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

Cancer survival rates: It's time to start questioning the holy grail that is the NHS

Announcements Posted on
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThisIsTheLife)
    It wasn't free.

    The NHS is not, has never been, and never will be free.

    It's actually much more expensive than private healthcare, and also much less effective.
    you presumably have proof for that assertion then?

    it may well be cheaper to go private, until you get old, develop a chronic condition, get cancer, then you become uninsurable and either pay through the nose or die, isnt private healthcare great.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertarian_Walrus;38566182[B)
    ]In a true free market there would be strong competition, high quality, affordable prices and the government would not get involved[/B]. This is not the case with the American healthcare system.

    In reality, there are government enforced monopolies and government-run insurance plans. The American government spends far more on health care than nearly every other country.
    as ive asked other posters you have proof of this? or is it a selfish idealogical position against anything that you see as "unfair it take my money and i dont care about anyone else"?

    i think i know which it is
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    Surely that's an argument against the American system, not a free market solution.
    Sure. But a free market solution would be ludicrous, so i didn't bother considering it.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Sure. But a free market solution would be ludicrous, so i didn't bother considering it.
    Yes, the market is such a terrible thing. Look at the poverty in capitalist nations!
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    Yes, the market is such a terrible thing. Look at the poverty in capitalist nations!
    Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Countries like Liberia or Somalia (say) are capitalist too you know... they certainly have the low state interference you guys rave about, and they certainly don't have the government interfering with healthcare!
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Countries like Liberia or Somalia (say) are capitalist too you know... they certainly don't have the government interfering with healthcare!
    Decisive counterexamples.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is why private healthcare is so much better. The free market ensures that healthcare is the best it can be in the USA.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    This is why private healthcare is so much better. The free market ensures that healthcare is the best it can be in the USA.
    Whilst charging an extortionate amount (which is the main reason the "healthcare is so much better").
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    This is why private healthcare is so much better. The free market ensures that healthcare is the best it can be in the USA.
    if you had read the thread you mindless american bigot you would have seen the graph has already been destroyed as a "source" it is not even vaguely close to the same readings as used for the other countries.

