Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Lets privatise the NHS

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    The weight of the suffering isn't equal to the gain.

    A person suffering from cancer that can't afford medication and is slowly and painfully dying from it, that isn't cancelled out by another person keeping more money and getting better health service. Even if 100 people benefited from this, their benefit is very small and this persons loss is huge.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think that they could make a certain percentage of the NHS private to bring in some money, it may also help to release some of the bottle-necking with applications for consultant posts.

    They are already starting to ruin the GPs so overall not much hope in the system at the moment.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Totally agree with you, Dave.
    • 74 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    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.
    Nope, I negged you, and I extremely seldom neg someone for their opinion unless, like you, they neg me consistently without ever engaging in discussion.

    Also, arguing about neg is sad enough, actually lying about it takes the biscuit:

    • Thread Starter
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    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.
    Any private healthcare system would of course have charity help those who need it. But it shouldn't be governments business how that comes about. That should be decided the people at a individual level.

    Also I stated that US provided higher quality of healthcare when it did. There are many operations you can get in the USA which you simply can not get in the UK. And any private healthcare system we have would be different to there's, as I stated before.
    • Thread Starter
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GeneralOJB)
    Totally agree with you, Dave.
    Sarcasm? Because I am really not expecting anyone to.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davethedavedave)
    Any private healthcare system would of course have charity help those who need it. But it shouldn't be governments business how that comes about. That should be decided the people at a individual level.

    Also I stated that US provided higher quality of healthcare when it did. There are many operations you can get in the USA which you simply can not get in the UK. And any private healthcare system we have would be different to there's, as I stated before.
    The US system is disasterously expensive for the lower middle - middle classes and if you weigh up the cost to quality, we are better all round, and our quality overall is still ranked higher.

    Switzerland, Singapore and hong Kong are better examples than America's failed corporate welfare system.
    • Thread Starter
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    The US system is disasterously expensive for the lower middle - middle classes and if you weigh up the cost to quality, we are better all round, and our quality overall is still ranked higher.

    Switzerland, Singapore and hong Kong are better examples than America's failed corporate welfare system.
    There are going to many good and bad examples of different systems out there. But trying a new system isn't a bad thing.

    Weather a two tier system weighted on the private side would be better, who knows?????? However I would rather play it safe, level out the playing field and only allow private healthcare.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I very much like the idea of greater private sector involvement in the NHS. But I totally disagree with the OP on how it should be provided. OP says we should be paying into private healthcare insurance. I think it should be free at the point of use. State funds should be given to private companies to run clinics on a competitive basis. For every patient they treat, give them slightly more than the national average cost for whatever treatment(s) that patient had. This will encourage companies to drive costs down, lowering the national average, until we're paying as little as possible for a high quality service. Different clinics will then have to compete for patients, instead of patients competing for appointments. If a clinic hasn't got good appointment times, and often has long queues, people will go elsewhere. Introducing a heavily regulated private sector will drive quality up and costs down.
    • 74 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    I very much like the idea of greater private sector involvement in the NHS. But I totally disagree with the OP on how it should be provided. OP says we should be paying into private healthcare insurance. I think it should be free at the point of use. State funds should be given to private companies to run clinics on a competitive basis. For every patient they treat, give them slightly more than the national average cost for whatever treatment(s) that patient had. This will encourage companies to drive costs down, lowering the national average, until we're paying as little as possible for a high quality service.
    We already have that system in place and it will most certainly be widened under the new H&SC Bill. It's been tried, tested, was a disaster, and yet still remains policy. Both the running of GP surgeries and the wider PFI crisis that is. Let's not even go into the routine contracting of hospital food, cleaning etc which actually harms patients in the most direct way possible.
    • Thread Starter
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    I very much like the idea of greater private sector involvement in the NHS. But I totally disagree with the OP on how it should be provided. OP says we should be paying into private healthcare insurance. I think it should be free at the point of use. State funds should be given to private companies to run clinics on a competitive basis. For every patient they treat, give them slightly more than the national average cost for whatever treatment(s) that patient had. This will encourage companies to drive costs down, lowering the national average, until we're paying as little as possible for a high quality service. Different clinics will then have to compete for patients, instead of patients competing for appointments. If a clinic hasn't got good appointment times, and often has long queues, people will go elsewhere. Introducing a heavily regulated private sector will drive quality up and costs down.
    You have some good ideas.

    But maybe the funds could be given by charities at a local level on behalf of those who can not afford the normal standard of care.

    As long as the regulation is done privately and with respect to local and national laws, which would of course have to be modified to fit with a private healthcare system then what I mentioned could work.
    • Thread Starter
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    We already have that system in place and it will most certainly be widened under the new H&SC Bill. It's been tried, tested, was a disaster, and yet still remains policy. Both the running of GP surgeries and the wider PFI crisis that is. Let's not even go into the routine contracting of hospital food, cleaning etc which actually harms patients in the most direct way possible.
    I think trying to mix the two systems is making the issue more grey and thus worse.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HarryPotterFanx)
    "People will change their life styles, eating habits, increase the amount they exercise etc etc, because they know that living in an irresponsible manner will end up costing them money and no one else. "

    This line annoys and actually upsets me. What about Cancer? What about Lupus? Both have been in my family and it affects how someone lives... they won't be able to afford treatment or pills. Lupus, you take tablets which increase your weight. So what happens to those people? To the poor people who can't work because there disabiled and so don't have no money to pay.

