[ByronicHero]

Depends how you are defining "right".

[madders94]

There's been a couple of cases recently where people abroad have been told they have to find so much money in so many days or their loved one's life support will be turned off.

It disappoints me when I see people saying "I'm not going private unless I can stop paying towards the NHS" - it's such a self-centred point of view. My granddad had private health insurance through work and went private but never complained about paying towards the NHS, and he said his reasons were that by going private as he was able to, he was freeing up bed spaces and GP appointments for people who can't afford private healthcare.

My family use the NHS a lot - my dad is physically disabled and my parents both have mental illnesses, I've been in for life-saving treatment, I've also been back and forth to the doctors and hospitals in the past few months, my brother and sister both need serious dental work done (not because they don't look after their teeth, I must add). None of these ailments are our fault - I can understand people begrudging paying for the consequences of someone smoking or obesity, but these are all things that we can't help and, in some cases, would die without the care received.

OP, from your posts it seems that your disagreement is not with the healthcare system but with taxes in general - the gripe about "forcing people to pay for something". Well guess what, without taxes we wouldn't have any of the services we have these days - no state education, no healthcare system, probably no prisons, no secure mental health units - how great does that sound?

[madders94]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
That doesn't matter to me.

What matters is that nobody should be forced to pay for something or face imprisonment. That is never right in my eyes, no matter the circumstances.

The self-centred nature of privileged students never fails to surprise and disgust me.

[Rooster523]

Healthcare is an absolute right.

How can a society call itself civilised yet turn somebody away from hospital because they can't afford to pay for treatment?

Sure, the NHS isn't perfect (and this is coming from an NHS employee) but my God you'll miss it when it's gone.

[Classical Liberal]

The main problem with the NHS is the subtle regressive nature of it.

[megan.c]

If someone is born into an unwealthy family with a chronic disease, disability or condition then they should have the right to free healthcare.

People generally can't help getting ill, regardless of financial situation, and the NHS is stricter than many people like to believe. Also, you have to pay for prescriptions so it's not as if people get stuff for free, just consultations (unless they have an exemptions certificate).

Would you like us to be like America where people can be left with ridiculous bills after receiving cancer treatment?

(I'd potentially be deaf if it wasn't for the NHS... guess that would've been the fault of 5 year old me for not earning enough money for the operation!)

[OU Student]

(Original post by littlemissmidget123)
however there is very much a culture of going to the doctors over the slightest niggle of pain or sign of illness - this needs stopping.

Agreed. I don't think some realise you can go to the chemist and get advice for minor illnesses. I've done it.

My family use the NHS a lot. Part of this (at least for me anyway) is due to not being taken seriously as a child and recently being told I shouldn't have any problems - I've spent the last 4-5 weeks with problems. If they actually did something when I was younger, I wouldn't need to keep on visiting the doctor.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Fusion)
The UK spends ~8% of GDP on healthcare and covers everyone

America spends ~15% of GDP on healthcare and doesn't cover everyone

God save the NHS

The US has the some of the best healthcare and treatment options in the world. In the UK we have some of the worst cancer survival rates in the western world. I don't think we should be trumpeting the fact that our system is cheap when it lags so far behind other western countries.

[Aoide]

I don't think it is a right but I do think the NHS is good thing. The arguements against it on the grounds that you shouldn't pay for someone else apply to everything tax based. Do you want to remove the Police, Schools or the Army?

The NHS may not be perfect but it is a lot cheaper than the alternative. It may be slightly worse in term of care provided but what do you expect when it is constantly the target of cuts and restrictions. For some reason whenever taxes are questioned the NHS comes up when in reality other areas equally as bad. I'm not against reforming it but there is no logical way a private company can do better, since a government owned health service can do everything exactly the same but without needing a profit.

[moonkatt]

(Original post by madders94)
The self-centred nature of privileged students never fails to surprise and disgust me.

The thing is they forget that as a society our success is because it has been based on teamwork. People do not become millionaires just by working hard on their own, businesses are not successful purely on the effort of one chief exec. If people on the shop floor, who are usually the ones who have to do the most physically demanding manual work and are paid the least struggle to access healthcare then the business itself would suffer and grind to a halt. Would charity be able to take over and do this? I doubt it, people are greedy and would do their best to avoid paying money just as people avoid paying tax currently. The NHS isn't perfect, but it's a darn sight better than this libertarian, I'm allright Jack utopia people are banging on about in this thread.

