#ixzz5GORnueTm 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


As I keep saying, throwing money continually at a problem. Is not going to solve that problem
What we need to do is adopt a far better system, like Canada, Australia etc

Mmmmm. This is on a par with the so called water shortage crisis being promoted at this time. Clearly, both are poorly managed. Or it's a smokescreen for the excuse to hike up prices and squeeze yet more money out of an already financially screwed public.

None of this is going to encourage people to work for a living. The way it's going it'll be cheaper to just go on benefits.

I thought Canada funded its health system by direct tax same as us. What is it they do differently?

Could someone please explain the systems in Canada and Australia so that we can compare them with out own system?

HoratioTarr wrote:Mmmmm.   This is on a par with the so called water shortage crisis being promoted at this time.   Clearly, both are poorly managed.  Or it's a smokescreen for the excuse to hike up prices and squeeze yet more money out of an already financially screwed public.

None of this is going to encourage people to work for a living.   The way it's going it'll be cheaper to just go on benefits.

Some people already think that. In fact, there can't be much difference between someone who gets minimum wage and someone on benefits who gets their rent paid.

Ageing population, more complex illnesses, and rising cost of drugs are to balme....what about too many people using and taking advantage of the services we offer?
That alone is a huge drain on the NHS.

Syl wrote:Ageing population, more complex illnesses, and rising cost of drugs are to balme....what about too many people using and taking advantage of the  services we offer?
That alone is a huge drain on the NHS.

Big big money in care homes that keep people alive way past their time. People in vegetative dementia states. People being fed with pegs. People being pumped full of antibiotics. That's one of the reasons people are living longer. It's all very well living to be 90 if you're hale and hearty and have all your faculties. But that's not the case.

Also, health tourists. Ban them. Stop allowing it.

They bang on about how our resources just can't keep up and yet they let more and more into the country that can barely sustain those already here.

Raggamuffin wrote:Could someone please explain the systems in Canada and Australia so that we can compare them with out own system?

I'm guessing they all have to have insurance.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:Ageing population, more complex illnesses, and rising cost of drugs are to balme....what about too many people using and taking advantage of the  services we offer?
That alone is a huge drain on the NHS.

Big big money in care homes that keep people alive way past their time.   People in vegetative dementia states.  People being fed with pegs.  People being pumped full of antibiotics.     That's one of the reasons people are living longer.   It's all very well living to be 90 if you're hale and hearty and have all your faculties.   But that's not the case.

Also, health tourists.   Ban them.   Stop allowing it.  

They bang on about how our resources just can't keep up and yet they let more and more into the country that can barely sustain those already here.  

Lots of care homes make fortunes, but they don't provide the specialised medical care...that's still down to the NHS, maybe they could plough some of their own profits into helping fund the NHS for old people.
Legalising euthanasia would help too.

Health tourism costs this country millions a year. It should be completely overhauled.
Also, the people who are supposed to chase up unpaid bills that are spent on untitled patients are apparently useless....they don't even try to get the money back.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Could someone please explain the systems in Canada and Australia so that we can compare them with out own system?

I'm guessing they all have to have insurance.  

Canada is tax based like us, it also uses corporate taxes and money from lotteries. Its dunded by the state and by each provinces taxes.

Raggamuffin wrote:Could someone please explain the systems in Canada and Australia so that we can compare them with out own system?

Why not look it up Rags?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia

Raggamuffin wrote:Could someone please explain the systems in Canada and Australia so that we can compare them with out own system?

Canada is fundamentally different it is more in common with the US system where the Hospitals are Privately owned businesses, the corner stone of it's system is a universal gov't insurance scheme. rather than 'taxed' they are charged a premium like normal insurance (just one owned by the gov't and not driven by profit)

Australia is very similar to the UK system, since it is modelled on it (gov't owns the hospitals, tax funded)
one of the differences is that the health department outsources some functions (like Cleaning etc) to private enterprise. So there might be some tweaks the UK can make to out source non core functions and reduce running costs.
Really the main difference is we put more money into it over the last few decades, our politicians/bureaucrats have better budgeted for the increased demands of a growing population.

TO be honest there is nothing wrong with the NHS, it just cost more to run that your politicians/bureaucrats are allocating it.
But that's not where they are wasting Your money, they waste it in other places and then ask for more, the NHS is what people are most likely to accept paying more tax for so that's what they underfund and 'claim' to need more money for..... they never mention all the waste on the house of lords and golden handshakes, corporate tax breaks etc.

