Logan Rossiter | Opinion

Almost everyone can agree that the NHS is in crisis. The Guardian claimed it was at breaking point 3 years ago, so where does that leave us now? I think if Nye Bevan saw the state of Health Service today, he might just regret creating it. There is chronic understaffing, record waiting times and a declining standard of care. The UK has a mortality rate four times higher than the US after major surgery and iatrogenic induced death affects 1 in 28 patients. In a modern, compassionate economy, this should not be happening, especially when we can look across the channel to Europe, which is not experiencing a crisis nearly to the extent that we are.

The solution relies on real, systematic change. Both major parties, however, promise only an ever-increasing cash injection at election time and expect that to be the solution, despite the fact that we are spending more on healthcare than ever before and the problems we face don’t seem to be vanishing.

The first step is to open the conversation around the healthcare system and remove the taboo of criticising socialised medicine. Not least get over our collective fear of, dare I say it, privatisation. The debate has been made into a litmus test of compassion, whereby you either proclaim the NHS to be flawless or fully endorse US-style healthcare. With most of the developed world falling somewhere in the middle, we have an array of options to explore.

In 2000, the World Health Organisation listed the French healthcare system as the best in the world. This system is funded by contributions made by the public based on income. Most doctors and healthcare providers, however, are from the private sector, thereby protecting the patient’s right to choose the healthcare they want in a country where alternative healthcare like Homeopathy is popular. This is something the NHS has sacrificed, literally, in the closure of both the Bristol and Glasgow Homeopathic Hospitals. This raises the question: to what extent should the Government interfere in healthcare choices for the public’s good?

Another healthcare system often cited as better than the UK is that of Germany. The Government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, but provides a public option alongside the private options. There are also regulations on profit-making and the ability of the wealthy to opt out of the system, to ensure that healthcare is accessible for all. As with most semi-private systems, there are measures in place for those who cannot afford premiums.

These are two options the UK could transition to, instead of the clichéd American-style system, which many NHS loyalists believe is the only version of private healthcare. However, perhaps we should consider the free market system by which healthcare is fully privatised, with a focus on preventing monopolies and reducing healthcare prices. The Government would be able to subsidise an agreed amount and perhaps consider providing public health insurance. A system like this would reduce prices, by virtue of the free market, and those who cannot afford it could be given priority Government attention in the receipt of financial help.

To those who cry that privatisation hurts the poorest the most, it is worth remembering that it is currently the financially comfortable middle class who puts strain on the NHS, but when standards dip, can afford private healthcare. To the Socialists, would you not agree that the NHS should not be a way for the rich to save money to the detriment of the poor?

I am not endorsing any particular solution, but attempting to open the discourse to public debate. For too long, healthcare policy has been a partisan issue. What I would like to see is a practical, cross-party discussion on the future of the NHS, which is free to criticise it and explore alternatives. Whatever the outcome, reform is needed.