4 thoughts on “Beware the false prophets of NHS “privatisation””

  1. Posted 14/12/2021 at 21:22 | Permalink

    Pollock’s articles are always completely ridiculous.
    Her research consists of starting with her conclusions and then writing a narrative to fit them. It’s always the same tedious stuff.
    Well done for exposing her, Kristian.

  2. Posted 15/12/2021 at 07:50 | Permalink

    Dr Niemitz, I have a question that is, I fear, unrelated to the article. I have read with interest your work comparing the NHS to other systems. To me, a social insurance system seems a sensible alternative to the NHS model.

    Nick Timothy responds to this by saying that the NHS is better at preventing queue jumping than social insurance systems. I have no idea whether this is true or not, but I wondered if you could comment? Or write a blog piece, perhaps!

  3. Posted 16/12/2021 at 12:27 | Permalink

    I am not entirely sure about this – which is not to say that I have evidence to the contrary. You can, of course, queue jump by going privately (even without insurance – first consultation is not that expensive). Then the articulate can navigate the system more effectively than those who are not. I do have some examples of this, but it is only anecdote and not evidence that Nick Timothy is wrong. But, of course, this is true of all socialist systems. Soviet bread shops prevented queue jumping (except for veterans and, again, the well connected).

  4. Posted 22/12/2021 at 16:50 | Permalink

    Hi Anthony,
    if I remember correctly, Nick Timothy made that point specifically about the German health system. It’s not completely wrong, but it’s highly misleading. The German system has a very odd feature: Germany has two parallel health insurance systems. There’s the social insurance system (called the GKV system), which covers about 90% of the population, and a commercial private insurance system (called the PKV system), which covers the other 10%. People in the latter system are, on average, wealthier and healthier than people in the former. Therefore, they get more healthcare services, and faster access to them.
    You could consider that a form of queue-jumping – but it’s important to note that that queue-jumping does NOT occur within the social insurance system. It occurs because of that split into two parallel insurance systems.
    That split has its origins in the politics of the Bismarck era. If another country (say, Britain) introduced a German-style social health insurance system today, there is no way they would replicate that split. In fact, if Germany introduced its own system today, there is no way they would do it in that exact way again. So it’s disingenuous of Timothy to point to this historic oddity, and present it as a general feature of social health insurance systems.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.