Cambridge Offer Holders 2015 thread

If your aim is to make a profit, then you're going to be far less wasteful with your own money, than with a bucketload from the taxpayers whose use doesn't directly affect you. Aren't you?

Well I wouldn't personally. If I'm being paid to do a job, I'd do it well. Not take any shortcuts with something as important as the NHS.

well youre yound and not corrupt

There is corruption in the private sector too.

well youre yound and not corrupt

Well your argument just fell to pieces.

Privatisation is inherently wrong. It allows for the rich to maintain their brutal grip on the poorest in our society. Most obviously seen in the private school system. Just my two pennies or whatever.

true, but money is their motivation. and that is what we're trying to save

No. Private schools are there, but state schools still exist. So there is free schooling for anyone who wants it

oh **** off.

if you can pay to have your child at eton, or harrow, or marlborough then they are far more likely to be white, go to a top university, get a top job, and pay for their child to go to eton, or harrow, or marlborough.

As long as the private system exists, those who have no choice but to attend a state school will always be disadvantaged.

lol i went to state comp so i dont know who youre telling to **** off m8

true, but money is their motivation. and that is what we're trying to save

The idea is that the service provision tends to become more efficient/cheaper if it's done by the private sector.

E.g. food is an even more essential human need than healthcare but we leave food provision to the private sector (i.e. supermarkets) and as a result we get much, much cheaper and better quality food than when food distribution and production was centralised and state-run.

If you're OK with the idea that food is not provided by the state and that the poorest in society have their food bills subsidised (benefits), then I don't see why you'd treat healthcare differently.

Private sector is more efficient?

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/mythbusters-the-private-sector-is-more-efficient-than-the-public-sector

And a commentary on US healthcare. 43% can't afford it (that's way too big a % for charitable donations to cover it.)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/health-care-cost/

Very interesting. Perhaps I see it as so different because of how much food cost and choice varies, and also because purchasing food is so much more regular than purchasing healthcare.It would be difficult to fairly apply a blanket cost for food to the whole population whilst in healthcare, one operation for one person will cost a similar amount for another person. If people had to, for some reason, receive daily healthcare to ensure survival, I think I would be for people having to cover their own healthcare costs.
In addition, those that need healthcare often are unlucky, and I feel shouldn't have to suffer financially because of it. Whereas people generally need similar amounts of food and being able to purchase more/better quality food is a luxury and not a burden?

Ideally, charity. I do not suspect that the number of people entirely unable to afford healthcare would be overwhelmingly large, if the NHS was privatized. Consequently, I'm not sure there is a reason to suppose that would be a tremendous task. Even if it was a very large sum, considering the entire electorate this year voted for parties which loudly and proudly advocate socialized healthcare, I think it would be a very unusual state of affairs if - in England - there were not very many people very willing to sign up to some sort of scheme which could provide healthcare for the poor. This would especially be the case if privatization made healthcare cheaper and/or more efficient generally. Perhaps some healthcare providers would include some charitable element as part of their service?

If that was not possible for whatever reason, I suppose I would consider the suggestion that the state should provide funding for the healthcare of the poor. Still, I would think it would be preferable that the state should pay for it, but not provide it directly. I haven't though that issue through in any real detail though.

I think you're misunderstanding my analogy. The suggestion is to retain the free-at-point-of-service (or at least, strongly-subsidised-at-point-of-service) system, but with the provision of healthcare operated by private hospitals/clinics etc, rather than government run ones. The idea is that end user experience should remain the same from a cost perspective, except you can now choose to go to either your local Tesco hospital or your local Asda hospital depending on which one you feel is better.

Actually the above is a long way off from what the reality is at the moment. All that 'privatisation of the NHS' means in current political rhetoric is NHS hospitals being able to outsource some specialist services to private firms. Even that, however, tends to be interpreted as 'the poor are going to die in the streets!' by the more shrill members of the public . . .

