Private healthcare: for or against?

The National health Service was formed by the Labour government elected in 1945 as part of the post war reconstruction of Britain. Previous to its formation, only 45% of the population had health insurance. On the 5th of July 1948, the NHS officially started. It was funded through taxes, with the rich paying more than the poor and everyone was eligible for care, even those who did not permanently reside in the UK.
The NHS has been going strong ever since, but is it really needed in modern Britain?

In 1948, Britain was poor. The nation was still recovering from world war two and rations were still in place. The poorest were most in need of healthcare, with many living in slums, yet they were unable to receive the treatment they required as they couldn't afford it. The NHS greatly improved these peoples quality of life and the British life expectancy went from 66 for men and 71 for women in 1948 to 78.6 for men and 82.6 for women in 2011. But now, in 2012, when the average family income is around £40,000 and the national average is one foreign holiday per year, surely we can afford to pay for our healthcare. The cost per month of health insurance for a 43 year old man ranges from just £15 for basic care to around £150 for more comprehensive packages. This would take pressure off of the NHS, allowing the less wealthy to receive better healthcare with shorter waiting times.
With life expectancy increasing every year, and living beyond 100 years set to become the norm, the NHS is set to be overload with elderly patients. Recent research has shown that the care received by the elderly in many hospitals throughout the UK was sub-standard. If the number of people cared for by the NHS on a daily basis decreased, then the nurses and staff within each hospital would have the chance to give the elderly the care they need.
Although it has many flaws, the NHS also provides invaluable care to people below the poverty line. Absolute poverty is very low in the UK, but there are many people who struggle, often having to choose between food and warmth. For these people private healthcare is clearly not an option and without the NHS their prospects would be poor.
Another area where the NHS is very important is emergency medicine. They give the patient lifesaving treatment. If treatment was reserved for those with health insurance, the less wealthy would suffer dramatically. The time spent checking for life insurance would also be better spent in caring for the patient.
Private medicine undoubtedly provides better patient care, but is it really fair to say that the rich should get better care than the poor. In the NHS everyone are treated as equals. You could argue that by decreasing the number of people who go to the NHS for healthcare that the healthcare that is provided for the remaining people would be better, but that is unlikely to be the case. Decreasing patient numbers would lead to a decrease in staff and the care would therefore suffer.
In conclusion, I believe that the NHS needs to stay, but I think that the rich should be encouraged to get health insurance. There are simply too many people in the UK for the NHS to cope with. Using a mixture of NHS and private medicine would give everyone the opportunity to access good quality healthcare, which is after all what its all about.