Sarah You intentions seem genuine with regard to your health ideas, and your

Comment on General Election 2010 Poll Results by Helen.

Sarah

You intentions seem genuine with regard to your health ideas, and your tone has softened from your right wing previous posts, but you still don’t appreciate how important the NHS is to normal people, and how much people like me want to protect that. An idea like this would exacerbate the health inequalities that already exist in this country, which would be a disaster.

Regarding my query on identifying conditions ‘self inflicted’. I appreciate you aren’t a doctor and can’t explain this aspect of your idea. What I am certain of is that qualified professionals could not fairly categorise and advise on the best way to manage this scenario as there are too many variables, risk factors and genetic unknowns. In fact, a surpsising amount of medical conditions are idiopathic. I can see why you would want to single out obese people, smokers and alcohol abusers for ease of policy making, but this itself is a massive can of worms. There are also a multitude of other factors, e.g. what the difference between someone eating too much and being fat and getting Type 2 diabetes, and someone eating too much salt and having a stroke. One is more socially acceptable than the other. The guidelines on stopping smoking, alcohol and nutritional intake are routinely flouted by most of the population. If you really wanted to leave it up to medical professionals to legislate, you would find this would involve panels of professionals (probably working for private sector insurance companies and hospitals) mulling over casework, a massive drain on their resources and waste of their hands on training.

“Of course there will be ill people, the more important question is, are the waiting rooms more or less likely to be brimming with lots of ill people, therefore will the doctor have more time to spend with each patient or increase the times set for individual appointments?”

The answer is more likely or just as likely, if everyone adapts to the new model, the premises for the low income majority will be either the same as at present, or further marginalised due to scaling back of the basic government service you propose. Of course, the richer population will get whatever they pay for (which they do now anyway).

“Time IS money, are you suggesting these doctors work for free??? Do NHS doctors work for free? Do you?”

No, what I’m saying is once the bills are paid, the staff are paid and the treatment is paid for in the NHS, there is no board of directors looking for a cut of dosh from the service provision, therefore no ulterior motive to overbook, overtreat, overprescribe, oversubscribe patients. A private system, for example, for GPs may result in a desire to rush patients through for maximum income. If you think this doesn’t happen, look at stories of other private health services such as chiropractic or private dentistry (some, not all, of which are disagreeable and not in the patient’s best interests). I don’t think hospitals and GP practices should be profitable enterprises.

“I also happen to think that if you open the market and increase the competition you tend to up their game too.”

You would think so but look at the british rail network, look at the rip off electricity and gas suppliers. Often, competitive businesses are the ones most willing to fleece you and make themselves better off; is that something we should allow in healthcare? The provision of health care should never be treated like a business as people’s lives depend on it. Similarly the ambulance service, the police, fire and rescue – life and death public not private services.

“My belief in the reform of the NHS is about giving MORE people more of a choice…”

It would leave the majority of low income people with less choice and quality of services, of that I’m certain. Plus, why call it NHS reform when clearly it’s getting rid of our National Health Service and creating new businesses instead (plus a bog standard public service for the poorest people). The gap between health services for rich people and poor people would simply widen.

I think what’s vitally important to mention here is children. No matter what you political view is, whether it’s the child of a smack head, lazy benefit cheat, job seeker, factory worker, professional or an aristocrat, why should the parent’s money dictate the quality of health care that child receives?

As a side issue on organ donation, I’d say it’s always best to be on the list if you want to help someone unfortunate after you’re gone. Whilst there is a chance you might end up saving another George Best (albeit not for long), this wouldn’t bother me as let’s face it, I’d be dead and it would allow a surgeon to hone his/her skills in transplantation, plus my liver would then be famous. But seriously, the real benefit of a big list of organ donors, is that you are widening the opportunity for a match for someone who desperately needs it; I think this is worth it regardless.