[zaliack]

The main reason I disagree with private healthcare is that childbirth costs the same amount of money as a deposit for a small, cheap house, yet we are turning into a nation that is dependant on rent as we can't afford deposits.

but I believe that it is a negative human right, but a positive civil right in the UK (if that even makes sense)

[Cable]

(Original post by zaliack)
The main reason I disagree with private healthcare is that childbirth costs the same amount of money as a deposit for a small, cheap house, yet we are turning into a nation that is dependant on rent as we can't afford deposits.

but I believe that it is a negative human right, but a positive civil right in the UK (if that even makes sense)

I admit that I'm speculating here. But isn't it likely that in a free market system, the prices for childbirth would be cheaper? Due to the nature of competition, the prices of most products would be as cheap as possible, meaning that the costs for resources used in childbirth should be cheaper. Add in the fact that clinics/hospitals will be competing with each other, it makes sense that they will charge the cheapest price possible to attract customers.

So overall the charge for childbirth should be cheaper. What do you think?

[zaliack]

(Original post by Cable)
I advocate a slight free market economy (private education, private healthcare etc) where we have a small public sector (police etc).

Now I admit that I'm speculating here. But isn't it like that in my free market system, the prices for childbirth would be cheaper? Due to the nature of competition, the prices of most products would be as cheap as possible, meaning that the costs for resources used in childbirth should be cheaper. Add in the fact that clinics/hospitals will be competing with each other, it makes sense that they will charge the cheapest price possible to attract customers.

So overall the charge for childbirth should be cheaper. What do you think?

It's not really the costs of the products which is the problem, it's the amount of labour (no pun intended) which is needed to be provided for child birth. There needs to be enough surgical teams, enough midwives, and sufficient tests to be put in place. Midwives sometimes have to be with a birthing mother for a few days just to get them through labour. We've also got to think about the health visitors who visit before birth, who help the mothers etc.

So overall, I'd say that the actual tools used in child birth are minimum (Probably around 30% of the total cost), and if we introduce competition into healthcare, it's most likely the labour who suffer the most.

[Cable]

(Original post by Aoide)
1. I don't think it is a right but I do think the NHS is good thing. The arguements against it on the grounds that you shouldn't pay for someone else apply to everything tax based. Do you want to remove the Police, Schools or the Army?

2. The NHS may not be perfect but it is a lot cheaper than the alternative.

3. It may be slightly worse in term of care provided but what do you expect when it is constantly the target of cuts and restrictions.

4. I'm not against reforming it but there is no logical way a private company can do better, since a government owned health service can do everything exactly the same but without needing a profit.

1. I am not happy with education and healthcare being provided by the state because it can lead to a massive waste of resources, there's no complication from having different schools competing with each other in a private system (unlike a private police/national defence system) and the standards of education and healthcare are likely to increase/remain high in a private system because each school is competing with each other for more and better students, so they have to get better teachers and use their resources as well as possible. Additionally, the prices will be affordable since the schools will have to reduce prices to attract customers.

2. I don't see how it is cheaper than a private system in which successful hospitals will use their resources as well and as efficiently as possible; the prices will be affordable and the hospitals will be making profits. However with public healthcare and education, they drain our GDP and especially in the case of public healthcare, they run up debts that don't make our economy any better.

3. Isn't the fact that their care is not as good as it can be more of a reason to support a slightly free market healthcare system? In free market healthcare, standards should increase overall from the nature of competition. And you have to ask yourself why the NHS is the subject of restrictions and cuts? Oh let me guess...it's too big to run and is unsustainable, leading to debts that can become dangerous if people aren't careful. Hence the reason to support a slightly free market healthcare system.

4. Lolwut? Firstly, the public healthcare can't run as efficiently as successful private healthcare systems. The gov't has no incentive to reduce costs or be efficient because it doesn't have to generate a profit and can put any tab on the taxpayer. I cannot increase its standards as well as a private system because there's no competition in public healthcare. Hence there's no real pressure for hospitals to raise standards because regardless of their standards, it'll not severely affect the number of customers they get or the income they get.

