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

B962 - Private Healthcare (Regulation) Bill watch

Announcements
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    I was originally intending to vote Aye. However, after reading through Nige's points I'm not convinced it is the best idea.
    In what sense?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No. Instead of taxing people who use private healthcare, we should be incentivising people who can afford private healthcare to use them, so that those who cannot afford private healthcare can have better free services in the NHS, and those who switch to private healthcare can enjoy the better services and benefits of private healthcare.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    No. Instead of taxing people who use private healthcare, we should be incentivising people who can afford private healthcare to use them, so that those who cannot afford private healthcare can have better free services in the NHS, and those who switch to private healthcare can enjoy the better services and benefits of private healthcare.
    Such as?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Such as?
    Private healthcare is mostly more efficient and has much shorter waiting times than non-private healthcare. They also tend to provide a better service quality.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Private healthcare is mostly more efficient and has much shorter waiting times than non-private healthcare. They also tend to provide a better service quality.
    It gets you seen quicker yes, it is neither more efficient nor better quality.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    It gets you seen quicker yes, it is neither more efficient nor better quality.
    How do you know they are not more efficient/better quality? How many private healthcare premises have you been to?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    It gets you seen quicker yes, it is neither more efficient nor better quality.
    If the average private healthcare provider did not offer a better standard of treatment, the reports by the CQC would have NHS services outperforming private services, but the statistics declare a higher percentage of NHS hospitals failing than private hospitals: on average private hospitals are better.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If the average private healthcare provider did not offer a better standard of treatment, the reports by the CQC would have NHS services outperforming private services, but the statistics declare a higher percentage of NHS hospitals failing than private hospitals: on average private hospitals are better.
    Because NHS hospitals are required to take every patient, with less funding than private providers.

    Private firms however can cherrypick low risk patients and dump any expensive complications on to the state run services.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    In what sense?
    This was the main point: I do not support more taxes on individuals who are doing the government a favour by choosing not to use the failing NHS
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    This was the main point: I do not support more taxes on individuals who are doing the government a favour by choosing not to use the failing NHS
    Surely, if you follow that logic, we should tax nothing where there is an alternative state-funded service: abolish all taxes on property, for instance. However, I suspect this tax will see greater diversity in the PHC market as well, with low-cost alternatives coming to compete, as 90% of the cost of private healthcare is either the profit or the luxurious parts.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Private healthcare is mostly more efficient and has much shorter waiting times than non-private healthcare. They also tend to provide a better service quality.
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If the average private healthcare provider did not offer a better standard of treatment, the reports by the CQC would have NHS services outperforming private services, but the statistics declare a higher percentage of NHS hospitals failing than private hospitals: on average private hospitals are better.
    So basically, it's a luxury, and therefore falls within the criteria by which VAT is charged on products?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Surely, if you follow that logic, we should tax nothing where there is an alternative state-funded service: abolish all taxes on property, for instance. However, I suspect this tax will see greater diversity in the PHC market as well, with low-cost alternatives coming to compete, as 90% of the cost of private healthcare is either the profit or the luxurious parts.
    Healthcare as an essential doesn't really have competition though.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Healthcare as an essential doesn't really have competition though.
    And the essential service doesn't: those who are just looking for healthcare simply use the NHS. The only people who use private healthcare are simply looking for the luxury elements (shorter waiting lists, better hospital care, not having to associate with the plebs etc); hence treating it as something which ought to have VAT applied.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    How do you know they are not more efficient/better quality? How many private healthcare premises have you been to?
    Two off the top of my head, one that specialised in scanning with no medical input (arguably the most plausible use for private) and one where they pulled out because it wasn't profitbale.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So basically, it's a luxury, and therefore falls within the criteria by which VAT is charged on products?
    Whilst that is true the negative impact it will have on the NHS isn't worth it imo. However I don't know the sums
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Whilst that is true the negative impact it will have on the NHS isn't worth it imo. However I don't know the sums
    What negative impact? My costings assume that money is invested in the NHS so as to maintain quality - if the money was all poured into the NHS, this Bill would cause a significant increase in NHS quality. It is only if the government chooses not to invest this extra money in the NHS (I do not believe it is the role of minority parties to prescribe money to the NHS, when it is essentially a matter for Finance Bills) that this Bill sees a slight net fall in NHS quality (and it's one that is very slight - my figures indicate that this tax will only cause 3% of the people who use private healthcare to start using the NHS instead) - but that is a problem for the Government, not this Bill.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    What negative impact? My costings assume that money is invested in the NHS so as to maintain quality - if the money was all poured into the NHS, this Bill would cause a significant increase in NHS quality. It is only if the government chooses not to invest this extra money in the NHS (I do not believe it is the role of minority parties to prescribe money to the NHS, when it is essentially a matter for Finance Bills) that this Bill sees a slight net fall in NHS quality (and it's one that is very slight - my figures indicate that this tax will only cause 3% of the people who use private healthcare to start using the NHS instead) - but that is a problem for the Government, not this Bill.
    Hmmm ok. Where did you get your figures from? If they are that low then I would be ok with it.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    Hmmm ok. Where did you get your figures from? If they are that low then I would be ok with it.
    Ah, crap, forgot to cite the figures used. Will add these sources to the notes for division:

    https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...ain_report.pdf (most figures used)
    http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/k...ics-on-the-nhs (number of NHS admissions - number of private admissions taken from previous source)
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1355.html (price elasticity of demand for healthcare)
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Ah, crap, forgot to cite the figures used. Will add these sources to the notes for division:

    https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...ain_report.pdf (most figures used)
    http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/k...ics-on-the-nhs (number of NHS admissions - number of private admissions taken from previous source)
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1355.html (price elasticity of demand for healthcare)
    Thank you, I will have a read
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    This has entered cessation.

    Since not enough time remains for division, this item has been automatically withdrawn.
 
 
 
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: April 9, 2016
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.