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

    22
    ReputationRep:
    LOL, WTF is this?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Dear Libertarians

    Are you aware competition doesn't happen in the health service, since consumers (patients) won't actually travel an extra hour and a half because the service isn't as good?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Dear Libertarians

    Are you aware competition doesn't happen in the health service, since consumers (patients) won't actually travel an extra hour and a half because the service isn't as good?
    Dear you,

    Are you aware most people don't live out in the middle of Atlantic and thus don't have their hospitals spaced 5 months apart?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Dear you,

    Are you aware most people don't live out in the middle of Atlantic and thus don't have their hospitals spaced 5 months apart?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So do you actively ask your paramedic to take you to the hospital with the highest google rating? Or is that how you envisage it will look?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    So do you actively ask your paramedic to take you to the hospital with the highest google rating? Or is that how you envisage it will look?
    I can't say I've looked in detail at any of the dozens of implementations, all I do know is that a great many are better than the NHS, no matter what people think.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I can't say I've looked in detail at any of the dozens of implementations, all I do know is that a great many are better than the NHS, no matter what people think.
    Well.....if you funded them at the same level as in the European Insurance Scheme.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Well.....if you funded them at the same level as in the European Insurance Scheme.
    Right, and we raise all that money how, because I assume you're not going to be accepting cuts to get there?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Right, and we raise all that money how, because I assume you're not going to be accepting cuts to get there?
    Funny enough, I actually did suggest alternative ways to raise that money. I'd support sugar/fat taxes, I'd support missed appointment fines.

    I also objected to Trident, so had we not have invested in that my health service would be way better.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Right, and we raise all that money how, because I assume you're not going to be accepting cuts to get there?
    Also, which type of Insurance scheme do you actually support? Would you make it compulsory to own one insurance plan and have that funded by the patient (say, a bronze/silver/gold/platinum package) or would you fund the insurance schemes directly from the health budget. What about the delays in treatment as you debate who pays and the legal loopholes as insurance companies weasel out of them? What about at fault injuries, so say my insurance package doesn't cover surgery, then boom, I get knocked down in a hit and run, who pays then?

    The Insurance scheme is a lot more complex and there's a reason that the health service here is more efficient and would be better than our European counterparts and we made the political decision to invest in it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Dear Libertarians

    Are you aware competition doesn't happen in the health service, since consumers (patients) won't actually travel an extra hour and a half because the service isn't as good?
    Actually, there is competition, but not for an emergency. For example, if I wish to get a health checkup, I will go to one that has hardly any waiting time, provides better service, i.e. an en-suite room with a good variety of delicious breakfast choices to choose from. Other hospitals could provide not as good service and charge less. Also, if I am going to get a non-emergency surgery, I should be able to pay more to go to a hospital with more experienced surgeons.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    To sum up this bill.

    :poo:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    To sum up this bill.

    :poo:
    United returns. :eek: Hello!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    United returns. :eek: Hello!
    Hi, I may only be back briefly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. The NHS needs more funding and a recognition of current needs not those in Jeremy Hunt's fantasy world.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Funny enough, I actually did suggest alternative ways to raise that money. I'd support sugar/fat taxes, I'd support missed appointment fines.

    I also objected to Trident, so had we not have invested in that my health service would be way better.
    To have mainland Western European levels of funding we aren't talking about a few million here and there, or even the couple of billion trident would free up, we're talking about 2 or 3% of GDP. From where things stand now there are only two ways to get that sort of money, cuts elsewhere or borrowing. So what are you cutting that makes up 5% or so of the budget: welfare, policing, education?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    To have mainland Western European levels of funding we aren't talking about a few million here and there, or even the couple of billion trident would free up, we're talking about 2 or 3% of GDP. From where things stand now there are only two ways to get that sort of money, cuts elsewhere or borrowing. So what are you cutting that makes up 5% or so of the budget: welfare, policing, education?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Okay, so July 2016, GDP in the UK = £1,833,233million

    Current NHS budget is £116billion

    Say we bump that up from the 9% the UK currently spends, to the most expensive in Europe (11% in the Netherlands) that means it would rise from £116billion to £141 billion. So fair point, this is considerably more expensive than the yearly cost of trident (40 years, but at between £2bn and £4bn pa)

    I'll get back to you when I can find a simple breakdown of GDP spending, but I'd raise taxes to pay for that if need be. The way to cut costs if prevention schemes mind.

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects...nding-compared
    Minimum Trident Cost is £205bn
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    Actually, there is competition, but not for an emergency. For example, if I wish to get a health checkup, I will go to one that has hardly any waiting time, provides better service, i.e. an en-suite room with a good variety of delicious breakfast choices to choose from. Other hospitals could provide not as good service and charge less. Also, if I am going to get a non-emergency surgery, I should be able to pay more to go to a hospital with more experienced surgeons.
    So you support keeping emergency services private, great to hear. How would you clarify what counts as emergency?

