[gladders]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
You described the typical traits of a normal insurance company there.

Except for other fields of insurance, people have the option to decline to purchase the item that needs insurance in the first place (such as buying a car) or risk the danger never occurring at all (such as house insurance). Heathcare is different - you will need it, eventually, and inescapably.

Hence, it should be considered a service, not a good.

The fact that there will be a demand for the care means there will a supply for it. Thus, if a company is not paying out on claims, then they would simply get a bad reputation and customers would go where they can get the care they need.

Sorry, no. The healthcare providers will conspire to keep their sweet deal going. The consumer will have no choice.

America is different from us on many different levels. I dont need to give examples as I dont want to digress to much. But because of that fact alone, any private enterprise emerging in private health care system would be different to what is found over there.

Without giving examples of America's differences your claim that it should be ignored should be disallowed. Again: America's healthcare system is sufficiently awful to warn against privatization.

About state regulation, and not for the first time. I oppose it it. However private regulation would be fine.

I simply don't trust private health insurers to regulate for the benefit of the patient.

[gladders]

Anyway, 1am so I should call it a night. Others, feel free to use my points to beat dave over the head with

[dj1015]

(Original post by HarryPotterFanx)
I love how Dave has ignored the post which involves the word. "Cancer" and "Poor" and "Disabiled"

You mean, your post.

I am here to discuss the idea of a private healthcare system in the UK.

I don't want to respond to personal cases and get dragged in a battle by someone trying to emotionally black mail me in to holding a certain opinion.

[Miryo]

I have a similar viewpoint to you. This would only work in the long run though, it would harm a lot of people in the short run, but personally I think this is a sacrifice that is worth it.

There would be other problems, e.g some medicine and treatment cost way too much, people just wouldn't be able to afford them and the private sector wouldn't lower the price to lower than the cost which is what they have to do for people to afford them. We would be going back in time in terms of healthcare.

[Captain Haddock]

America is different from us on many different levels. I dont need to give examples as I dont want to digress to much. But because of that fact alone, any private enterprise emerging in private health care system would be different to what is found over there.

You keep saying we're different. Okay. So what? You're right, we are different. Economically, America has always been more friendly toward private enterprise. Socially, it's people have embraced the concept of rugged individualism, the American dream, self sufficiency and all that rubbish. So, given that America's healthcare system is an utter travesty, what makes you think we'd be economically/socially more capable of running a private healthcare system than them?

[roh]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
A genuine free market would mean that only the best people get to work in medical care. You paint a picture of 18 year old kids running around with scarpals, but this simply wouldn't happen. Any private enterprise seeking to make a profit would have the interest of there customers first and foremost.

Obviously to establish a long lasting brand it wouldn't, but to run a cowboy operation for a few months then take the money and run why not?

And for issues which can be firmly planted in criminal law, such as euthanasia of the mentally ill without anyone's but their own permission, but have a healthcare aspect would you declare a free market and remove any criminal aspect? If doctors get people to sign over their life savings to them when they are far from coherent, then administer a lethal dosage of drugs in order to relieve them of their suffering (in the doctor's professional opinion) does this being a healthcare issue remove it from the public domain? Because if the private regulator you imagine finds this doctor to be in the wrong they are under suspicion of murder. But, could the fact the state (which runs the criminal justice system) is not allowed to be involved in any aspect of healthcare (which this involves) mean the criminal courts have no jurisdiction over the matter? Thus the doctor gets no further sanction for killing someone.

I am deliberately finding holes in your statements, just trying to show how making sweeping general statements (that nothing motivates more than money and that there should be no government involvement in anything related to healthcare) about a subject this complex simply can't work.

[dj1015]

(Original post by Miryo)
I have a similar viewpoint to you. This would only work in the long run though, it would harm a lot of people in the short run, but personally I think this is a sacrifice that is worth it.

There would be other problems, e.g some medicine and treatment cost way too much, people just wouldn't be able to afford them and the private sector wouldn't lower the price to lower than the cost which is what they have to do for people to afford them. We would be going back in time in terms of healthcare.

Is it really so bad that a very small number of people suffer so a majority of people can wreak greater benefits?

For example, if a plane gets hijacked and the terrorist wants to fly the plane into a large building in a metropolitan area. Would anyone say its bad that the plane is shot down before it can attack its intended target? This is a positive example of a small number of people suffering so a larger number of people can benefit. I believe the same logic can be applied to healthcare.

[HarryPotterFanx]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
You mean, your post.

