General News Thread

[CornwallFox]

Just regarding discussion of insurance based healthcare systems. While there are better outcomes around the world than we have currently here, that isn't because of the funding model. Money paid in through insurance or tax is still just money. What you tend to find in the places with the best outcomes is that collaboration is the key, rather than competition as we try to use here. 

 

Competition between health bodies does not lead to better results. What we should be doing to maximising collaboration.

 

If it needs greater funding then funding via taxation is actually a better and more democratic way to go imo as the government gets to choose how to focus those costs within society - ie what taxes and at what levels to employ to bring in the revenue. It also means the government retains control over the system if changes are needed.

 

An insurance model leaves it up to corporations how to generate revenue from customers, and also can leave insurance payers unprotected on a whim in the same way other insurance can. 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, danny. said:

 

it’s not the way “the rest of Europe does things”, healthcare systems are extremely mixed in ideology and implementation throughout Europe. I’d encourage you to do some research on this as it does seem like you’re not very well informed (I don’t mean that as an insult). 
 

Of course politicians lie, I don’t trust any of them. But to a point we have to go on statements and manifestos, otherwise why talk about anything? They might just u-turn on the lot (i.e. many important things Starmer promised) or implement things they have no mandate for (i.e. digital ID). 

Allow me to rephrase then: I think (and could substantiate) that they are ideologically driven to the point they would prioritise an American policy option over any one practised in Europe. 

 

Don't worry, I didn't take that as an insult and I shall look a little more into this, but I'm still wondering where this confidence in this party to implement solutions that decrease, rather than increase, inequality comes from. But on the topic of being informed and researching, I do wish that a lot of potential Reform voters would also do some more of the same in some scientific policy matters.  

Edited 16 September 2025 by leicsmac

[danny.]

I would genuinely love to see the evidence you have that shows Reform want to specifically implement a US style model of insurance backed healthcare. 
 

You say that Reform want to make inequality worse, but in reality that’s already started and happening under both Labour and the Tories as we’ve now reached a two tier health system where those that can afford private insurance have far better care than those who can’t. 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, danny. said:

I would genuinely love to see the evidence you have that shows Reform want to specifically implement a US style model of insurance backed healthcare. 
 

You say that Reform want to make inequality worse, but in reality that’s already started and happening under both Labour and the Tories as we’ve now reached a two tier health system where those that can afford private insurance have far better care than those who can’t. 

Empirical scientific evidence? No. A reasonable educated assumption based on their behaviour so far? Yes. But then, assumptions are all we both have, and everyone else, has.

 

As I've said above, either of us could be right on this one and we won't know until if/when they have enough power to set policy. But again as per above, I really don't think it's worth the chance, and I'll add that should it happen, I really do hope that you're right and I'm wrong. More lives than a lot of people can imagine depend on it, both in the NHS and other policy areas. 

 

"One of us is going to be wrong. I think that it is you. I hope that it is me."

 

Edit: WRT inequality, a similar argument exists there. I don't think for a second that their policies will do anything other than make inequality worse than it is now. Other people disagree, but the only way to be sure is to have it happen. 

Edited 16 September 2025 by leicsmac

[Trav Le Bleu]

30 minutes ago, danny. said:

I would genuinely love to see the evidence you have that shows Reform want to specifically implement a US style model of insurance backed healthcare. 
 

You say that Reform want to make inequality worse, but in reality that’s already started and happening under both Labour and the Tories as we’ve now reached a two tier health system where those that can afford private insurance have far better care than those who can’t. 

There's no evidence that Reform will do anything, there not being any historical record of their implementation of power.

 

They're not even 7 years in existence yet and any comments about what they will do has to be purely speculative. In fact, as history has repeatedly shown, what a political party has as policy often never happens.

 

There are very few facts in politics, but a great many opinions.

[danny.]

Not empirical scientific evidence, just evidence - an interview, a document, a policy, anything. Just evidence VS personal speculation, because anyone can speculate on anything but it doesn't make it factual.

 

I still find it bizarre you're arguing that moving to a difference implementation isn't worth the chance, as if the NHS is the best system out there and it's working well, because it's an absolute car crash right now and has been for some time.

I've highlighted the countries with insurance-based healthcare in yellow, and many of them are doing way better than we are, i.e. the Netherlands ranks first for accessibility/efficiency and Switzerland ranks first for patient satisfaction.