Health care in Australia is largely provided by private medical practitioners or by private or government operated hospitals, with costs of medical services paid by private insurance or government agencies, and the balance payable by the patient. Medicare is Australia's universal health care system, which is the primary health scheme that subsidises most medical costs in Australia for all Australian citizens and permanent residents. A number of other schemes cover the medical costs in specific circumstances, such as for veterans or indigenous Australians, motor vehicle insurance, and workers' compensation schemes, besides others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia

Nothing like the NHS

it is, the vast majority in under Medicare which is like the NHS, most are government operated hospitals.

there is an Additional system of Private health insurance But EVERYONE is covered by Medicare by citizenship Like the NHS.

Most non-hospital Doctors are private Businesses that get a fee for treating people under Medicare. (I believe that is the same in the UK)


Maybe if Dingus Dumbass read more than the first paragraph he might have some basic knowledge of the situation

Medicare is financed by a Medicare levy, which is compulsory and administered through the tax system. The federal Minister for Health, currently Greg Hunt, administers national health policy, and state and territory governments administer elements of health care within their jurisdictions, such as the operation of hospitals. The funding model for health care in Australia has seen political polarisation, with governments being crucial in shaping national health care policy.

The first step towards fixing the UK’s health care system is admitting it’s broken.

https://qz.com/1201096/by-deifying-the-nhs-the-uk-will-never-fix-its-broken-health-care-system/

The Australian Medicare is often conceptualised as the ‘antipodean NHS’ but there are quite a few major philosophical and practical differences between the two systems. The biggest practical difference is in GP payments: under the Medicare system, doctors are paid per consultation, as opposed to the NHS system of capitation payments. The other major differences are:

Unlike the NHS, Medicare has no out-of-hours care requirement and working out of hours is completely voluntary.

On a philosophical level, the Medicare system tends toward greater doctor and patient freedom, and encourages GPs to be more entrepreneurial.

Patients choose their own practice and doctor and can move between practices as they wish, regardless of their location; similarly, doctors are not required to see any particular patient or patients.

https://www.alectoaustralia.com/nhs-vs-medicare-for-gps/

Which is what I SAID Dumbass, Most Non-hospital Doctors are Private business (there are some community ones), But Most Hospitals are Public like the NHS.

the others are minor difference when compared to Canadian or US systems.

And Out of hours care for the majority IS the Medicare funded hospital. the vast majority of Australia doesn't have the population density to warrant 24hour businesses in Any fashion


AND is anyone talking about GPs? No! no one is cause that's not the Problem Dingus, everyone is talking about HOSPITALS
IF you have nothing to Add to the conversation (which clearly you don't) STFU and let me and Raggs have a conversation with out your Moronic interruptions.

And this is why I now do not debate Veya, as everything is an insult or trying to silence me and it will remain this way until he learns some manners.

As seen, they are very different in many ways and have posted them for others to see and read for themselves. Its not done so as a reply to Veya, but for others to see for themselves whether it is or not.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Could someone please explain the systems in Canada and Australia so that we can compare them with out own system?

Canada is fundamentally different it is more in common with the US system where the Hospitals are Privately owned businesses, the corner stone of it's system is a universal gov't insurance scheme. rather than 'taxed' they are charged a premium like normal insurance (just one owned by the gov't and not driven by profit)

Australia is very similar to the UK system, since it is modelled on it (gov't owns the hospitals, tax funded)
one of the differences is that the health department outsources some functions (like Cleaning etc) to private enterprise. So there might be some tweaks the UK can make to out source non core functions and reduce running costs.
Really the main difference is we put more money into it over the last few decades, our politicians/bureaucrats have better budgeted for the increased demands of a growing population.

TO be honest there is nothing wrong with the NHS, it just cost more to run that your politicians/bureaucrats are allocating it.  
But that's not where they are wasting Your money, they waste it in other places and then ask for more, the NHS is what people are most likely to accept paying more tax for so that's what they underfund and 'claim' to need more money for..... they never mention all the waste on the house of lords and golden handshakes, corporate tax breaks etc.

Thank you Veya.

I agree that money is wasted on the things you mention, and that it could be used more properly for the common good. I don't think people would accept a rise in taxes/NI in order to prop up the NHS - we pay enough as it is. I also think that there are things which shouldn't come under the NHS - like over-the-counter medicines being prescribed to those who don't have to pay for prescriptions, but something is being done about that now. Medicine waste via people stockpiling drugs is being addressed too, and that's a good thing.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Big big money in care homes that keep people alive way past their time.   People in vegetative dementia states.  People being fed with pegs.  People being pumped full of antibiotics.     That's one of the reasons people are living longer.   It's all very well living to be 90 if you're hale and hearty and have all your faculties.   But that's not the case.