    and if you had read a bit more you would have seen proof the nhs is one of the fastest improving healthcare systems in the world and that is is already one of the best and cost efficent, but your too thick to understand anything that doesnt follow your idealogy (which you dont even understand)
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    My dad had cancer and was treated by the NHS and survived just fine ... plus what do you know, it was free ... so i think i'll stick with the NHS over the over-priced American style healthcare system any day..
    It wasn't free. It's just that instead of your dad exclusively paying for it, I and all the other tax payers did. And a lot of tax payers are happy to do that, but please don't make the mistake if thinking it's free.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    It wasn't free. It's just that instead of your dad exclusively paying for it, I and all the other tax payers did. And a lot of tax payers are happy to do that, but please don't make the mistake if thinking it's free.
    Why is everyone dragging up such an old post? you all know exactly what i mean when i say its free, its free at the point of use i.e. we dont have to write one mofo of a cheque to the doctor at the end of surgery like the Americans
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Why is everyone dragging up such an old post? you all know exactly what i mean when i say its free, its free at the point of use i.e. we dont have to write one mofo of a cheque to the doctor at the end of surgery like the Americans
    I did know what you mean, I just get a bit peeved when people say "the NHS is free!" as a plus point, just because someone else is footing the bill instead of them.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I did know what you mean, I just get a bit peeved when people say "the NHS is free!" as a plus point, just because someone else is footing the bill instead of them.
    Its not exactly someone else footing the bill instead of them though is it? with regards to my dads case hes never claimed any state benefits except the ones which are thrust upon you such as free education [heaven forbid and all that] and he's paid more than his fair share of taxes for 45odd years. Whilst you get peeved at people saying the NHS is free, i my self [and i dont mean to sound offensive in the slightest here] got peeved when people then lambast you saying that other peopleare paying for your treatment ... in some cases they may well be but the majority of the population have paid their fair share of NI, income tax, VAT and every other tax you can imagine so can you see why it might be slightly offensive when people say someone else is footing the bill..
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Its not exactly someone else footing the bill instead of them though is it? with regards to my dads case hes never claimed any state benefits except the ones which are thrust upon you such as free education [heaven forbid and all that] and he's paid more than his fair share of taxes for 45odd years. Whilst you get peeved at people saying the NHS is free, i my self [and i dont mean to sound offensive in the slightest here] got peeved when people then lambast you saying that other peopleare paying for your treatment ... in some cases they may well be but the majority of the population have paid their fair share of NI, income tax, VAT and every other tax you can imagine so can you see why it might be slightly offensive when people say someone else is footing the bill..
    I agree with everyone you've said, which leads me to the question that, if everything you just said is true, in what way would you father have been worse off if he'd been paying into an insurance fund all that time, instead?
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I agree with everyone you've said, which leads me to the question that, if everything you just said is true, in what way would you father have been worse off if he'd been paying into an insurance fund all that time, instead?
    Because with an insurance fund they have that very bad habit of either having a maximum cap on them and when you hit that youre high and dry and they also have the problems of a] jacking your premium through the roof if you do claim against something like cancer or b] refuse to cover it again anyway which leaves you equally pooped.
    But on a broader note whilst it may be considered 'scrounging off the tax payer', by some, what about those less well off who if there wasnt an NHS couldnt afford private medical care?
    each case has its pros and cons but for all the NHSs faults its done wonders for both my father and uncle when they had to use it so im going with that, nothing against private medical care though i myself have it but for some things such as having organs removed the NHS just does a better job, or so i hear :rolleye:
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Because with an insurance fund they have that very bad habit of either having a maximum cap on them and when you hit that youre high and dry and they also have the problems of a] jacking your premium through the roof if you do claim against something like cancer or b] refuse to cover it again anyway which leaves you equally pooped.
    But on a broader note whilst it may be considered 'scrounging off the tax payer', by some, what about those less well off who if there wasnt an NHS couldnt afford private medical care?
    each case has its pros and cons but for all the NHSs faults its done wonders for both my father and uncle when they had to use it so im going with that, nothing against private medical care though i myself have it but for some things such as having organs removed the NHS just does a better job, or so i hear :rolleye:
    I don't think anyone really thinks using the NHS is scrounging off the tax payer - like you said, if you've been forced to pay into a system, the least you'd hope for is that you get to use it if you need to. My point was simply that just because we're all forced to pay money into it (which is effectively just a giant, involuntary insurance scheme that, yes, you're right, doesn't leave behind those that can't pay) doesn't mean it's free. It costs an enormous, enormous amount, and in a time when we are, as a country, spending far more money than we have, we should be careful not to denote huge swathes of public spending as "free" - people should be forced to confront the cost of a public health system, even if they then determine that it's worth the price.

    The thing is, though, your interpretation of 'what insurance companies do' appears to be primarily based upon the US system, which is about as awful a private healthcare system you can get. They have a number of key bits of legislation that make it awful (the fact that insurance companies cannot span states mean that there's rarely enough 'pie' to have multiple companies meaning you often end up with a monopoly, the fact they are immune from anti-trust laws, etc). If you look at places like Singapore or even France, they both have far larger involvements from the private sector and individual spending, yet also both have - by almost all metrics - better healthcare systems than we do.

    Criticising private healthcare on the basis of the USA is like saying that football requires no skill after only ever having watched pub games.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    This is why private healthcare is so much better. The free market ensures that healthcare is the best it can be in the USA.
    Except that private healthcare in the US is a complete and utter failure.

    A life expectancy below the OECD average, an infant mortality rate that lags behind some developing countries, and the cost to consumers is much higher then elsewhere in the OECD. Not forgetting that around 45,000 people die every year simply because they aren't covered by insurance.