    Oh wait, **** the poor should be the motto of this idiotic party.

    I have a right to be angry as my mum has Lupus and she has to go to the hospital nearly every month, if she had to pay every time we would be on the streets.
    My father lives with his new partner in a country where they have permission to stay long-term, but neither are citizens of it, and the free healthcare on offer would likely be closed to them and/or inferior even if they were. Her mother has lupus, and also kidney transplant, she needs Cellcept, hydroxychloroquine, 3 sets of antibiotics for the rest of her life, a proton pump inhibitor, a statin, an antihypertensive and 2 strong antidepressants for the side effects of the drugs plus the depression she feels being so dependent on her daughter and unable to get out as much as she likes.

    He pays >£2,000 yearly just at the chemist for her tablets. My 2 half sisters living with them are on montelukast and salbutamol and regularly need other medicines too. His partner's benzos for sleep and anxiety, varenicline for smoking and Cipralex add up too. Plus £100 for my dexamphetamine the other month. The total medicine bill could be something like £3500 p.a.

    That is ONLY the PHARMACY price, in a country of fairly cheap drugs where you can buy nearly anything short of methadone and Ritalin without a prescription (if privatisation came in here it is unlikely that the paternalistic POM/CD system would ever be thrown out- a whole lot of pharmacists already refuse to sell legal "P" Medicines like codeine linctus, Buccastem 3mg's and cyclizine tablets on abuse/inappropriateness grounds, the only way they would hand over the sort of drugs we've bought there over the counter is if they were all forced to by law. I don't think any government would do that.) That is not including doctors' visits or time in hospital or any other fees. I have no idea how much the healthcare bill would be in all, 5 figures is possible. And the majority of that for a lupus sufferer who would have trouble being insured due to her "pre-existing conditions" (the stated intent of PPACA/Obamacare.)

    I know most people aren't going to be able to cover that easily if at all. Which means that- Santorum supporting fiscal & social conservative I am, I couldn't possibly advocate the end of the NHS while staying faithful to my belief in compassion, something the OP doesn't seem to have. I have considered an all-out dismantling before but only when I got into "socialised medicine is bad" rhetoric without thinking straight. What we should do is restrict it to the bottom third of the population by income, with exceptions for anyone who has a medical problem not covered by their insurance above a certain amount so people won't die, suffer, lose their nice houses or businesses if they happen to be middle/high earning and get a nasty form of cancer for which treatment runs into the hundreds of thousands of pounds and the insurers play hardball. I am no fan of an individual mandate, it wouldn't be necessary with enough tax money and it would still save over the current single-payer NHS.

    It would also make sense to regulate state and private doctors' salaries, perks etc. so there would not be an excessive difference for the same services if 2/3 of the population were to be under private care, to stop the private ones from creaming off all the best straight from medical school (at the moment almost everyone works for the NHS exclusively until their late 30s at least with substantive consultant experience, which would be impossible with them only running a third of hospitals) and leaving the poor with the least competent care.

    Although not discriminating against people whose health problems were caused by previous irresponsibility (heart disease due to fatty diet and lack of exercise for example), I believe that in most cases people should pay for drugs to treat a heroin, alcohol or nicotine addiction and also for hair loss, IVF, contraceptives, abortions, and other things that are lifestyle choices rather than medical necessities. Contraceptive pills used for other medical reasons or in women who are in situations where pregnancy would be very high risk could continue to be free.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Obviously Dave has failed to realise the shortcomings of other privatised public services, such as the drought in the South East caused by the failure of water companies to invest in infrastructure. Free market principles work in many aspects, but not in the context of a public service. Competitive practice remains a fallacy in such services, as empirical evidence has shown that prices rise year on year, rather than the utopian neo-liberal mantra of falling prices, which one would expect if competition truly existed.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie)
    Obviously Dave has failed to realise the shortcomings of other privatised public services, such as the drought in the South East caused by the failure of water companies to invest in infrastructure. Free market principles work in many aspects, but not in the context of a public service. Competitive practice remains a fallacy in such services, as empirical evidence has shown that prices rise year on year, rather than the utopian neo-liberal mantra of falling prices, which one would expect if competition truly existed.
    Too right. Either have competitive markets or where that's impracticable or impossible,direct State provision from taxation. We have anti-monopoly laws for a good reason in most things and yet living in the North West I/my family are beholden to Arriva for buses, Northern for trains and United Utilities for water. Legally they can't cut off your water supply and some people can get by with cars, walking and cycling but certainly a big majority of us are paying into those three monopolist coffers. Why should us Brits have to pay rail companies who run the only trains between two stations (or the only short distance trains in a whole region of the UK) whatever fare they choose to charge? I read UK rail is 3-4 times more expensive per mile than many European countries a few years back and this seems to explain why.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davethedavedave)
    You cant compare the life styles of people from very different cultures....
    Yes, you can. You can be careful not to draw exact parallels, but claiming that the results of the US health system have absolutely nothing to teach us is a bit, er, silly.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davethedavedave)
    I know my view is part of very small minority and this is going to be very unpopular, but I thought I would share it and see what happens.

