The great NHS swindle
Did you ever wonder just how much our "free" National Health Service is actually costing us? Giles Whittell in the Times has done the sums:
Next year’s NHS budget will be about £104 billion. That’s roughly £1,733 per man, woman and child. Multiplied by four for a typical two-child family, then divided by 12, that equates to median monthly family healthcare expenditure of £577, or $1,155 in American money. I can buy some very respectable US health insurance for $1,155 a month. In fact, on a quick and painless stroll through the website for Kaiser Permanente, a leading nonprofit US healthcare provider, entering my basic family details and the Beverly Hills zipcode, the most expensive family policy I can find that does not depend on contributions from the state or an employer costs $400 less than the sum Gordon Brown currently chooses to spend from my taxes, each month, on the NHS.
Being honest, I must add a few hundred to my US bill to cover "deductibles" and the portion of my US taxes going to federal schemes like Medicare and Medicaid. But I must also cop to earning more than the UK average, which means I pay more than average for my NHS care; through the nose, as I say.
American roadworks tend to be adorned with signs announcing, "Your Tax Dollars at Work". There should be signs saying "Your Tax Pounds at Work" at the entrance to every NHS hospital and surgery, and whenever "at work" fails to describe what goes on inside them, taxpayer-patients should whinge like hell. They may not like it. They may not think it British, but nothing else is working and in the meantime they are being royally ripped off.
Really? But aren’t waiting lists down, as Mr Blair used to tell us every Wednesday? I would refer the Right Honourable gentleman to a recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court in favour of a man who sued to be allowed to buy insurance to speed up an operation. "Access to a waiting list," the court found, "is not access to healthcare." Even now the concept of the National Health Service is practically beyond criticism. The very idea that our national health care system might be funded not by taxation but by insurance (such as the proposals recommended by the New Party) just has not found its way onto the agenda of the main parties. The Labour Party is against the notion on principle and the Conservative Party refuses to countenance the possibility for fear of the electoral consequences. It is long past time for politicians to recognise the truth, and tell it to the rest of us: there is no such thing as a free lunch and there's no such thing as free health care. There is a real prospect of a more efficient, effective and affordable health care system if only the politicians can summon up the guts to develop one.
|