Also, health tourists.   Ban them.   Stop allowing it.  

They bang on about how our resources just can't keep up and yet they let more and more into the country that can barely sustain those already here.  

Lots of care homes make fortunes, but they don't provide the specialised medical care...that's still down to the NHS, maybe they could plough some of their own profits into helping fund the NHS for old people.
Legalising euthanasia would help too.

Health tourism costs this country millions a year. It should be completely overhauled.
Also, the people who are supposed to chase up unpaid bills that are spent on untitled patients are apparently useless....they don't even try to get the money back.

How can you get the money back? When they've fucked off back to whatever country they came from? It's insanity.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Lots of care homes make fortunes, but they don't provide the specialised medical care...that's still down to the NHS, maybe they could plough some of their own profits into helping fund the NHS for old people.
Legalising euthanasia would help too.

Health tourism costs this country millions a year. It should be completely overhauled.
Also, the people who are supposed to chase up unpaid bills that are spent on untitled patients are apparently useless....they don't even try to get the money back.

How can you get the money back?  When they've fucked off back to whatever country they came from?   It's insanity.  

That's why I said the whole way health tourism is treated should be overhauled.

For none emergency services we could always insist on payment upfront or refuse to treat people unless they have adequate international insurance.

Raggamuffin wrote:
Could someone please explain the systems in Canada and Australia so that we can compare them with out own system?

Might be easier if any of the Brits on here can actually explain just how the British NHS is funded and operated,  --  as it seems to have become increasingly complicated, discombobulated and confused over the past few decades,  simply going by various criticisms on here over recent months...

Then, you can start looking for various differences that have reputedly produced superior health systems in Luxembourg, France, Holland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Qatar, et al..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Could someone please explain the systems in Canada and Australia so that we can compare them with out own system?

Might be easier if any of the Brits on here can actually explain just how the British NHS is funded and operated,  --  as it seems to have become increasingly complicated, discombobulated and confused over the past few decades,  simply going by various criticisms on here over recent months...

Then, you can start looking for various differences that have reputedly produced superior health systems in Luxembourg, France, Holland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Qatar, et al..

Massive +1 and well said Wolf

Down here, less than 15% of the hospitals are privately owned; and even then, that portion owned by the Catholic church, and a couple of SDA-owned, also operate within the Public system under contract..

Allied with the fact that the biggest hospitals are State-owned public ones, over 90% of the total hospital beds are "Public" health system beds (compared with less than 10% over in the USA -- hence their ongoing chronic shortage of hospital beds for the bottom economic half of the American population..).

Here is a guided tour of the closest Public Hospital to here :

http://www.hnehealth.nsw.gov.au/facilities/hospitals/Pages/John-Hunter-Hospital.aspx

(Just check how "freakin' ginormous" that place is ! And it's bushland setting..).

I will add to your last point Wolf. People have been for years fed a diet and belief around the NHS, being the perfect example of a health system. Whilst the idea is brilliant and genius, it is and has been growing clearly to be. Impraticle and patients more and more and feeling the consequences of this system that is falling apart at the seams.

People have to stop living in the past. Its a completely defunked system, that is now more so endangering lives than anything else. As the system cannot cope. What is even more worrying, is its only going to get worse. We have to accept the fact that we have an ever increasing elderly population and an ever increasing birth rate. Both of which are the two groups that are more susceptible to illness than any other group. Sorry but the arguments around health tourism, are absolute bollocks and nothing more than a sham to the actual problems of the NHS. Its trying to use a miniscule amount of money as a reason to the problems of the NHS. Ignoring the actual problems with the NHS.

So when people argue this, they are basically blind to the actual problems of the system and it should never even be used as an argument.

https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-much-do-they-cost-and-who-pays/

I mean to use this as an argument, when a health system, should be universal, no matter the people you treat. Defeats the very object of the NHS concept. So people using this poor argument, are by default. Argung against the NHS anyway. As their arguments then expands to the grounds of geographical health. Not health for all people. As seen the amount is minisule in real terms and is not what is needed to reform the NHS.

This is the problem with the NHS and how people are blind to the issues, they sadly want to blaim others for its failings. Blatantly ignoring the NHS is only able to function, due to the help of a mass of immigrants. A third of doctors are foreign and without this alone, the system would collapse.