    Your example is exactly why I support a two tiered (but heavily taxed) health sector. Doctors and Surgeons are fairly well trained, so in truth there's unlikely to be much difference in quality and what you suggest is actually dangerous as the highest trained surgeons will avoid complex operations with high mortality rates and at risk patients, in pursuit of easy, healthy patients for cosmetic operations. These have high mark up, low risk and will look great on any league tables. This has actually already happened as one of the most well reknowned high risk surgeons scores very low on tables because all his patients are at deaths door. By your logic, he will earn less than an average surgeon who specialises in botox. (and so, the emergency department will lose one of its best qualified surgeons to cosmetic ops)

    But yes, I have no problem with private firms offering the non-medical stuff (paid helpers, comfy sheets etc. etc.) provided they were heavily taxed. No way should that be insurance subsidised.

    If I sell a consumer product like that, it should come out of pocket.

    Non-emergency surgery makes sense, but it's pointless to privatise without adding resources. Hiring a private firm to do a hip replacement will cost more because they will have a monopoly of the local area for hip replacements. If you want to make this competitive you need a solely private firm to build and purchase their own entire private hospital, I would support this actually, again, if it was not insurance covered, but using private firms for public health services, using public health service equipment creates a monopoly, not a good plan.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    So you support keeping emergency services private, great to hear. How would you clarify what counts as emergency?

    Your example is exactly why I support a two tiered (but heavily taxed) health sector. Doctors and Surgeons are fairly well trained, so in truth there's unlikely to be much difference in quality and what you suggest is actually dangerous as the highest trained surgeons will avoid complex operations with high mortality rates and at risk patients, in pursuit of easy, healthy patients for cosmetic operations. These have high mark up, low risk and will look great on any league tables. This has actually already happened as one of the most well reknowned high risk surgeons scores very low on tables because all his patients are at deaths door. By your logic, he will earn less than an average surgeon who specialises in botox. (and so, the emergency department will lose one of its best qualified surgeons to cosmetic ops)

    But yes, I have no problem with private firms offering the non-medical stuff (paid helpers, comfy sheets etc. etc.) provided they were heavily taxed. No way should that be insurance subsidised.

    If I sell a consumer product like that, it should come out of pocket.

    Non-emergency surgery makes sense, but it's pointless to privatise without adding resources. Hiring a private firm to do a hip replacement will cost more because they will have a monopoly of the local area for hip replacements. If you want to make this competitive you need a solely private firm to build and purchase their own entire private hospital, I would support this actually, again, if it was not insurance covered, but using private firms for public health services, using public health service equipment creates a monopoly, not a good plan.
    That's what I meant. There should be more completely private hospitals which can offer different degrees of service, depending on the price. On the other hand, there should also be the NHS hospitals which are free to the point of delivery. It will not be a monopoly, as there will be different choices.

    There are actually different qualities of doctors; some are more experienced than others, so the more experienced ones will likely go to a better hospital where they are paid a higher salary as the hospital charge is higher. It is not about whether an operation is high risk or low risk, as there are still surgeons who are better at high risk surgeries than other ones who specialise in the same high risk surgeries, so the salary they are willing to work for is based on their experience and qualifications.

    As for insurance, it is up to people to decide whether they want to purchase health insurance. Those who work for certain companies may have health insurance paid for by the company, which enables them to go to the high quality hospitals.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Okay, so July 2016, GDP in the UK = £1,833,233million

    Current NHS budget is £116billion

    Say we bump that up from the 9% the UK currently spends, to the most expensive in Europe (11% in the Netherlands) that means it would rise from £116billion to £141 billion. So fair point, this is considerably more expensive than the yearly cost of trident (40 years, but at between £2bn and £4bn pa)

    I'll get back to you when I can find a simple breakdown of GDP spending, but I'd raise taxes to pay for that if need be. The way to cut costs if prevention schemes mind.

    http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects...nding-compared
    Minimum Trident Cost is £205bn
    You can increase taxes all you like, but unless you break economics by having it result in GDP growing by over 5% it's not going to help you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    That's what I meant. There should be more completely private hospitals which can offer different degrees of service, depending on the price. On the other hand, there should also be the NHS hospitals which are free to the point of delivery. It will not be a monopoly, as there will be different choices.

    There are actually different qualities of doctors; some are more experienced than others, so the more experienced ones will likely go to a better hospital where they are paid a higher salary as the hospital charge is higher. It is not about whether an operation is high risk or low risk, as there are still surgeons who are better at high risk surgeries than other ones who specialise in the same high risk surgeries, so the salary they are willing to work for is based on their experience and qualifications.

    As for insurance, it is up to people to decide whether they want to purchase health insurance. Those who work for certain companies may have health insurance paid for by the company, which enables them to go to the high quality hospitals.
    But the emergency surgeries will remain state funded, the entirely private run hospitals will be able to offer more ludicrous pay packets because certain surgeons have a tag they can market. This means more skilled, experienced surgeons move into private (non-essential) surgery, while the lesser surgeons take up the far more demanding and important emergency work.
 
 
 
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: August 27, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.