Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, I do not support more taxes on individuals who are doing the government a favour by choosing not to use the failing NHS. Taxing private healthcare is dragging down the standards of healthcare for individuals who can afford private healthcare, while placing more strain on the NHS to drag down the quality of healthcare for all other individuals.
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I can't believe I'm doing this, but Hear, Hear!
    I also can't believe I'm doing it. Hear hear indeed!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    That's plainly not true, those comparisons exclude the subsidies paid to the private firms operating them. State runs an equally good/better services as less cost.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, state run medical provisions are not always equal in quality, or better than the private alternatives, evidenced by the higher rates of satisfaction in private hospitals, the higher level of investment in new equipment, the faster treatments, and the higher average in measurable statistics. From the Care Quality Commissioners Report, 81.7% of private hospitals are meeting standards when compared to 77.5% of NHS hospitals: that statistic ignores the potential influence over reports by some of the Care Quality Commissioner inspectors who were members of anti-privatisation pressure groups. I challenge you to produce actual statistics to prove the quality at NHS hospitals equals, or exceeds the quality in private hospitals.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If there were a way to tax only the things they're actually relieving the NHS of - i.e. only tax the difference between actual private healthcare and the costs which would be found for private healthcare of NHS standard, I would do that. However, aside from the understanding that private healthcare costs, on average, 900% more than NHS care, I don't have any specific numbers. However, the vast majority of the cost of private healthcare are unnecessary frivolities, and accordingly, it is more appropriate to fit it in the 'unnecessary luxury that should be taxed' category than 'relieving a burden on the NHS' category.

    Furthermore, this Bill actually sees net gains for the NHS due to the price inelasticity of demand for private healthcare, and therefore means the NHS will be better-funded. Only extreme right-wing ideologies could reject it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    OP, are we referring to private firms who are funded by the patient/insurance or just general private firms who operate under a NHS banner. Important differential

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The section 1 definition excludes NHS outsourced private care.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)

    Furthermore, this Bill actually sees net gains for the NHS due to the price inelasticity of demand for private healthcare, and therefore means the NHS will be better-funded. Only extreme right-wing ideologies could reject it.
    Care to point out which bit of this bill guarantees better funding for the NHS?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If there were a way to tax only the things they're actually relieving the NHS of - i.e. only tax the difference between actual private healthcare and the costs which would be found for private healthcare of NHS standard, I would do that. However, aside from the understanding that private healthcare costs, on average, 900% more than NHS care, I don't have any specific numbers. However, the vast majority of the cost of private healthcare are unnecessary frivolities, and accordingly, it is more appropriate to fit it in the 'unnecessary luxury that should be taxed' category than 'relieving a burden on the NHS' category.

    Furthermore, this Bill actually sees net gains for the NHS due to the price inelasticity of demand for private healthcare, and therefore means the NHS will be better-funded. Only extreme right-wing ideologies could reject it.
    The bold part is deception, the bill does not state the tax revenue will be given to the NHS, the tax revenue will boost total tax revenue; the Treasury may choose to not spend the revenue from this on the NHS. The point is this, the bill here reduces the quality of healthcare for all, removes the affordability of private healthcare for some, and has no guarantee revenue will go to the NHS; the bill is exemplifies the politics of jealousy where people who cannot afford private healthcare want to remove it from society.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Care to point out which bit of this bill guarantees better funding for the NHS?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The bold part is deception, the bill does not state the tax revenue will be given to the NHS, the tax revenue will boost total tax revenue; the Treasury may choose to not spend the revenue from this on the NHS. The point is this, the bill here reduces the quality of healthcare for all, removes the affordability of private healthcare for some, and has no guarantee revenue will go to the NHS; the bill is exemplifies the politics of jealousy where people who cannot afford private healthcare want to remove it from society.
    I do not seek to remove private healthcare - I merely wish to have it appropriately recognised as a luxury. This is not the 'politics of jealousy' - a criticism which is flat-out incorrect for anything which raises revenue. The Treasury will presumably wish to ensure that NHS quality does not deteriorate, and that is the basis for my costing (even more money is raised if we don't account for more people using a consistent standard of NHS); however, I feel it inappropriate to bind the treasury in that way.

    The Bill reduces the quality of healthcare for precisely nobody.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I do not seek to remove private healthcare - I merely wish to have it appropriately recognised as a luxury. This is not the 'politics of jealousy' - a criticism which is flat-out incorrect for anything which raises revenue. The Treasury will presumably wish to ensure that NHS quality does not deteriorate, and that is the basis for my costing (even more money is raised if we don't account for more people using a consistent standard of NHS); however, I feel it inappropriate to bind the treasury in that way.

    The Bill reduces the quality of healthcare for precisely nobody.
    Which is not dependent on taxing the private sector more, if the Treasury wishes to fund the NHS better it will, as for reducing the quality of healthcare, are you telling me that the average NHS care is at least as good as the average private care?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Which is not dependent on taxing the private sector more, if the Treasury wishes to fund the NHS better it will, as for reducing the quality of healthcare, are you telling me that the average NHS care is at least as good as the average private care?
    So you're arguing in favour of a higher deficit?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So you're arguing in favour of a higher deficit?
    If I had my way we wouldn't be arguing over how much funding the NHS gets.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Aye.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye - a necessary bill.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Given the definition being used, I am somehow skeptical that me going to a private hospital to have an operation done privately instead of using NHS services costs the NHS by giving them the resources to treat another patient with their sub standard service.
    Sheer volume means costs go down if nothing else. I separate out private "you pay for" care, which I am firmly against with NHS funded private care.

    On the simplest level, private firms aren't as regulated as your state provider, their services are severely limited in terms of complications. Private firms are notoriously difficult to extract information from (opaque) so comparisons are challenging. How exactly does paying a private provider to do something that the state already does, with tight regulations as is required in health, work out cheaper with shareholders to pay?

    I'm trolling through CQC reports now to see what I can find, but even the Telegraph agrees with me.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/...is-a-myth.html
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Also OP, if you wanted, rather than a general tax on private firms, you could link it to performance instead, whereby the private firm would be fined for "re-admission" from a surgical complication, which at present is simply added to the NHS, with no repercussions for the firm.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, I do not support more taxes on individuals who are doing the government a favour by choosing not to use the failing NHS. Taxing private healthcare is dragging down the standards of healthcare for individuals who can afford private healthcare, while placing more strain on the NHS to drag down the quality of healthcare for all other individuals.
    Succinctly put.

    It's a strong Nay from me.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    "information asymmetry" still exists between private healthcare firms, making competitive comparison impossible.

    The CQC found that two healthcare firms had not tested their equipment within the recommended 2 year period, thus having to replace them (hence the investment)

    Private hospitals have a "lax safety culture"

    Only 1/3 of private hospitals hoist MDT meetings.

    Surgical teams do not perform enough surgeries in private practice to remain "competent" according to the CQC.

    14/132 private hospitals as of 2012 have NO RESUS TEAM

    Independent MACs have no legal basis to punish poor medical practice under private hospital. The report notes a conflict of interest as the panel has a financial motivation to not fire it's own doctors.

    Private firms have been staunchly criticised over confidentiality, as doctors have been taking patients notes home.

    Private hospitals are under no obligation to audit.

    http://chpi.org.uk/wp-content/upload...ty-Aug2014.pdf

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    MSG
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    MSG
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
    Offline

    18
    Nay
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Nay
    Might I ask why?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Might I ask why?
    I was originally intending to vote Aye. However, after reading through Nige's points I'm not convinced it is the best idea.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 9, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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