So either people believe that they system should be free at the point of entry, which includes anyone. Or they want to make this inclusive to only people born within a geographical sphere.

The reality is the NHS is a failing system, as it is just more money thrown in after bad. Its time people had a rethink on this and looked to others at how they work that much better than our system

Like I say, no country in the world has ever adopted the NHS system

Back in the 1970s,  countries such as Australia, Canada and France did look to the "concept" of the British system when organising their own domestic arrangements --  but then they increasingly diverged and diversified to suit their own countries' social systems and tax arrangements...

Until now, where France, Australia, NZ and Canada are consistently rated within the top 12 countries, while Britain has slipped back to 20th..

Another difference with the Aussie and Canadian systems could be that while they are funded on a federal level, the actual spending on hospitals and services is on a state/province level, and management is even more localised.  If Canada had more public hospitals, they might find themselves up higher in the ratings, closer to France and Oz..

What complicates the NHS is that many Ministers and MP's have vested interests and are shareholders for Private Healthcare and medical supply companies.
They are part of the gravy train, are a root cause of the problem and profiteer from the inefficiency in the BHS due to the sheer size of the operation.

'Selling off NHS for profit': Full list of MPs with links to private healthcare firms

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/selling-nhs-profit-full-list-4646154#ICID=Android_TMNewsApp_AppShare

Pity the Labour Government agreed to build Hospitals on borrowed money that we have to pay back for ever more

Didge wrote:I will add to your last point Wolf. People have been for years fed a diet and belief around the NHS, being the perfect example of a health system. Whilst the idea is brilliant and genius, it is and has been growing clearly to be. Impraticle and patients more and more and feeling the consequences of this system that is falling apart at the seams.

People have to stop living in the past. Its a completely defunked system, that is now more so endangering lives than anything else. As the system cannot cope. What is even more worrying, is its only going to get worse. We have to accept the fact that we have an ever increasing elderly population and an ever increasing birth rate. Both of which are the two groups that are more susceptible to illness than any other group. Sorry but the arguments around health tourism, are absolute bollocks and nothing more than a sham to the actual problems of the NHS. Its trying to use a miniscule amount of money as a reason to the problems of the NHS. Ignoring the actual problems with the NHS.

So when people argue this, they are basically blind to the actual problems of the system and it should never even be used as an argument.

https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-much-do-they-cost-and-who-pays/

I mean to use this as an argument, when a health system, should be universal, no matter the people you treat. Defeats the very object of the NHS concept. So people using this poor argument, are by default. Argung against the NHS anyway. As their arguments then expands to the grounds of geographical health. Not health for all people. As seen the amount is minisule in real terms and is not what is needed to reform the NHS.

This is the problem with the NHS and how people are blind to the issues, they sadly want to blaim others for its failings. Blatantly ignoring the NHS is only able to function, due to the help of a mass of immigrants. A third of doctors are foreign and without this alone, the system would collapse.

So either people believe that they system should be free at the point of entry, which includes anyone. Or they want to make this inclusive to only people born within a geographical sphere.

The reality is the NHS is a failing system, as it is just more money thrown in after bad. Its time people had a rethink on this and looked to others at how they work that much better than our system

Like I say, no country in the world has ever adopted the NHS system

People in the UK are supposed to help pay for the NHS and therefore be able to call on it if they need to, it's not supposed to be there to treat the whole world, including people from other countries who never paid into it. Of course not all Brits pay in - if they are benefits or not earning enough, etc.

What in your opinion is the problem with the NHS then if it's not money?

Treating foreigners who are not entitled costs us billions every year, for a start...


Then there was labours dodgy PFI deals that allowed private companies to build (and own and run) 50billion worth of new hospitals at a cost of 500billion to the taxpayer and that we are now having to pay for every year out of the NHS budgets...


Another 10% of the NHS budgets every year (which is 10billion a year out of the approx 100billion a year allocated) is spent on treatments for diabetes... when it is about 90% of the cases being treated that are totally cureable/preventable by healthy diet and exercise!!!


Other private companies that have been allowed to provide various other types of supply/maintenance/cleaning services etc, as well as IT and other 'consultancy' firms, and also the agency firms used for temporary staff etc... ARE ALL RIPPING THE ARSE OUT OF THE NHS FUNDS EVERY YEAR TOO!!!


I could go on...


