A private healthcare service, good or bad?

Most of Europe have private healthcare services.

No, but the USA has spent more per head on healthcare than the UK since the NHS was formed.

As we see throughout the civilised world, when healthcare is paid for by everyone and is free at the point of use, it is cheaper per head than as fully private healthcare system paid for by individual health insurance.

The USA doesn't have a public health provider so your comparison doesn't work. Even with a nationalised health service in the UK, we have more of choice for the public by allowing them to choose between the NHS or private healthcare.

most of europe is bankrupt and full of poverty. thats why.

The problems (regulations) in the USA go back to around 1910.


"The USA doesn't have a public health provider so your comparison doesn't work. "

What comparison?

I wouldn't describe Germany as bankrupt and full of poverty but then again, I'm not a sensationalist.

Your comparison between the quality of UK public healthcare compared to US private healthcare, because the UK has private health insurance but the USA does not have public health care.

If you're going to try and compare based solely on cost, I will do so solely on the basis of quality.

Personally I would disqualify the NHS either way because it's funded involuntarily and benefits from its relationship with the government which imo distorts the market.

I'm making a comparison on all factors, you're the one picking and choosing.

I'd say all healthcare is funded involuntarily, unless one volunteers to get cancer and pays for treatment in that sense. Ill-health can affect anyone at any time, it makes sense to make it free at the point of use.

I'm suggesting that the American system offers better quality but the price is artificially high due to regulation.

Then you could say the same about food/water/oxygen...it's all great until you run out...

Snip.

good.

The problem with comparing the two is supply can be restricted with socialized medicine in order to keep costs down and then you also have the quality of care, where if you go to American doctor you can get a whole range of tests done, whereas a British doctor wants to get you out the door as quick as possible.

im new to the forums but i just noticed this debate and i feel obliged to chip in.

when governments talk about reducing costs with privatization that is simply smoke and mirrors. in the most recent example of privatization not only were the side benefits eradicated, but the costs actually increased. im referring to the home care reforms, where not only does the costs of the service remain the same but the employees now earn less, the quality of care has decreased across the board (several incidents have made headlines this year alone) and numbers of elderly people admitted to hospital and staying there longer has increased (thats where the cost increase is found)

that is just one example in brief, there are many more that i can go into however for now ill just outline one of the biggest issues with privatization.
the only difference between a private entity and a government entity is that a private entity MUST make a profit, a government entity is not bound by this constraint.

so lets say that an industry is privatized, it needs to provide the same service to the government at the very least at the same cost to the government, and they need to make a profit in the process so either A. it was profitable in the first place (wouldnt be up for privatization if it were) or B. costs get cut.

there are many ways that costs can be cut but there is no cost cutting measure that is only possible for private business' in other words anything a private business can do a government can do too so privatization is never justified on a costs basis.

also of not is the side benefits that public owned enterprises, take a steel mill for example if we hit a recession in order to survive a private steel mill will make people redundant which will further increase the effects of the recession however a public mill not bound by the constraints of profit will keep people employed and speed the recovery of the economy by ensuring continued productivity and labor security.

Care to elaborate with some reference to the OP?

Or perhaps a rebuttal to the previous poster to you.

If not then that's fine, but I was hoping for some debate.

NHS is utter shite. A system where doctors are adequately paid will probably make the system much better.

Just my opinion, really have nothing to back this up for now (nearly 1am). anticipating your look at america reply.

We can pay our doctors more without privatisation though.

Where is this extra funding going to come from? more taxes?

Private health care is an awful idea. People don't just get sick when it's financially convenient.

Healthcare is a basic right that should be available to all, regardless of ability to pay.

The health service should be run in the best interests of the patients and not in the best interests of shareholders profits.

Posted from TSR Mobile