The Scandinavian and Nordic countries have NHS-style systems, and also perform better than the UK so we definitely don't have to move to insurance-based to improve, but as it stands the UK is worse than even Slovenia and Czechia who many would regard as second or third world countries, so I really don't buy that we can't afford to risk changing things, because we really can, and should.

 

[danny.]

2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

There's no evidence that Reform will do anything, there not being any historical record of their implementation of power.

 

They're not even 7 years in existence yet and any comments about what they will do has to be purely speculative. In fact, as history has repeatedly shown, what a political party has as policy often never happens.

 

There are very few facts in politics, but a great many opinions.

I asked for evidence as claims have been made. I agree with you re: the lack of evidence, but I'm not the person making specific claims. The burden of proof is on the claimant, otherwise it's just baseless speculation and theories.

[danny.]

51 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Just regarding discussion of insurance based healthcare systems. While there are better outcomes around the world than we have currently here, that isn't because of the funding model. Money paid in through insurance or tax is still just money. What you tend to find in the places with the best outcomes is that collaboration is the key, rather than competition as we try to use here. 

 

Competition between health bodies does not lead to better results. What we should be doing to maximising collaboration.

 

If it needs greater funding then funding via taxation is actually a better and more democratic way to go imo as the government gets to choose how to focus those costs within society - ie what taxes and at what levels to employ to bring in the revenue. It also means the government retains control over the system if changes are needed.

 

An insurance model leaves it up to corporations how to generate revenue from customers, and also can leave insurance payers unprotected on a whim in the same way other insurance can. 

Again, in the US style-system that is true. In a Switzerland/Netherlands et al-style system that simply isn't true. For example in both those countries practises like excluding or dropping policy holders or hiking premiums (as you'd find with i.e. car/house policies in the UK) or excluding pre-existing conditions (as UK private healthcare does right now) is literally illegal, and it's heavily regulated and in many countries state-backed.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, danny. said:

Not empirical scientific evidence, just evidence - an interview, a document, a policy, anything. Just evidence VS personal speculation, because anyone can speculate on anything but it doesn't make it factual.

 

I still find it bizarre you're arguing that moving to a difference implementation isn't worth the chance, as if the NHS is the best system out there and it's working well, because it's an absolute car crash right now and has been for some time.

I've highlighted the countries with insurance-based healthcare in yellow, and many of them are doing way better than we are, i.e. the Netherlands ranks first for accessibility/efficiency and Switzerland ranks first for patient satisfaction.

The Scandinavian and Nordic countries have NHS-style systems, and also perform better than the UK so we definitely don't have to move to insurance-based to improve, but as it stands the UK is worse than even Slovenia and Czechia who many would regard as second or third world countries, so I really don't buy that we can't afford to risk changing things, because we really can, and should.

 

My claim was not the initial one so I'm not sure where the burden of proof really lies here. 

 

However, I will say again and look for agreement:.

 

- The NHS should always be looking to adapt and reform to various pressures as needed

 

- There are positive changes that could come while maintaining the same kind of system

 

- The plans that Reform have for it can't really be ascertained unless and until they have power.

Edited 16 September 2025 by leicsmac

[danny.]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

My claim was not the initial one so in not sure where the burden of proof really lies here. 

 

However, I will say again and look for agreement:.

 

- The NHS should always be looking to adapt and reform to various pressures as needed

 

- There are positive changes that could come while maintaining the same kind of system

 

- The plans that Reform have for it can't really be ascertained unless and until they have power.

Sorry, maybe I've mixed you up - hard to follow on here when multitasking!

 

I think we can both agree on that list!

[AKCJ]

48 minutes ago, danny. said:

I asked for evidence as claims have been made. I agree with you re: the lack of evidence, but I'm not the person making specific claims. The burden of proof is on the claimant, otherwise it's just baseless speculation and theories.

You'd have a point if politicians stuck to their words and manifestos. Farage is up there with the worst of them. How anyone could possibly trust him with the role of Prime Minister is beyond me!

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

You'd have a point if politicians stuck to their words and manifestos. Farage is up there with the worst of them. How anyone could possibly trust him with the role of Prime Minister is beyond me!

He hasn't got a track record of rowing back on manifesto's as he himself or the party have never been in power!

