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

B883 - Private Healthcare (Regulation) Bill 2015 watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    No, this is a horrible idea. Private healthcare providers shouldn't be capped and allowed to charge what they want. The government shouldn't regulate private healthcare at all and let the competitive free market set the costs. Socialism in healthcare is horrible we need less government not more, the NHS is inefficient and underfunded as it is. Having a healthcare monopoly and government beauracracy isn't going to improve healthcare. We need to encourage privatisation as much as possible.
    You complain a lot about the NHS but adore the US health system. Oyrs costs less per person and is higher rated.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm changing to a nay. Having better healthcare for the rich may seem unfair but it does not affect the life chances of nor the quality of care of those who can't afford it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    I'm changing to a nay. Having better healthcare for the rich may seem unfair but it does not affect the life chances of nor the quality of care of those who can't afford it.
    This is not true (see previous page).
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    You complain a lot about the NHS but adore the US health system. Oyrs costs less per person and is higher rated.
    But is still "poor to mediocre"
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The current system we have has significant problems, in that money plays a significant role in the health-related quality of healthcare. Frankly, I don't give a **** if people are happy to pay lots of money to avoid hospital food, to get goose feather pillows or even to avoid having to encounter poor people - what strikes me as abhorrent is that money can improve the speed of treatment as well as potentially the range of options available.

    FWIW, on reflection, I do think that it's likely that this Bill is flawed, in that it likely doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the likely increase in demand for public healthcare (and unfortunately I doubt it's legitimate for me to attempt to levy an income tax or suchlike in a healthcare Bill). Apart from that, I think the policy's fine. The benefit this brings is increasing incentives for the best medical professionals to remain in the public sector, thus increasing the standard of healthcare for society as a whole, rather than have them wasting time providing bells and whistles for those who are happy to pay an arm and a leg. It therefore also addresses to some extent the lack of supply in the public sector for certain health services (for instance, there are waaaaay too few public sector dentists at the moment).

    I do have some ideas which are somewhat less extreme which I'll bring back for the second reading.
    Why is it always assumed that private healthcare is only accessible to the upper class? Most middle class people could afford this quality care, don't simply make assumptions that it's too expensive. Privatisation is the future of this country. The NHS is too underfunded, inefficient and poor to provide the high standards of care offered by the private sector. It's time we get rid of this socialist monopoly known as the NHS and move toward a free market competitive private healthcare service.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This is not true (see previous page).
    How not (I have looked). The only reasoning I see is it makes rich lives more important than others however making private hospitals worse to redress the balance doesn't help anyone.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    How not (I have looked). The only reasoning I see is it makes rich lives more important than others however making private hospitals worse to redress the balance doesn't help anyone.
    It pulls many of the most talented doctors out of the public sector, seeking greater remuneration, as well as leaving certain public sector healthcare areas woefully understaffed.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Why is it always assumed that private healthcare is only accessible to the upper class? Most middle class people could afford this quality care, don't simply make assumptions that it's too expensive. Privatisation is the future of this country. The NHS is too underfunded, inefficient and poor to provide the high standards of care offered by the private sector. It's time we get rid of this socialist monopoly known as the NHS and move toward a free market competitive private healthcare service.
    Here's what I don't get about you free-market ideologues: you fail to see that free markets are extremely far from competitive - the second the possibility for monopoly, oligopoly or tacit collusion arises, the market begins to perform significantly worse than even a fully planned economy, and even in the sole metric free markets ever perform better - the pointless metric of GDP. This goes further still when you take into account particular barriers to entry in the healthcare industry like patents (without which MORE state intervention in the market would be needed, or innovation would simply cease to exist), or the fact that without some state regulation, nobody would be able to feel safe in their choice of healthcare provider since there would be no possibility of professional accreditation.

    And guess what. The answer to the NHS being underfunded is to increase its funding.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Here's what I don't get about you free-market ideologues: you fail to see that free markets are extremely far from competitive - the second the possibility for monopoly, oligopoly or tacit collusion arises, the market begins to perform significantly worse than even a fully planned economy, and even in the sole metric free markets ever perform better - the pointless metric of GDP. This goes further still when you take into account particular barriers to entry in the healthcare industry like patents (without which MORE state intervention in the market would be needed, or innovation would simply cease to exist), or the fact that without some state regulation, nobody would be able to feel safe in their choice of healthcare provider since there would be no possibility of professional accreditation.

    And guess what. The answer to the NHS being underfunded is to increase its funding.
    First, you honestly think that the private sector lacks enough competition or innovation? Now I'm not saying we need to completely get rid of regulation in healthcare but we need less not more. The NHS is unsustainable, budget cuts are inevitable. As a result the hospitals are going to shut down, jobs are going to be lossed and guess what patients are going to be worse off. We need privatisation more than ever in this country which would result in far better service, medical innovation and better technology(more MRI and CAT scanners). Doctors and nurses are going to get better paid and morale would increase among medical professionals so as a result performance increases. Whenever, I go visit my GP he looks miserable and exhausted which I think is the state of most healthcare professionals in this country. We need major changes in our healthcare services and the first step is privatisation.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It pulls many of the most talented doctors out of the public sector, seeking greater remuneration, as well as leaving certain public sector healthcare areas woefully understaffed.



