Radical reform of the NHS is planned under the Health and Social Care Bill, with competition from private providers, but it's not about to become "NHS plc" funded from insurance. Private companies will only "cherry pick" the easiest and most profitable procedures. The common serious and chronic conditions like cancer, heart disease, complications of obesity and alcohol abuse will continue to be treated by the NHS, funded out of taxation.
It's a logistical nightmare and impossible to have a differential system of taxation for the NHS based on actuarial estimates of health risk for every individual in the UK. There are few illnesses which are not in some degree the result of lifestyle. Smoking is not the only example, but the tax revenue from smoking is twice the estimated cost to the NHS of treating smoking-related illness (5 billion GBP, or 5% of the NHS budget, each year). Most common cancers are the result of lifestyle ( diet and smoking), and also cost the NHS around 5 billion GBP. Obesity-related illness costs a similar amount. Illness from alcohol abuse costs around 3 billion GBP. Lifestyle is a major influence on the chance of getting a heart attack.
The NHS per capita cost in the UK as a whole is around 1,250 GBP. In North Yorkshire (where Graham lives) it's 1500 GBP.
None of us know for sure how much health care we will need in a lifetime.
The NHS is far from perfect. But competition within health care does not work - cost may fall but so also will quality. I prefer to pay for my health care needs, whatever they may be, by taxation. Paying through insurance, or when you need treatment if you or your relatives can afford it - as in the Philippines - is a scenario I never wish to see in the UK.
Originally Posted by Doc Alan