 

Keir Starmer has a track record on this in only 12 months, and the Tories before that. So neither of the most recent parties in power have a track record, so what you are saying is baseless tbh.

 

I don't fancy reform at all at the next GE, I'm just pointing out you are comparing apples and pears here. 

[danny.]

7 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

You'd have a point if politicians stuck to their words and manifestos. Farage is up there with the worst of them. How anyone could possibly trust him with the role of Prime Minister is beyond me!

Because many people feel politically homeless and it's a case of voting for the least worst.

I don't trust Nigel Farage. I don't trust Kier Starmer (for obvious and well documented reasons) I don't trust scandal era Post Office minister Ed Davey, I don't trust boob growing hypnotist Zack Polanski, I don't trust Tory anyone, including Kemi Badenoch. What a choice, eh. So is trusting anyone even a factor considering they are all awful?

[AKCJ]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

He hasn't got a track record of rowing back on manifesto's as he himself or the party have never been in power!

 

Keir Starmer has a track record on this in only 12 months, and the Tories before that. So neither of the most recent parties in power have a track record, so what you are saying is baseless tbh.

 

I don't fancy reform at all at the next GE, I'm just pointing out you are comparing apples and pears here. 

This is all the sort of thing that people tell each other to the point that we will end up with that scam artist being in 10 Downing St. It is absolutely terrifying.

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

Again, in the US style-system that is true. In a Switzerland/Netherlands et al-style system that simply isn't true. For example in both those countries practises like excluding or dropping policy holders or hiking premiums (as you'd find with i.e. car/house policies in the UK) or excluding pre-existing conditions (as UK private healthcare does right now) is literally illegal, and it's heavily regulated and in many countries state-backed.

Again though, having insurance just brings inefficiencies into the system. Suddenly you're paying for the shareholders' bubbly. 

I'm never a fan of the fake removal of tax costs - that is to say, when a government tells you something costs taxpayers x amount so better to do it privately, there's never been anything that hasn't ended up costing more in this country. If you have to pay either way, taxation is more efficient.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

You'd have a point if politicians stuck to their words and manifestos. Farage is up there with the worst of them. How anyone could possibly trust him with the role of Prime Minister is beyond me!

Changes tack more often than Ben Ainslie.

[StanSP]

Despicable acts. 

Look at the nose on the guy on the bottom right

 

 

 

 

[Robo61]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

Not empirical scientific evidence, just evidence - an interview, a document, a policy, anything. Just evidence VS personal speculation, because anyone can speculate on anything but it doesn't make it factual.

 

I still find it bizarre you're arguing that moving to a difference implementation isn't worth the chance, as if the NHS is the best system out there and it's working well, because it's an absolute car crash right now and has been for some time.

I've highlighted the countries with insurance-based healthcare in yellow, and many of them are doing way better than we are, i.e. the Netherlands ranks first for accessibility/efficiency and Switzerland ranks first for patient satisfaction.

The Scandinavian and Nordic countries have NHS-style systems, and also perform better than the UK so we definitely don't have to move to insurance-based to improve, but as it stands the UK is worse than even Slovenia and Czechia who many would regard as second or third world countries, so I really don't buy that we can't afford to risk changing things, because we really can, and should.

 

Not sure what this graph shows but I'll wager that if you compared the amont of funding dedicated to healthcare in these countries the UK would be very close to the bottom.  For instance Germany spends almost 50% more of its GDP on Healthcare as the UK,  little wonder then we have fallen behind.  Some 15 years ago the NHS was seen by many international organisations as the best and most efficient healthcare system in the world,  sadly after over a decade of under invesatment and misrule we have slipped way down that league table.  

[Robo61]

3 hours ago, danny. said:

Again, in the US style-system that is true. In a Switzerland/Netherlands et al-style system that simply isn't true. For example in both those countries practises like excluding or dropping policy holders or hiking premiums (as you'd find with i.e. car/house policies in the UK) or excluding pre-existing conditions (as UK private healthcare does right now) is literally illegal, and it's heavily regulated and in many countries state-backed.

So a similar model to how our water industry is run today,  how is that going??  I fail to see how private healthcare companies can possibly compete with each other and not incur costs over and above that of a nationalised model.  That doesn't mean that the NHS doesn't require reform I am sure it does,  but lets not continue to pretend that this cointry can have scandie type public seervices for the tacation of the USA,  it all has to be paid for some how and I would rather pay are carers a good wage than pay already wealthy shareholders their profits.  