But as far as the article claim of % rise... it's pretty much what the general inflation rate is anyway... so they might as well have just said that NHS budget needs to rise in line with inflation rate... which is pretty much what everything rises with anyway...!

Tommy Monk wrote:
Treating foreigners who are not entitled costs us billions every year, for a start...


Then there was labours dodgy PFI deals that allowed private companies to build (and own and run) 50billion worth of new hospitals at a cost of 500billion to the taxpayer and that we are now having to pay for every year out of the NHS budgets...


Another 10% of the NHS budgets every year (which is 10billion a year out of the approx 100billion a year allocated) is spent on treatments for diabetes... when it is about 90% of the cases being treated that are totally cureable/preventable by healthy diet and exercise!!!


Other private companies that have been allowed to provide various other types of supply/maintenance/cleaning services etc, as well as IT and other 'consultancy' firms, and also the agency firms used for temporary staff etc... ARE ALL RIPPING THE ARSE OUT OF THE NHS FUNDS EVERY YEAR TOO!!!


I could go on...


But as far as the article claim of % rise... it's pretty much what the general inflation rate is anyway... so they might as well have just said that NHS budget needs to rise in line with inflation rate... which is pretty much what everything rises with anyway...!

Yes. The diabetes issue is interesting. Type 2 can be controlled or reversed by losing weight and exercise. However, some people choose to take drugs instead, and that should be questioned.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:I will add to your last point Wolf. People have been for years fed a diet and belief around the NHS, being the perfect example of a health system. Whilst the idea is brilliant and genius, it is and has been growing clearly to be. Impraticle and patients more and more and feeling the consequences of this system that is falling apart at the seams.

People have to stop living in the past. Its a completely defunked system, that is now more so endangering lives than anything else. As the system cannot cope. What is even more worrying, is its only going to get worse. We have to accept the fact that we have an ever increasing elderly population and an ever increasing birth rate. Both of which are the two groups that are more susceptible to illness than any other group. Sorry but the arguments around health tourism, are absolute bollocks and nothing more than a sham to the actual problems of the NHS. Its trying to use a miniscule amount of money as a reason to the problems of the NHS. Ignoring the actual problems with the NHS.

So when people argue this, they are basically blind to the actual problems of the system and it should never even be used as an argument.

https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-much-do-they-cost-and-who-pays/

I mean to use this as an argument, when a health system, should be universal, no matter the people you treat. Defeats the very object of the NHS concept. So people using this poor argument, are by default. Argung against the NHS anyway. As their arguments then expands to the grounds of geographical health. Not health for all people. As seen the amount is minisule in real terms and is not what is needed to reform the NHS.

This is the problem with the NHS and how people are blind to the issues, they sadly want to blaim others for its failings. Blatantly ignoring the NHS is only able to function, due to the help of a mass of immigrants. A third of doctors are foreign and without this alone, the system would collapse.

So either people believe that they system should be free at the point of entry, which includes anyone. Or they want to make this inclusive to only people born within a geographical sphere.

The reality is the NHS is a failing system, as it is just more money thrown in after bad. Its time people had a rethink on this and looked to others at how they work that much better than our system

Like I say, no country in the world has ever adopted the NHS system

People in the UK are supposed to help pay for the NHS and therefore be able to call on it if they need to, it's not supposed to be there to treat the whole world, including people from other countries who never paid into it. Of course not all Brits pay in - if they are benefits or not earning enough, etc.

What in your opinion is the problem with the NHS then if it's not money?

Oh okay, so what you are saying is that my parents were not entittled to the NHS correct?

Tommy Monk wrote:
Treating foreigners who are not entitled costs us billions every year, for a start...



https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-much-do-they-cost-and-who-pays/

Care to respond to you bollocks?

So if people serve the UK, are they not entittled, even if they do not live here?

I don't think the NHS is broken, it is one of four types of health care which other countries use - perhaps with a bit of tweeking.
Don't know if this will help:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

Vintage wrote:I don't think the NHS is broken, it is one of four types of health care which other countries use - perhaps with a bit of tweeking.
Don't know if this will help:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

It doesn't seem broken to me either.

Vintage wrote:I don't think the NHS is broken, it is one of four types of health care which other countries use - perhaps with a bit of tweeking.
Don't know if this will help:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html

Which other countries?

I see the NHS as appalling

Its a drain on money and in effect is costing people lives

How many more years is people going to wait and sleep on the floor to wait to see doctors in A&E?