And the fact that public healthcare doesn't need a profit is a big problem economically. Because it can lead to resources not being used efficiently and it can lead to huge debts that have a negative effect on the economy.

[Cable]

(Original post by zaliack)
It's not really the costs of the products which is the problem, it's the amount of labour (no pun intended) which is needed to be provided for child birth. There needs to be enough surgical teams, enough midwives, and sufficient tests to be put in place. Midwives sometimes have to be with a birthing mother for a few days just to get them through labour. We've also got to think about the health visitors who visit before birth, who help the mothers etc.

So overall, I'd say that the actual tools used in child birth are minimum (Probably around 30% of the total cost), and if we introduce competition into healthcare, it's most likely the labour who suffer the most.

Yeah, I was aware that the labour involved should be considered. However, the nature of the free market is to provide services for those in need. So the hospitals will have to make sure that they have enough staff to ensure good delivery of babies and the right support for the babies and the mother.

Due to the nature of competition, the hospitals cannot afford to drop their number of midwives/surgical team members otherwise a poor service for mothers giving birth can lead to less mothers coming to their hospital for delivery. So rather than sacking staff to reduce costs, the hospital will have to reduce other costs to ensure they pay their staff's wages and still make a reasonable profit.

[madders94]

Look at it this way - in a free market situation, where you have to pay for education, the government will have to raise child benefits or remove truancy laws, because otherwise there is no way many families will be able to afford education as well as having to pay for every bit of healthcare they receive rather than paying through taxes, so it still isn't going to greatly reduce the cost to the general taxpayer.

[TurboCretin]

I think that public healthcare is a good thing, but I don't see how a right to that derives from anything other than paying the taxes which pay for it. Which is circular, of course.

[Cable]

(Original post by megan.c)
If someone is born into an unwealthy family with a chronic disease, disability or condition then they should have the right to free healthcare.

But why? And not just you but:

Those of you who believe healthcare is a positive right, can you philosophically explain your position? Why must someone be forced to pay for the healthcare of someone they don't know, even if they don't actually use the NHS themselves?

[blu tack]

(Original post by Cable)
But why? And not just you but:

Those of you who believe healthcare is a positive right, can you philosophically explain your position? Why must someone be forced to pay for the healthcare of someone they don't know, even if they don't actually use the NHS themselves?

The same reason that people are forced to pay for education, the military, traffic lights, the police and everything else that taxes pay for- because for society to run properly everyone needs to chip in. No one should die because they are too poor to afford treatment, so where else do we get the money from? Everyone pays their fair share in taxes and society continues to run smoothly (ish).

By the way, even if you go private in healthcare, you're likely to end up using the NHS at some point because there are no private A and Es.

[Cable]

(Original post by madders94)
Look at it this way - in a free market situation, where you have to pay for education, the government will have to raise child benefits or remove truancy laws, because otherwise there is no way many families will be able to afford education as well as having to pay for every bit of healthcare they receive rather than paying through taxes, so it still isn't going to greatly reduce the cost to the general taxpayer.

I might have to write a long post to respond to this so please forgive me if it ends up being too long. And also be strong as you read my post because you may not like some of my ideals.

I advocate a slightly free market economic system, so there won't be any child benefits at all. And I see this as a good thing because it will encourage people to only have kids if they know they can afford them (food, clothing, education, healthcare etc).

I don't think education should be too much of a problem because the prices should be affordable due to the nature of competition. If for whatever reason, someone can't afford it, then they can get support from relatives/friends/neighbours/charities.

Additionally, I propose less or non-existent taxes overall in my economic system, meaning that people would generally have a decent/good spending power, making the prices of education affordable.

As for the cost of the taxpayer not being reduced greatly? Well, since the private healthcare and education systems are likely to have lower or non-existent debts overall in comparison to state-owned ones, then I think the cost has been reduced greatly in the private system. Remember that most debts come with interest payments on top of the debt. The public healthcare in particular is unsustainable and it's not wonder that it has a high debt. Sooner or later, the taxpayers will eventually have to carry the burden of the debt. And the taxes won't be pleasant.