I'm not against an opt-out system
whereby you pay your own health insuarance.

I believe there should be tax relief for those that opt out, but that the NHS hospitals and staff remain exclusively NHS without renting staff or ward space to private organisations.

I don't really know enough about how it could be practically put into practice, but I don't think it would be bad to have two or three parallel healthcare schemes - one NHS, and a couple of private organisations. I think it could improve efficiency and may get rid of some of the unneccessary management levels.

As a 40% tax payer (and 11% Nat. Insurance payer) I would like to feel I have some control over where my frankly huge contributions go, and feel that I benefit (or not) accordingly.
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 17 Mar 2010, 6:04, 2 replies)

40% Means a hell of a contribution.
But doesn't providing tax relief for people that opt out create a rather huge gap where people that have the money won't pay and people that need the service can't?

I'm all for getting rid of unnecessary management levels though. Why does every government run entity have to be so bloated and inefficient.
( Gooddeed89, Wed 17 Mar 2010, 11:38, closed)

Why does every government run entity have to be so bloated and inefficient?
The clue is in the question.
(davywavy, Wed 17 Mar 2010, 14:25, closed)

Except, you opt out and go private. But you're knocked unconscious in an accident, and taken to an NHS hospital for large amounts of very expensive treatment.
Do you get this free? Or do you perhaps pay the massive fees yourself? Because anything that involves a private organisation forking over the cash to the NHS is an absolute nightmare of forms, evasions and fuckwittery.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 17 Mar 2010, 17:36, closed)