Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    I'm agreeing that what your concerns are with this bill exist with the NHS already - privately run hospitals will be no different. The situation is open to be improved, not at the expense of the taxpayer, under this bill as well as the private companies who purchased stakes in the NHS assets will be able to build or extend hospitals in areas of genuine need. It would be an incentive (for profit) for the private companies to expand some hospitals in central towns to incorporate a full A&E department, especially in some parts of rural counties like Northumberland.

    The minority will not explicitly be the groups you stated; they will be the people who live in the middle of nowhere - where the nearest town has only a MIU.
    Correct, they won't be explicitly the groups I stated, however it will include them which is not fair and right. In fact, you just added a group to my list, improving my argument.

    I understand your thinking in privatisation = competition = better service. For some things I agree this does work.

    However health care is something completely different, this is a fundamental right, the right to health care, this is something that should not be entrusted to businesses. I also think it's wrong on a moral level, making money from people being ill. This could even lead the American style culture of sometimes wanting people to be ill, seeing them as potential money to make money. It is a disgusting thought and I would hate to see the UK go down that path.

    Protect our health care service! Keep it out of the reach of greedy businesses.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    Correct, they won't be explicitly the groups I stated, however it will include them which is not fair and right. In fact, you just added a group to my list, improving my argument.
    But if you choose any select group - you're likely to find an elderly person, an ill person, and a poor person.

    The people who will be at risk will be the people who are at risk now because they live too far from a major hospital. However, if anything, this group of people is likely to shrink if private companies are able to expand smaller hospitals to include vital services not previously available.

    As it stands, the government will only expand hospitals if there is a categoric danger of threatening too many peoples lives. And due to the costs of building work, hiring extra staff, etc. - putting an extra strain on the taxpayer. However, if a private company saw the possible extra profit from taking in a couple extra thousand patients, they will spend money to make money - with government there is no such incentive.

    I understand your thinking in privatisation = competition = better service. For some things I agree this does work.

    However health care is something completely different, this is a fundamental right, the right to health care, this is something that should not be entrusted to businesses. I also think it's wrong on a moral level, making money from people being ill. This could even lead the American style culture of sometimes wanting people to be ill, seeing them as potential money to make money. It is a disgusting thought and I would hate to see the UK go down that path.
    You're right, healthcare is a right - but this bill does nothing to prevent access to healthcare. There are several measures put in place to make sure that no one is denied healthcare of any cost.

    As Simon has pointed out several times over all three of these readings - this is nothing like the American system. This is similar to Singapores, Frances, Spains, to name a few.

    Protect our health care service! Keep it out of the reach of greedy businesses.
    Yeah, yeah, yeah: businesses = greedy, not good for people, etc. etc. etc.
    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    As it stands, the government will only expand hospitals if there is a categoric danger of threatening too many peoples lives. And due to the costs of building work, hiring extra staff, etc. - putting an extra strain on the taxpayer. However, if a private company saw the possible extra profit from taking in a couple extra thousand patients, they will spend money to make money - with government there is no such incentive.
    I don't think businesses will deem it worthwhile to build hospitals that reach out to these areas, I don't think there will be the profit incentive. So this problem will still exist.




    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Yeah, yeah, yeah: businesses = greedy, not good for people, etc. etc. etc.
    :rolleyes:
    In this case yes, but I'm not towing the line that that is always the case.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    I don't think businesses will deem it worthwhile to build hospitals that reach out to these areas, I don't think there will be the profit incentive. So this problem will still exist.
    There certainly will be in some areas. Such as the areas around my home town. The nearest A&E is 25 miles away from my Alnwick, then when you go further north west, it stays the local A&E for the outer areas of Northumberland. Ingram (the furthest point away from the hospital before falling into another's jurisdiction) to the nearest A&E is the best part of an hours drive. Expanding the hospital in Alnwick to include a full A&E would bring in at least 2,000 more patients from the outer lying villages and smaller towns - it would also half the time it took to get to an A&E department. You can't tell me there's little incentive for a business to expand the hospital in the long run.

    Another example: when my cousin crashed his car, he was taken to a hospital in Aberdeen - 70 miles away. Again, no incentive to open up an A&E department for generating profit?

    I can imagine that there are more rural areas that this could apply to. Such as in Scotland and parts of Wales.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    There certainly will be in some areas. Such as the areas around my home town. The nearest A&E is 25 miles away from my Alnwick, then when you go further north west, it stays the local A&E for the outer areas of Northumberland. Ingram (the furthest point away from the hospital before falling into another's jurisdiction) to the nearest A&E is the best part of an hours drive. Expanding the hospital in Alnwick to include a full A&E would bring in at least 2,000 more patients from the outer lying villages and smaller towns - it would also half the time it took to get to an A&E department. You can't tell me there's little incentive for a business to expand the hospital in the long run.