    So the government is currently in the process of overhauling the NHS. As we all know the NHS is in crisis, anyone thinks otherwise is simply short sighted. But I think more drastic changes need to take place.

    Right now the government punish those who work hard and are involved in private enterprise, via means of redistribution of taxes on the rich to pay for health care for all. And also those who use private health care continue to pay national insurance. We don't need this, and everyone should be on a level playing field via private healthcare. That way we get a better quality of treatment for all.

    Privatatisation will give everyone a chance to become a shareholder in the a private health service. This means that the health companies will be more accountable to you, because without the approval of there customers they are unlikely to turn a profit.

    A wider range of treatments will be available, drugs that can’t be found on the NHS will become more accessible in the country.

    People will change their life styles, eating habits, increase the amount they exercise etc etc, because they know that living in an irresponsible manner will end up costing them money and no one else.

    With the population getting older by the day, the government can ill afford to keep on the NHS as tax money should be spent else where. So its important that massive private investment takes place as soon as possible. Private health care will provide a higher standard of care and insure that the population of the UK gets the health care it deserves.

    edit: I am willing to let my opinion be changed slightly. But bear in mind I have strong believes in a free market and the decentralization of the government which isn't going to change. Also since 99% of people are completely against this, I really cant awsner every single question, seen as I am on my own here. But anyway you get the gist of what I think from this post I hope.
    While I agree with your initial statement, I disagree with some of the reasons you've put forward.

    Firstly, the NHS is in crisis, I agree with you on that one, I also agree with you about getting drugs to the market quicker; however after that, things stop making sense.

    The first thing I've bolded: it's an unsustainable system, usually the ones that don't take care of themselves are the ones with no money; ethically, how can we just let them die on the street because they have no money? Second about the bolded part, not many people are going to reverse their eating habits drastically because it's going to end up costing them more money. Many people living at this moment have irreversible damage, what happens to these people? Do they end up on a different tariff of healthcare simply because the goalposts have been moved after they've done the damage?

    Secondly, what really needs to be done is not about how the NHS is funded, but how it is run. I know of a few cases of people in my family who have been waiting ages for operations, or have been told that they will get a letter regarding something and it's never turned up. You also hear of the neglect some people experience while in hospital, but I was visiting someone in hospital two weeks ago, and there were about 5 nurses just sat around the computer at reception (of the ward) chatting. I'll get back to the missed letters in a minute, but the NHS does not need more staff to cope with the amount of patients it treats, it just needs to organise the whole thing better, same goes for the organisational system of operations and appointments.

    Now the solution to this is not to privatise it and then dish out shares. It's to keep the same funding mechanism and cut the waste in the system. A private company has to make a profit to survive, so theoretically the NHS will be made much more efficient by privatisation. Also, people who work in the public sector does seem to have as much opportunity for promotion as in the private sector. Moving the NHS to the private sector would increase promotion opportunities and therefore increase productivity of the staff, thereby increasing efficiency again.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The main aim of a public health service is to provide a service to it's citizens.

    The main aim of a private health service is to generate profits.

    I don't want to be cared for knowing that my health and best interests come second.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davethedavedave)
    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.
    Obviously not, the CEO isn't going to be recommending it and I don't think any Doctor doing such a thing would expect to stay in the profession. But if they've just got 10 million out of a rich dementia patient they euthanised then they're probably alright without the job.

    I'm not commenting on the private vs. NHS debate. Though I disagree with you on that, I do agree that people who defend the NHS as perfect can be a bit deluded (I live in France, their system is close to perfect in my opinion. Fancy seeing a highly recommended specialist tomorrow? Ring up and book yourself in. Your GP? Of course there's no need for an appointment.) nor do I think private healthcare is the solution. I was just trying to show that in a debate as complicated as this you can't get away with sweeping statements, you have to show how your system would work in detail, because we know how the NHS works because it is already there.

    Laws, made by governments about a private healthcare system are by their very definition government involvement in an aspect of healthcare, which you originally said you didn't want at all.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    So you admit we would receive worse healthcare which would harm a lot of people and we would pay more for it - so why exactly do you support it?
    (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.
    Except that the people who would be negatively affected outnumber the rich who could afford it. Using your crappy analogy it would be like blowing up the building to stop the plane hitting it.
    (Original post by PrinceyJ)
    Firstly, the NHS is in crisis, I agree with you on that one
    Why is the NHS in crisis? I want examples please and not just the "because Cameron said it is" or avoiding answering the question as dtdd has done several times.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 18, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.