    Here's what I don't get about you free-market ideologues: you fail to see that free markets are extremely far from competitive - the second the possibility for monopoly, oligopoly or tacit collusion arises, the market begins to perform significantly worse than even a fully planned economy, and even in the sole metric free markets ever perform better - the pointless metric of GDP. This goes further still when you take into account particular barriers to entry in the healthcare industry like patents (without which MORE state intervention in the market would be needed, or innovation would simply cease to exist), or the fact that without some state regulation, nobody would be able to feel safe in their choice of healthcare provider since there would be no possibility of professional accreditation.

    And guess what. The answer to the NHS being underfunded is to increase its funding.
    You do know what regulators are there for, right? And how much do you propose the NHS funding is increased by and how do you propose to fund it? And you know that "pointless metric", that's the thing that ultimately means you get to have nice things, a bigger economy means more taxes without increasing rates, which means higher public spending, and of course it also drives job creation and wage growth; but I guess greater public spending without greater tax rates, or the same spending with lower tax rates, jobs and wage growth are all unimportant and pointless :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You do know what regulators are there for, right? And how much do you propose the NHS funding is increased by and how do you propose to fund it? And you know that "pointless metric", that's the thing that ultimately means you get to have nice things, a bigger economy means more taxes without increasing rates, which means higher public spending, and of course it also drives job creation and wage growth; but I guess greater public spending without greater tax rates, or the same spending with lower tax rates, jobs and wage growth are all unimportant and pointless :rolleyes:
    Re: the pointless metric - if real incomes for the top 10% increase 40% while those for the bottom 40% decrease 9%, while consumption rates among all remain constant, then I'm pretty sure you see a significant decrease in average standard of life in society due to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. That's why more is needed than to point to an increase in GDP as a conclusive indicator of a sound policy.

    Of course, I'm not going to deny that in many situations, an increase in GDP is good; the problem I have is it being pointed to as the be-all end-all when it's not even close to a good proxy for utility.

    As for regulators, yes - they're to dampen the brutality of the free market. As for sourcing an increase in the NHS budget, the two main sources I'd look at would be slashing the defence budget and levying an increase in top-rate tax, but I also have some other ideas which you would almost certainly hate as much as these two.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    First, you honestly think that the private sector lacks enough competition or innovation?
    I'm saying that completely free markets quite patently result in a lack of competition and innovation through monopolisation. This is more acute in IP-heavy areas.

    Now I'm not saying we need to completely get rid of regulation in healthcare but we need less not more. The NHS is unsustainable, budget cuts are inevitable. As a result the hospitals are going to shut down, jobs are going to be lossed and guess what patients are going to be worse off.
    The NHS is perfectly sustainable. It might require more money in the future, but that's not to say that it's unsustainable - we just need new revenue sources to cover it.

    We need privatisation more than ever in this country which would result in far better service, medical innovation and better technology(more MRI and CAT scanners). Doctors and nurses are going to get better paid and morale would increase among medical professionals so as a result performance increases. Whenever, I go visit my GP he looks miserable and exhausted which I think is the state of most healthcare professionals in this country. We need major changes in our healthcare services and the first step is privatisation.
    The problem is that privatisation leaves millions without access to healthcare, and thus innately values their lives at less than those with money - a repugnant notion. We'd end up with the kind of doomsday scenario that we see with healthcare in the US - or, more likely, regression into the gap of quality of life found in feudal times.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I was talking to someone 5 weeks ago who would be better off still working for the NHS, the sort of person this bill would harm

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Oh interesting.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not! This is yet another example of the so-called commie envy. If private research and private healthcare can yield better results in a free market economy, obstructions like this will only punish those who have earned enough to be able to enjoy the benefits. We should aim to improve the NHS services to catch up with the private sector instead…
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Absolutely not! This is yet another example of the so-called commie envy. If private research and private healthcare can yield better results in a free market economy, obstructions like this will only punish those who have earned enough to be able to enjoy the benefits. We should aim to improve the NHS services to catch up with the private sector instead
    Because that's possible ...
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    Because that's possible ...
    You can catch up without being as good

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It pulls many of the most talented doctors out of the public sector, seeking greater remuneration, as well as leaving certain public sector healthcare areas woefully understaffed.
    We lose staff to other countries as well. However well intentioned this bill is I won't vote for it as the solution to the problems you describe is to moderately improve the NHS.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You can catch up without being as good

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It generally implies catching (actually reaching) the quality of the competitor but if it is meant like that then fair enough.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    It generally implies catching (actually reaching) the quality of the competitor but if it is meant like that then fair enough.
    All catching up implies is that the gap gets smaller, not that it disappears
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    All catching up implies is that the gap gets smaller, not that it disappears
    If you never actually catch then you don't catch up but lets just leave it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Whoop, my excellent private healthcare would be half the price. Thanks, crazy socialists :bigsmile:
 
 
 
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: November 19, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.