Haha ahh I see! I did think that this would affect the poor until now so thanks haha
I do think the idea of private hospitals are very flawed, however. Being motivated by money, it's very easy for them to cut patient support where they like if they don't fit the budget. For instance, a family member was due to have an operation that would've left them unable to move for the next six months with a private provider. They were called up by the hospital the day before and told that they had to cancel because of having to stay within a budget. This would not be accepted with an NHS hospital, and there would at least be an effort to have them transferred to another hospital.
Perhaps this has made me biased, but I find it difficult to accept that such an important communal service should be driven by money making!

Btw umutualalberts I'm sorry you're finding these posts annoying but I think it's good to try and learn from people with dissimilar views to yourself, and it's not like this thread was buzzing with discussions about something else anyway :P

I'll just finish with saying I don't think the answer is absolutely obvious either way, and I find it a bit disrespectful that some people are so close-minded that they think anyone who doesn't absolutely believe that their way is the supremely best way is the spawn of the devil (both on the right and the left; not necessarily anyone on this thread).

I don't know if I can believe that charity would be enough to purchase it! Many people in america simply have to go without healthcare because of ow expensive it is.
Healthcare is something that is so expensive that most people would have to save up thousands to afford and, for most people, could not be covered in the sudden way that many health issues arise. Even earning regular income, I know that if I had a family and was saving up, I'd find it difficult to justify spending spending that money saved on myself, creating a financially instable future for my family and I think this is an issue many families face (my knowledge of this totally isn't based on breaking bad

Hm idk the cost for conditions such as cancer or HIV are often very costly and take a very long time to treat, if not having to be treated for their entire lifetime. Some conditions will be impossible for someone to cover really, and that is just a matter of bad luck.

It feels like a very different thing to having paying small chunks of money involuntarily than having the choice to not pay at all and still have the security of healthcare provisions if need be (through your own means, or through a charity). I think people like the idea of helping people through socialized healthcare until they actively have to take the money out of their own wallets and hand it over. I think this will lead to the majority of people not donating to these charities and the burden of healthcare provisions to some of the most vulnerable people in society resting on the shoulders of a few.

Besides that, if donations were to fall short one week, would it be the case of turning away someone who needed healthcare, but not as urgently? Or would there be some sort of state fund to healthcare?

I also think its difficult to determine who's poor enough for state funded health care. Would there be a cut off line as there is when determining student finance? This kind of system seems to work more for some than it does for others. For instance, my mum falls just outside one of the brackets for student finance which means that she has to provide some thousands extra each year, whilst someone making perhaps £100 a year less than her will receive that money. I can see similar issues arising with this kind of system for healthcare.

Sorry I have so many questions/so much to say! People I know aren't really for privatization of the NHS at all lol so it's interesting to hear what others have to say

I think you're being very wise to say that people (to paraphrase) 'are all for socialized healthcare until they literally have to take the money out of their wallet'. It had been on the tip of my mind, but I'd not really considered it. On reflection, I suppose that there is probably an extent to which it is true. The more radical side of me wants to suggest some sort of automatic charitable system, into which everyone is entered when they turn of age, and has to explicitly disavow if they no longer want to provide: this would possibly solve the reluctance problem.

Clearly that solution would be kind of ad hoc, though. I suppose I may lump it with ClickItBack (or at least, the position he is defending) and say that it should just be privatized but publically funded.

I suppose I wouldn't advocate the provision of healthcare being graduated, so I don't think the problem of cut-off points would develop. Interesting difficulty, though.

I think you're being very wise to say that people (to paraphrase) 'are all for socialized healthcare until they literally have to take the money out of their wallet'. It had been on the tip of my mind, but I'd not really considered it. On reflection, I suppose that there is probably an extent to which it is true. The more radical side of me wants to suggest some sort of automatic charitable system, into which everyone is entered when they turn of age, and has to explicitly disavow if they no longer want to provide: this would possibly solve the reluctance problem.

Clearly that solution would be kind of ad hoc, though. I suppose I may lump it with ClickItBack (or at least, the position he is defending) and say that it should just be privatized but publically funded.

I suppose I wouldn't advocate the provision of healthcare being graduated, so I don't think the problem of cut-off points would develop. Interesting difficulty, though.