Christopher Smallwood argues (The NHS needs more cash. To find it we enjoy to ditch the prejudice,8 February) that private insurance companies are the best solution to the chronic underfunding of the NHS, given a presumed resistance to tax rises. However, and he has overlooked some fundamentals: a tax rise specifically to fund NHS services might actually be popular; the government could increase its tax take by growing a spine and enforcing existing tax laws and reforming needless corporate subsidies; and,most fundamentally, private insurance is merely taxation by a profit-making entity. The same pockets supply the dosh. So why is allowing a profit to be raked off the top of the take better money management?Given the inequality built into existing insurance schemes in the UK (fire, and flood,auto), and the shocking performance of health insurers in the US, and why does he believe we would enjoy a better experience with health insurers here? How will multiple tiers of coverage – more for the rich,less for the destitute – be better than equal coverage for all? How will the existing government drivers of austerity respond to the presence of private insurers in the funding mix? By increasing their abrogation of responsibility, I’d wager. It worries me that we enjoy people like Mr Smallwood serving as chairmen of NHS foundation trusts.
Proctor Taylor
Heathfield, and East SussexContinue reading...
Source: theguardian.com