    The statistics say it all really.
    • 9 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    The thing is, though, your interpretation of 'what insurance companies do' appears to be primarily based upon the US system, which is about as awful a private healthcare system you can get. They have a number of key bits of legislation that make it awful (the fact that insurance companies cannot span states mean that there's rarely enough 'pie' to have multiple companies meaning you often end up with a monopoly, the fact they are immune from anti-trust laws, etc). If you look at places like Singapore or even France, they both have far larger involvements from the private sector and individual spending, yet also both have - by almost all metrics - better healthcare systems than we do.

    Criticising private healthcare on the basis of the USA is like saying that football requires no skill after only ever having watched pub games.
    If we're arguing about a free market solution to healthcare then the US is really the closest example we have of that kind of healthcare in the western world. No other system leaves the healthcare system to the whims of the free market (admittedly with some government programs to help subsidise coverage).

    France may have a good healthcare system. They also spend approximately 50% more per head than we do. Maybe that has something to do with their better metrics. In any case, their system is based around a single government run insurance system with private hospitals providing service. Yet despite this private (but not free market) involvement and greater funding, the NHS is due to overtake their cardiac mortality record, a statistic previously thought so good that it was called the french paradox.

    As for Singapore, the healthcare service is 'private' but:

    -the population is forced to buy healthcare insurance
    -The 'private' insurance companies and hospital all the state as significant if not majority share holders.
    -The 'metrics' aren't that great when you consider Singapore is a small metropolitan country with proportionally half the elderly population as we do. I'm sure if we reduced the UK to just London and killed off half the >65s, we would see similar results
    -The authoritarian government (it's funny how free marketeers forget quite how authoritarian it actually is!) in Singapore imposes strict price controls on healthcare. I bet the trains run on time too.

    All in all, if we're looking for a healthcare system in a wealthy country that demonstrates what would happen if the healthcare was free market, you would do a lot worse than look at the US as, despite it's high spending via medicare and medicaid, there is relatively little government interference in the market, at least until the recent reforms.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    If we're arguing about a free market solution to healthcare then the US is really the closest example we have of that kind of healthcare in the western world. No other system leaves the healthcare system to the whims of the free market (admittedly with some government programs to help subsidise coverage).

    France may have a good healthcare system. They also spend approximately 50% more per head than we do. Maybe that has something to do with their better metrics. In any case, their system is based around a single government run insurance system with private hospitals providing service. Yet despite this private (but not free market) involvement and greater funding, the NHS is due to overtake their cardiac mortality record, a statistic previously thought so good that it was called the french paradox.

    As for Singapore, the healthcare service is 'private' but:

    -the population is forced to buy healthcare insurance
    -The 'private' insurance companies and hospital all the state as significant if not majority share holders.
    -The 'metrics' aren't that great when you consider Singapore is a small metropolitan country with proportionally half the elderly population as we do. I'm sure if we reduced the UK to just London and killed off half the >65s, we would see similar results
    -The authoritarian government (it's funny how free marketeers forget quite how authoritarian it actually is!) in Singapore imposes strict price controls on healthcare. I bet the trains run on time too.

    All in all, if we're looking for a healthcare system in a wealthy country that demonstrates what would happen if the healthcare was free market, you would do a lot worse than look at the US as, despite it's high spending via medicare and medicaid, there is relatively little government interference in the market, at least until the recent reforms.
    I didn't say anything about fully free market solutions? I offered France and Singapore as examples of countries which had both better healthcare systems and yet "have far larger involvements from the private sector and individual spending" - which is more or less exactly what you just said. I don't know if you're arguing with me or agreeing, here...

    And you're right about there being little interference from the government in the US, sort of, but the government doesn't need to continually interfere when there is already legislation in place that absolutely strangles competition. That is a form of interference, I guess.

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: July 16, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

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.