Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A private healthcare service, good or bad? watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Most of Europe have private healthcare services.
    most of europe is bankrupt and full of poverty. thats why.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    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.
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    most of europe is bankrupt and full of poverty. thats why.
    I wouldn't describe Germany as bankrupt and full of poverty but then again, I'm not a sensationalist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otester)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I wouldn't describe Germany as bankrupt and full of poverty but then again, I'm not a sensationalist.
    Only reason Germany has done well is because they've used the Euro to sell their products to poorer countries by means of those countries using cheap credit and then ending up broke like Greece. #

    Take that out the equation and Germany is a mediocre nation

    Germany unemployment rate was once 11%. The Euro sorted that and took Germany out of recession.

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germ...mployment-rate
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otester)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    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...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otester)
    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...
    Except the prices aren't artificially high, they've always been high.

    I do say the same about food and water (you should have left out oxygen because food and water were the only decent points there) which is why we have welfare and charity, because they are involuntary needs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Snip.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    good.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fickschlitten)
    good.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otester)
    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.
    Yeah, if you can pay for it. A British doctor has no incentive either to restrict or inflate the number of tests based on the patient's ability to pay. He simply gets on with the business of figuring out what disease the patient has.

    Of course, most costly or time-consuming tests are done by the appropriate specialist. It's true that doctors' surgeries are overstretched in high-density areas, but this is mainly by design of Conservative governments, who want the NHS privatised because most of them hold shares in private healthcare companies, unlike the little people who only hold stakes in the NHS. A sympathetic government, which the people can vote in if they want, can simply respond to need by raising taxes by 0.0001% and building new hospitals where there is the need (not, as I suppose happens in America, where there is a sufficiently well moneyed "customer" base).

    America's privatised healthcare is absolutely barbaric: citizens of literally every other developed country, as well as Americans who have occasion to use publicly funded healthcare abroad, have their eyes popping out of their heads at how astoundingly backward the country is on this: its own people dying miserably, while their neighbours vote brainlessly, in service of a knee-jerk anti-Communist Cold War hangover ideology.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Henry27)
    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.
    These are all fairly decent points, and in the OP I did allude to some of these, however I'd disagree with the last one but that's for another day.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fickschlitten)
    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.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    We can pay our doctors more without privatisation though.
    Where is this extra funding going to come from? more taxes?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fickschlitten)
    Where is this extra funding going to come from? more taxes?
    If a nationalised service provides quality service for a lower cost than a privatised service, or a USA style service, then what's wrong with paying slightly more in taxes?

    I'm fairly neutral on this, I'm just literally asking why a private service would be better, so far the responses I've been given are pretty weak. A lot based on ideological reasons rather than practical or pragmatic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    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
    I did say in the OP that it would still be free at the point of use.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.