Covid-19 Pandemic Thread

[Regulator]

The one good thing is that you are not supposed to have people around so I don't have to bother cleaning quite so often.

A person after my own heart!

[Iris]

Yes, "some kind of...", but the question is, what kind of?

The NHS of Tory MPs' dreams would presumably not be equally available to all, for free, at the point of delivery.

Not true.

The NHS of Tory MPs' dreams - or at least of their dreams a few months ago - would be free at point of delivery and equally available to all Britons. It would also be cheap for the taxpayer, probably pretty basic, and delivered by a mix of public, for-profit and not-for-profit organisations.

It would be also be possible to spend money, directly or via insurance, to bypass it and get a quicker or more luxurious experience.

I suspect many of their dreams have changed a bit now.

It's worth remembering that the British NHS model, paid for via taxation, is not the only model of socialised healthcare available. The German system we've all been admiring is a mixed model based on insurance contracts.

[Rutabaga]

Not everyone is a superfan of the insurance industry. Right now they are using small print to worm out of paying out to small businesses who have shelled out thousands in premiums. As ever.

[JohnToo]

Not true.

The NHS of Tory MPs' dreams - or at least of their dreams a few months ago - would be free at point of delivery and equally available to all Britons. It would also be cheap for the taxpayer, probably pretty basic, and delivered by a mix of public, for-profit and not-for-profit organisations.

It would be also be possible to spend money, directly or via insurance, to bypass it and get a quicker or more luxurious experience.

I suspect many of their dreams have changed a bit now.

It's worth remembering that the British NHS model, paid for via taxation, is not the only model of socialised healthcare available. The German system we've all been admiring is a mixed model based on insurance contracts.

OK - I think we're saying the same thing in different terms. A rather small subset of what the NHS currently provides would be available equally to all. Everything else would be differentially available depending on one's ability and willingness to pay.

[LowlifeDes]

It's worth remembering that the British NHS model, paid for via taxation, is not the only model of socialised healthcare available. The German system we've all been admiring is a mixed model based on insurance contracts.

How is it controlled though? At the start of this, Germany was said to be well stocked with ventilators and ICU beds. This was seen to be vindicating a decision to be well prepared, that had been criticised as over-prepared. Was this something that their insurance providers had done, or are the decisions made by the state, or states?

[Iris]

Not everyone is a superfan of the insurance industry. Right now they are using small print to worm out of paying out to small businesses who have shelled out thousands in premiums. As ever.

Placeholder for shrugging shoulders yellow facey thing

I'm not entirely sure what that non sequitur has to do with anything.

[Iris]

OK - I think we're saying the same thing in different terms. A rather small subset of what the NHS currently provides would be available equally to all. Everything else would be differentially available depending on one's ability and willingness to pay.

I don't have a direct hookup into what passes for the brain of a Tory MP, but I suspect that they want to provide everything the NHS currently provides equally to all. What do you think they want to stop providing on the NHS?

[Iris]

How is it controlled though? At the start of this, Germany was said to be well stocked with ventilators and ICU beds. This was seen to be vindicating a decision to be well prepared, that had been criticised as over-prepared. Was this something that their insurance providers had done, or are the decisions made by the state, or states?

I'm no expert. But "the various levels of government have virtually no role in the direct financing or delivery of health care. To a large degree, regulation is delegated to self-governing associations within sickness funds and provider associations, which are together represented by the most important body, the Federal Joint Committee."

https://international.commonwealthfund. ... s/germany/

That rather implies it's provider-led. I don't know how much of that is insurer-led and how much healthcare provider led. But insurance firms do tend to be quite used to thinking about risk in the sort of long-term way that government doesn't.

[JohnToo]

Placeholder for shrugging shoulders yellow facey thing

I'm not entirely sure what that non sequitur has to do with anything.

It made perfect sense to me- I did not see it as a non sequitur.

[JohnToo]

I don't have a direct hookup into what passes for the brain of a Tory MP, but I suspect that they want to provide everything the NHS currently provides equally to all. What do you think they want to stop providing on the NHS?

I think it is the concept of a universal service, equally available to all regardless of (supposed) contribution, funded collectively, that grates with conservatives. I don't think they'd mind too much which specific services were in or out as long as the things you got without paying extra were minimised.

[Mister Paul]

I don't have a direct hookup into what passes for the brain of a Tory MP, but I suspect that they want to provide everything the NHS currently provides equally to all. What do you think they want to stop providing on the NHS?

It's that council house lot. They laze around all day drinking and smoking, and when they get ill they expect us to pay for it.

[Iris]

Anyone who asserts that the Conservatives want to fundamentally change the basis of the NHS or restrict what it does really ought to provide some evidence rather than vague assertions. Vague assertions that don't bear any relation to reality are what is wrong with politics, and get found out eventually.

Here's what they actually said in their last manifesto.

"The Conservatives have been running our NHS for 44 of its 71 years, and fundamentally believe it’s there for everyone in the country to rely on free at the point of use."

I'll happily agree that they've massively underfunded and mismanaged the NHS - those chickens are coming home to roost now. But if they'd really wanted to strip away its universality they would have done it long ago. A Johnson who was anti the NHS would not have let Symonds give birth in UCLH.

And, I'll repeat, it's dawning on those holdouts very rapidly exactly why that universality is intrinsically a good thing and not just a convenient way of gathering votes.

[JohnToo]

In Johnson's speech just after he left hospital, where he thanked the nurses, he said it "could have gone either way".

Now, in his interview with the Sun (of which I have merely read the Guardian account, I hasten to reassure you) he says it was 50:50 whether they "put a tube down my windpipe".

He was clearly seriously ill, but the impression is growing, on me at any rate, that he was not as seriously ill as we were encouraged (not least by him) to suppose.

[Mister Paul]

I don't believe he was seriously ill.

I've been told (yes, I know, but I do know a fair few nurses) that he was on 4% oxygen. I guess that's pretty low?

That mate of mine who was on BBC news didn't need intubation either. He's on the vulnerable list. He was admitted but didn't need intensive care. He was on 10% oxygen.

[JohnToo]

Anyone who asserts that the Conservatives want to fundamentally change the basis of the NHS or restrict what it does really ought to provide some evidence rather than vague assertions. Vague assertions that don't bear any relation to reality are what is wrong with politics, and get found out eventually.

Here's what they actually said in their last manifesto.

"The Conservatives have been running our NHS for 44 of its 71 years, and fundamentally believe it’s there for everyone in the country to rely on free at the point of use."

I'll happily agree that they've massively underfunded and mismanaged the NHS - those chickens are coming home to roost now. But if they'd really wanted to strip away its universality they would have done it long ago. A Johnson who was anti the NHS would not have let Symonds give birth in UCLH.

And, I'll repeat, it's dawning on those holdouts very rapidly exactly why that universality is intrinsically a good thing and not just a convenient way of gathering votes.

What do you think the "massive underfunding" of the NHS by the Conservatives was, if not, in part, a strategy to "strip away its universality"? (It's a similar strategy to that they take to the BBC - the conservatives know they can't be seen to seek to destroy/denature the BBC overtly, so they do it by squeezing the funding.)

As for what they said in their manifesto, forgive me if I place less faith than you do in the honesty of such statements by such organisations.