    Another example: when my cousin crashed his car, he was taken to a hospital in Aberdeen - 70 miles away. Again, no incentive to open up an A&E department for generating profit?

    I can imagine that there are more rural areas that this could apply to. Such as in Scotland and parts of Wales.
    You're providing very specific examples. I am just totally not convinced by this revamp of the NHS and so I oppose it.

    I also believe that this wouldn't improve the NHS at all and is a purely idealogical Bill.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    You're providing very specific examples. I am just totally not convinced by this revamp of the NHS and so I oppose it.
    Yes, they are specific examples, but I can guarantee they won't be the only cases where the nearest A&E is ~an hours drive and where a private company could expand a smaller hospital much closer to take in more patients.

    I also believe that this wouldn't improve the NHS at all and is a purely idealogical Bill.
    All bills, to an extent, are idealogical of the party they came from. Feel free to show me a (recent) fully pragmatic bill from the Socialist party.

    This is a major step into improving the healthcare system in Britain from a single-provider service to a pluralistic service - which have been shown, worldwide, to be better.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Lulz, a couple of days ago Nothos was telling me he had altruism, bet he won't be voting against this :rofl:

    I'm surprised Michaels letting him into the occupation tbh.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    All bills, to an extent, are idealogical of the party they came from. Feel free to show me a (recent) fully pragmatic bill from the Socialist party.
    My Gender Equality In The Armed Forces Bill received cross-party support and gained over 70% of the vote...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think we're at the point where everyone has decided how they are going to vote on this, and the minor changes through each reading haven't done anything to go towards remedying the huge flaws in this system.

    So far we have established that this proposition unneccessarily complicates the health system, threatens the quality of care, and puts power squarely with big industry running hospitals and insurance companies.

    We have also established that there is no idea at all how much the government will have to pay towards this system, and how this balances with the reduction in received taxation through national insurance contribution. We don't know if the savings are adequate to reduce taxation, and whether the goal is to make this cost neutral, or if the government will lose money because of it.

    Finally, we have established that the tax reductions will do very little for the poorest, who will simply have the money they receive from the PAA reduced in line with the tax reductions.

    On those grounds, there is no way i could vote for this bill, short of a complete and radical overhaul between now and when it goes to vote (though apologies that i could not debate this as actively as i like, and will probably not be on between now and when the bill goes to vote, hence the finality of the response).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Elaborate?

    Well, I disagree with the entire thing on a fundamental level. Complexities would be superflous. Healthcare should belong to the public and not private individuals seeking only profit. The rhetoric about tax cuts for the poor is all smoke and mirrors. This is entirely ideological and thus I disagree entirely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    So far we have established that this proposition unneccessarily complicates the health system, threatens the quality of care, and puts power squarely with big industry running hospitals and insurance companies.
    We've established you're good at strawmans. We've established this:

    • There's universal cover.
    • There's patient choice.
    • There is a reduced tax burden, particularly on the poor.
    • Plural health provision provides better health outcomes.
    • This provides better outcomes at lower cost to government.


    We have also established that there is no idea at all how much the government will have to pay towards this system, and how this balances with the reduction in received taxation through national insurance contribution. We don't know if the savings are adequate to reduce taxation, and whether the goal is to make this cost neutral, or if the government will lose money because of it.
    A reduction in received taxation through reduced NICs? Excuse me? Why should employer NICs go down because of this (or indeed employee NICs if they existed in TSR-land).

    As for the cost, you must not have read the Bill. You seem to think risk equalisation is pricey, but it is designed to be revenue-neutral, specifically it not only subsidises more risky patients but it taxes less risky patients.

    The Bill as a whole is cost neutral. The tax cuts themselves are designed so that the Bill is cost neutral.

    Finally, we have established that the tax reductions will do very little for the poorest, who will simply have the money they receive from the PAA reduced in line with the tax reductions.
    Yes, the basket of goods will become cheaper, in that sense, they are no better off in terms of the handout everyone gets is the same. However to argue that the poor are not better off is wrong. For anyone spending 1p more than the PAA, they are better off. Why? Goods are cheaper, so anything spent outside of the basket of goods deemed the decent minimum is more available. Indeed, it means the working poor will be able to gain material wealth. Furthermore, income tax is reduced, so that people get to keep more of their own money that they do earn, again, helping those who earn 5p+.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Well, I disagree with the entire thing on a fundamental level. Complexities would be superflous. Healthcare should belong to the public and not private individuals seeking only profit. The rhetoric about tax cuts for the poor is all smoke and mirrors. This is entirely ideological and thus I disagree entirely.
    Why should it belong in the public domain? It this to do with certain outcomes in health you think desirable or an inherent belief that government is the place for healthcare, no matter what?