The ones in the link or whatever
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html
There's the Beveridge model, the Bismark model etc

Vintage wrote:The ones in the link or whatever
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html
There's the Beveridge model, the Bismark model etc

That is a book about the healing off America, so and?

Yes but it lists which countries use each type of system, the NHS is one system used by some of the countries with a few variations maybe so it can't be all bad.

Vintage wrote:Yes but it lists which countries use each type of system, the NHS is one system used by some of the countries with a few variations maybe so it can't be all bad.

Show me one country that uses the NHS system?

There are about 200 countries on our planet, and each country devises its own set of arrangements for meeting the three basic goals of a health care system: keeping people healthy, treating the sick, and protecting families against financial ruin from medical bills.

But we don't have to study 200 different systems to get a picture of how other countries manage health care. For all the local variations, health care systems tend to follow general patterns. There are four basic systems:
The Beveridge Model



Countries using the Beveridge plan or variations on it include its birthplace Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia and New Zealand. Hong Kong still has its own Beveridge-style health care, because the populace simply refused to give it up when the Chinese took over that former British colony in 1997. Cuba represents the extreme application of the Beveridge approach; it is probably the world's purest example of total government control.
The Bismarck Model


The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.
The National Health Insurance Model

This system has elements of both Beveridge and Bismarck. It uses private-sector providers, but payment comes from a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. Since there's no need for marketing, no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, these universal insurance programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style for-profit insurance.

The single payer tends to have considerable market power to negotiate for lower prices; Canada's system, for example, has negotiated such low prices from pharmaceutical companies that Americans have spurned their own drug stores to buy pills north of the border. National Health Insurance plans also control costs by limiting the medical services they will pay for, or by making patients wait to be treated.

The classic NHI system is found in Canada, but some newly industrialized countries -- Taiwan and South Korea, for example -- have also adopted the NHI model.
The Out-of-Pocket Model

Model



[color=#ff00ff]Countries using the Beveridge plan or variations on it include its birthplace Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia and New Zealand. Hong Kong still has its own Beveridge-style health care, because the populace simply refused to give it up when the Chinese took over that former British colony in 1997. Cuba represents the extreme application of the Beveridge approach; it is probably the world's purest example of total government control.
The Bismarck Model


The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.
The National Health Insurance Model

This system has elements of both Beveridge and Bismarck. It uses private-sector providers, but payment comes from a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. Since there's no need for marketing, no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, these universal insurance programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style for-profit insurance.

The single payer tends to have considerable market power to negotiate for lower prices; Canada's system, for example, has negotiated such low prices from pharmaceutical companies that Americans have spurned their own drug stores to buy pills north of the border. National Health Insurance plans also control costs by limiting the medical services they will pay for, or by making patients wait to be treated.

The classic NHI system is found in Canada, but some newly industrialized countries -- Taiwan and South Korea, for example -- have also adopted the NHI model.
l

[/quote]

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:Yes but it lists which countries use each type of system, the NHS is one system used by some of the countries with a few variations maybe so it can't be all bad.

Show me one country that uses the NHS system?

Again, show me one country that has adopted the NHS system Vintage?

I just did.

Vintage wrote:I just did.

You never did, as no country has ever adopted the NHS system

They have made their own unique systems, which has similarities to the NHS, but not one has adopted the actual NHS system

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Treating foreigners who are not entitled costs us billions every year, for a start...



https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-much-do-they-cost-and-who-pays/

Care to respond to you bollocks?

So if people serve the UK, are they not entittled, even if they do not live here?

Posting fullfukked waffle links is not an argument...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


Care to respond to you bollocks?

So if people serve the UK, are they not entittled, even if they do not live here?

Posting fullfukked waffle links is not an argument...!!!

So you do not like facts then, that easily debunk your lies

Okay

You might find this interesting Vintage

Fullfact is not a credible source...


And posting a fullfact link is not an argument...!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Fullfact is not a credible source...


And posting a fullfact link is not an argument...!!

Okay, lets put this to the test

What did they post which was inaccurate then Tommy?

Do you have any links and evidence to dispute their claims?

Over to you

The thing is, you are like any radical religious believer. You do not want to look at actual evidence, as it might actually place doubt in your beliefs and this you fear more than anything. Its why you come out with crap claiming something that supports its reasons with evidence, is not credible and offer nothing to actually substanciate your claim.

You are like a religious zealot. That when its shown that the money on health tourism is minisucle. You simple do not want to believe the facts on this and blindly stick you head in the sand and continue to worship your xenophobic deity