[gladders]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
We are nothing like the americans.

And nothing motivates people more than money......

Bearing in mind what you just said, how would you counter the chief failing of private medical care (as in the US), which is that those who are in most dire need of healthcare (such as the disabled, ill and poor) are also least able to afford it?

Private healthcare only ever benefits the rich.

[roh]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
We are nothing like the americans.

And nothing motivates people more than money......

Really? I can't imagine being motivated to run into a burning building and putting my life at risk to rescue a briefcase full of cash, for my child I probably would.

[kevin6767]

I think privatisation would be a horrid idea. However I would have no problem with altering the 'free at the point of need' "constitution" of the NHS. To me if you get some drunk in A&E abusing NHS staff that are trying to help them then they should have to pay for the ambulance, the treatment they receive and have all but emergency free healthcare suspended. When they can learn to value what a fantastic job the NHS does then they might appreciate it. I also think like it is with a dentist if you miss appointments with a GP you should be charged. It would save the NHS cash and help it generate some and would not represent privatisation

[dj1015]

(Original post by gladders)
Bearing in mind what you just said, how would you counter the chief failing of private medical care (as in the US), which is that those who are in most dire need of healthcare (such as the disabled, ill and poor) are also least able to afford it?

Private healthcare only ever benefits the rich.

Not true. The removal of the tax burden that the NHS causes would free up money for people to spend on better private medical insurance.

If there is strong private competition in the health care market place, the price of health care could go down and people would receive better treatment.

[dj1015]

(Original post by roh)
Really? I can't imagine being motivated to run into a burning building and putting my life at risk to rescue a briefcase full of cash, for my child I probably would.

Really??????? I would.

[gladders]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
Not true. The removal of the tax burden that the NHS causes would free up money for people to spend on better private medical insurance.

I just pointed out to you some groups who are either unable to work or don't earn enough money for the assumed deduction in taxes to make a difference. There's a reason why a quarter of Americans have no healthcare. Collectively, healthcare is cheap; hence why, per capita, Britain pays less in taxes for healthcare than America.

If there is strong private competition in the health care market place, the price of health care could go down and people would receive better treatment.

Incorrect. The profit motive means insurance companies seek loopholes to avoid paying out for healthcare, so they can keep the money. America suffers from this problem massively.

[prog2djent]

"And if you cant afford private medical insurance...... Well I guess your **** out of luck."

Usually from the privatisation crowd we should expect an argument about private charties and atleast some social safety nets provided via the state.

Get it together dave.

The US system is horrendous, both the anti-privatisation crowd need to stop using it as an example of a market healthcare system, since it clearly isn't, and dave you aren't helping to pro-side by holding the US system up on a podium and giving terrible reasons.

[roh]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
Really??????? I would.

Fair enough, and by your logic of it being the biggest motivation, if you could only get out either the cash or your child, you'd take the cash and leave the child?

[Chad_Bronson]

(Original post by Glow in the dark)
So everyone has to suffer for people who can't be bothered to alter their life style?

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there - As another member rightly said this is not about picking on overweight people. If we are to penalise people, we could just as easily say a similar themed comment to a stuntman, who puts his life in danger every day, or to the more self-inflicted problems like anorexia or self-harm.

Please try not to penalise one segment of people. If we were to remove all of the self-inflicted problems of the NHS, binge drinking, obesity, etc we would save a heck of a lot of money.

[dj1015]

(Original post by gladders)
I just pointed out to you some groups who are either unable to work or don't earn enough money for the assumed deduction in taxes to make a difference. There's a reason why a quarter of Americans have no healthcare. Collectively, healthcare is cheap; hence why, per capita, Britain pays less in taxes for healthcare than America.



Incorrect. The profit motive means insurance companies seek loopholes to avoid paying out for healthcare, so they can keep the money. America suffers from this problem massively.

You should stop trying to compare private health care to america. That been said, they do have one of the best standards of care available in the world.

Any introduction of private healthcare in the UK would have a different affect that of the Americans. You scaremongering about the american health system doesn't phase me, and what I am talking about will be reality one day.

[Logi]

Can someone please explain to me why the NHS is so ****? A 2010 report by the Commonwealth Fund compared key factors such as quality of care, access, efficiency, equity and cost among seven developed countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, USA) and we came second. Not only this but we had the second lowest spending per capita and a 2011 British Social Attitudes Survey (which the government suppressed in order to get its reforms through) found that we were happier than we'd ever been with the service we were receiving.