    Furthermore, how would you say the tax cuts are 'smoke and mirrors'?

    This is partly ideological yes, but then I only hold my ideology at least in a very large part due to outcomes, which is entirely pragmatic at the same time. For what it's worth, I think this Bill will make healthcare far, far better for everyone - but especially the poorest. On top of that, as a bonus, the tax cuts raise the standard of living of the poorest especially by taking a huge burden off their shoulders.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    How does this give them the choice of which hospital to be ill in? If you’re going to be a **** at least make an effort to reply with something worthy of acting as if I’m tiring you out there eh?
    When I get something to reply to, I shall, as I'm doing now.

    Not everyone lives in the city and has a variety of Hospitals to pick from if their local private one offers a substandard service or has made cuts to certain treatments or equipment to save costs. Something the NHS does its best to avoid making it run at a loss – this certainly will be avoided by a profit making organisation.
    As I'll deal with later, the chances of a substandard hospital surviving in the marketplace are oh so very slim. Why? If they don't do the job well, they won't attract people to be treated there, if they aren't treated there, they'll drop out of the marketplace.

    Yes, not every hospital will offer all treatments or have all equipment, but that does not make it substandard. All it does it mean that the consumer can choose their own balancing of costs vs. treatments rather than the NHS doing it for everyone. Since things have different values to different people, this will lead to much better health outcomes in that treatments will find their way to people (as that is how consumers get treated, and companies make money - win win).

    I’m sick of hearing you’ll have all this choice when in actual fact you’ll have 1 choice, go for the local private hospital that’s substandard and afford it [for the poor] or pay for the luxury of the private hospital many miles away which offers the treatment you need [available to the rich].

    If only it was that easy for some people eh.

    In the words of Jacques Barzun, “A man who has both feet planted firmly in the air can be safely called a liberal as opposed to the conservative, who has both feet firmly planted in his mouth.”
    It cannot be that private hospitals are substandard where they are but good ones are miles away over the country, that is impossible. No matter, though I'll deal with the point.

    What makes you think any hospitals would be substandard? If a hospital is dirty, unhygienic, disease-ridden then people will not go there, rich or poor. There might not be another hospital in this town, but that does not mean there is not a good hospital nearbyish - and if a hospital is substandard, it will not make money, it will move into the hands of another provider quickly indeed. The market (ie. consumers) is (are) ruthless at punishing bad products.

    Furthermore, let us compare it to the status quo, rather than some Nirvana. With the NHS we see a movement towards big, super-hospitals, giving patients less accessibility. Now, this might be what consumers want, it might not be, but there's two things to note here:

    i) It doesn't exactly offer choice or accessibility.
    ii) Markets are generally a much better way of accumulating consumer preferences than government guess.

    Not only are we seeing a reduced number of hospitals, with them being bigger, we also then give them no choice but to stay inside the state sector? Why? Private health over here needs only to cater to the rich, prices are higher because the government gives away a free mediocre product (it's much like education in this respect). Alas, patients are trapped because of those high prices inside the mediocre NHS. It's not bad, it's just average. Only the rich can escape this. This opens up choice to millions and millions more people, and yes, there might be one of two who live in a remote village in the middle of nowhereland that can't access 500 hospitals, but this does a darn sight lot more than the NHS currently does.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'll just vote no.

    I don't think you live in the real world if you think a cancer customer [this is what they're called now isn't it?] is going to have such abundant choice about where to go for his product [care].
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    I'll just vote no.

    I don't think you live in the real world if you think a cancer customer [this is what they're called now isn't it?] is going to have such abundant choice about where to go for his product [care].
    Well I'm sure they will if they're rich, so that's just fine!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Why should it belong in the public domain? It this to do with certain outcomes in health you think desirable or an inherent belief that government is the place for healthcare, no matter what?
    The latter. There is currently no room for manouvre as far as I am concerned.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I commend Cardozo and Edi, despite their bizarre and unhelpful classist language, for actually engaging. Everyone else is a bell end.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yes; also if this passes, can we bring in those alcohol/tobacco duty cuts anyway?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    I'll just vote no.

    I don't think you live in the real world if you think a cancer customer [this is what they're called now isn't it?] is going to have such abundant choice about where to go for his product [care].
    Why not? Until very late stages, what is it about cancer that makes one unable to choose between hospitals and treatments?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I commend Cardozo and Edi, despite their bizarre and unhelpful classist language, for actually engaging. Everyone else is a bell end.

    You realise this is the third reading? Having looked through the previous discussion there is not alot more to say that has not been said already. A succinct no seems the only apt comment from myself.

    But of course Libertarian narcissism dictates that an insult must be thrown at those who refuse to pay you heroes enough attention.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: December 7, 2010
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.