I am here to discuss the idea of a private healthcare system in the UK.

I don't want to respond to personal cases and get dragged in a battle by someone trying to emotionally black mail me in to holding a certain opinion.

But what would happen to seriously ill poor patients who can't afford your system?

[HarryPotterFanx]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
Is it really so bad that a very small number of people suffer so a majority of people can wreak greater benefits?

For example, if a plane gets hijacked and the terrorist wants to fly the plane into a large building in a metropolitan area. Would anyone say its bad that the plane is shot down before it can attack its intended target? This is a positive example of a small number of people suffering so a larger number of people can benefit. I believe the same logic can be applied to healthcare.

That has no logic to it what so ever. So, in your mind. It's okay for people to die to help others. (who can afford it, who are "rich", who can work)

[99luft Balons]

I'm fed up cause all you wanna do is criticize!!!!!!!!

[dj1015]

(Original post by roh)
Obviously to establish a long lasting brand it wouldn't, but to run a cowboy operation for a few months then take the money and run why not?

And for issues which can be firmly planted in criminal law, such as euthanasia of the mentally ill without anyone's but their own permission, but have a healthcare aspect would you declare a free market and remove any criminal aspect? If doctors get people to sign over their life savings to them when they are far from coherent, then administer a lethal dosage of drugs in order to relieve them of their suffering (in the doctor's professional opinion) does this being a healthcare issue remove it from the public domain? Because if the private regulator you imagine finds this doctor to be in the wrong they are under suspicion of murder. But, could the fact the state (which runs the criminal justice system) is not allowed to be involved in any aspect of healthcare (which this involves) mean the criminal courts have no jurisdiction over the matter? Thus the doctor gets no further sanction for killing someone.

I am deliberately finding holes in your statements, just trying to show how making sweeping general statements (that nothing motivates more than money and that there should be no government involvement in anything related to healthcare) about a subject this complex simply can't work.

You can find all the holes you want. And sure a private system has some short comings. But the benefits of a private healthcare system are easy to see as well, and to deny they exist is simply short sighted. Also, there are many problems with the NHS, and to ignore those is equally as bad. Also if doctors started killing people off to make a quick buck, its not going to be very good for business is it?

Legal issues taken into account, things do get more complicated. But ultimately any government that would bring in a private healthcare system would also adjust our laws to suit it.

[dj1015]

(Original post by HarryPotterFanx)
That has no logic to it what so ever. So, in your mind. It's okay for people to die to help others. (who can afford it, who are "rich", who can work)

Which one of your questions do you want me to answer?

[alex5455]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
The money saved on national insurance payments could be used for better private medical insurance.

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

i hate people like you

[HarryPotterFanx]

(Original post by Davethedavedave)
Which one of your questions do you want me to answer?

I understand some of the good points, like more money from the outside for services but what bothers me is a large amount of poor, elderly and disabiled people will be left behind and what will be done for people like this?

[prog2djent]

If I'm going to be negged then atleast quote me and tell me what's up FFS.

[Democracy]

(Original post by prog2djent)
If I'm going to be negged then atleast quote me and tell me what's up FFS.

I will if you will!

[The Socktor]

Why not privatise the fire brigade while we're at it?

[dj1015]

(Original post by HarryPotterFanx)
I understand some of the good points, like more money from the outside for services but what bothers me is a large amount of poor, elderly and disabiled people will be left behind and what will be done for people like this?

Every system has some short comings. Trying to help everyone isn't working.

The fact that there is a demand for healthcare from people on low incomes would mean that their would be a supply of healthcare for them as well. That is how a true free market works. I don't see how anyone would be left to die with those conditions.

[dj1015]

(Original post by The Socktor)
Why not privatise the fire brigade while we're at it?

That would be an issue to be decided and debated at a local level. But central governments involvement with the fire service should end.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Democracy)


I will if you will!

IDK what you're on about but I haven't negged you and I assume dave has negged me for my comment that if he's going to make the pro-privatisation argument then atleast do it properly, intead of telling people that those that really can't get any care "the are screwed then" the answers are a) charity, b) safety nets, i.e switzerland, whether they work is another matter, but I'm trying to tell him his idea of privatisation on the effects of it, and situations for people, give the pro crowd a bad image and made the anti-crowd think our philosophy is disingenuous and cruel, whilst the real supporters think they are doing it with the best intentions. And to stop using the US system as a good example (seriously, i mean come on) since it isn't even a market system.