It has problems and areas that need addressing and the ageing population is certainly going to be a challenge (one faced by most western countries) but privatisation is not the answer. The only way privatisation helps is where there's competition that will make companies strive for better quality and more efficiency. Even then they still have to make a profit which is money that will go into a share holders pockets and not back into the system. The study cited above also found that we already have one of the most efficient health care systems so where are they going to make their profit? By only operating the most profitable services? By allowing those who can't afford it to just die? What a great society that sounds like.

We've tried privatisation and it just doesn't work for areas where there isn't any competition. Just look at the water, post, rail, bus companies etc. Have you ever had a good service from any of them? Have you ever used them and not felt like you were being mugged?

[Chad_Bronson]

(Original post by gladders)
I just pointed out to you some groups who are either unable to work or don't earn enough money for the assumed deduction in taxes to make a difference. There's a reason why a quarter of Americans have no healthcare. Collectively, healthcare is cheap; hence why, per capita, Britain pays less in taxes for healthcare than America.



Incorrect. The profit motive means insurance companies seek loopholes to avoid paying out for healthcare, so they can keep the money. America suffers from this problem massively.

One up for this guy +1

He's on the right lines. Privatising, whose core nature is to make profit, the NHS will mean that there will be a divide between who can afford the NHS, because they are paying privately for it, and those who can't. If you break your leg for example, it would be madness to expect someone to pay £1500 to it fixed if they can't afford it.

Face it, privatising the NHS will only benefit the wealthy and not the poor.

[Barden]

The NHS is not supposed to be cost-effective. It is supposed to treat people. That is what matters.

[dj1015]

(Original post by roh)
Fair enough, and by your logic of it being the biggest motivation, if you could only get out either the cash or your child, you'd take the cash and leave the child?

Honestly, if it wasn't my child and there was alot of money in the briefcase I would think about it for a split second.... But I would have to save the child out of good nature. This is digressing abit however...

[dj1015]

(Original post by Logi)

We've tried privatisation and it just doesn't work for areas where there isn't any competition. Just look at the water, post, rail, bus companies etc. Have you ever had a good service from any of them? Have you ever used them and not felt like you were being mugged?

They are subsidised by the state. I am talking about full on privatisation, selling off hospitals etc etc.

[gladders]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
You should stop trying to compare private health care to america. That been said, they do have one of the best standards of care available in the world.

Any introduction of private healthcare in the UK would have a different affect that of the Americans. You scaremongering about the american health system doesn't phase me, and what I am talking about will be reality one day.

So hang on, you arbitrarily decide to discount the one example we have of a private healthcare system? How convenient.

[dj1015]

(Original post by gladders)
So hang on, you arbitrarily decide to discount the one example we have of a private healthcare system? How convenient.

Yes

On the basis that we live in a different society to them and thus are not comparable.

[roh]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
Honestly, if it wasn't my child and there was alot of money in the briefcase I would think about it for a split second.... But I would have to save the child out of good nature. This is digressing abit however...

It is digressing, I was just trying to get across that their can be stronger motivations than money that appeal to the most base of human instincts, particularly if it is your child (which is usually the one you want to stay around to see graduate, get married, have kids etc.). Similarly if people think about the affect on their partner of X years if they were to die suddenly in the near future.

[Logi]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
They are subsidised by the state. I am talking about full on privatisation, selling off hospitals etc etc.

And how are they competing against each other? Is anyone allowed to open a hospital or do they have to receive a licence from government? Is there just the one licence at a time or many and is this licence country wide or for a single area?

Also you didn't answer the main question of my post - why is the NHS ****?

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
Yes On the basis that we live in a different society to them and thus are not comparable.

Well we live in a different society to any other country so apparently it's not fair to compare anywhere. I guess that means we can't be comparatively **** either then so why do we need to change?

[gladders]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
Yes

On the basis that we live in a different society to them and thus are not comparable.

And I suppose that any comparison you choose to make we wouldn't similarly be permitted to discount, hmm?

Sorry, but America is not sufficiently different from us to discount.

There is no profitability in providing healthcare; having private healthcare is a gamble against your own vitality, and you can only ever lose.