[danny.]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

Again though, having insurance just brings inefficiencies into the system. Suddenly you're paying for the shareholders' bubbly. 

I'm never a fan of the fake removal of tax costs - that is to say, when a government tells you something costs taxpayers x amount so better to do it privately, there's never been anything that hasn't ended up costing more in this country. If you have to pay either way, taxation is more efficient.

Not like the NHS is a model of efficiency though?

 

 

16 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Not sure what this graph shows but I'll wager that if you compared the amont of funding dedicated to healthcare in these countries the UK would be very close to the bottom.  For instance Germany spends almost 50% more of its GDP on Healthcare as the UK,  little wonder then we have fallen behind.  Some 15 years ago the NHS was seen by many international organisations as the best and most efficient healthcare system in the world,  sadly after over a decade of under invesatment and misrule we have slipped way down that league table.  

It's the Legatum Health Index rating of European countries from 2023 (I didn't quickly find a more up to date source, I doubt enough has changed to massively affect the ratings since, though).

 

Where is your data for Germany from? The latest I can find is 2023 which shows Germany spends at 11.8% GDP vs UK at 11.1% GDP (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/bulletins/ukhealthaccounts/2023and2024) so pretty much the same?

[danny.]

6 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

So a similar model to how our water industry is run today,  how is that going??  I fail to see how private healthcare companies can possibly compete with each other and not incur costs over and above that of a nationalised model.  That doesn't mean that the NHS doesn't require reform I am sure it does,  but lets not continue to pretend that this cointry can have scandie type public seervices for the tacation of the USA,  it all has to be paid for some how and I would rather pay are carers a good wage than pay already wealthy shareholders their profits.  

No, absolutely nothing like our water model? How are you comparing costs of water supply and drainage to an insurance-backed medical system? 

 

Our taxation levels are way above the US - not sure again why you've made that comparison? Many states have 0% income tax and sales tax (VAT) is between zero and 10% depending on state vs 20%. NI is way less, fuel duty way less, no stamp duty etc. everything is way less.

[danny.]

34 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Not sure what this graph shows but I'll wager that if you compared the amont of funding dedicated to healthcare in these countries the UK would be very close to the bottom.  For instance Germany spends almost 50% more of its GDP on Healthcare as the UK,  little wonder then we have fallen behind.  Some 15 years ago the NHS was seen by many international organisations as the best and most efficient healthcare system in the world,  sadly after over a decade of under invesatment and misrule we have slipped way down that league table.  

Pulled together some data, again it's from 2023 - there doesn't seem to be much 2024 data out there, again I doubt anything has massively changed:

 

So using to OECD/ONS data, UK healthcare spending was about 11.3% of GDP in 2022 which would make us 3rd/4th highest on that list.

[CornwallFox]

41 minutes ago, danny. said:

Not like the NHS is a model of efficiency though?

 

 

It's the Legatum Health Index rating of European countries from 2023 (I didn't quickly find a more up to date source, I doubt enough has changed to massively affect the ratings since, though).

 

Where is your data for Germany from? The latest I can find is 2023 which shows Germany spends at 11.8% GDP vs UK at 11.1% GDP (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/bulletins/ukhealthaccounts/2023and2024) so pretty much the same?

My understanding is that NHS efficiency improvements over the last decade have outstripped any other organisation. I think it's very easy for people to point at a large sum of money going in and to then say it's inefficient without any real analysis or reason for that belief 

[kenny]

9 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

My understanding is that NHS efficiency improvements over the last decade have outstripped any other organisation. I think it's very easy for people to point at a large sum of money going in and to then say it's inefficient without any real analysis or reason for that belief 

Hats off to that government? 

[CornwallFox]

38 minutes ago, danny. said:

Pulled together some data, again it's from 2023 - there doesn't seem to be much 2024 data out there, again I doubt anything has massively changed:

 

So using to OECD/ONS data, UK healthcare spending was about 11.3% of GDP in 2022 which would make us 3rd/4th highest on that list.

Doesn't this only takes into account state spending? It doesn't include insurance costs which people have to pay, so not really a fair comparison, as it isn't counting the full cost?