Turn on thread page Beta
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by All at once)
    How can you justify it?
    If I have enough money to pay for a certain service, then I should be able to have it. If that means better treatment than poor people, so be it, that's life and we aren't communist.

    How can you, in a free-market capitalist country, justify this question?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    in response to DanGrover's previous posts, yeah theres some good points, i agree with a lot of it. the money raised from selling NHS assets though wouldn't be that great, as for a start it'll only be a one off thing, and also the amount of investment private firms will have to put up will lower the price of anything solved.

    the private healthcare insurance market isn't perfect. i dunno how much of this is Michael Moore's propaganda in the film Sicko, but there were instances where insurance companies said 'you didn't tell us you went to your GP with a cold 5 years ago, thus you don't have insurance anymore' when people tried to claim, and this was apparently not uncommon. coupled with the fact i think that something around 25% of the population didn't/weren't able to afford health insurance, it's not quite perfect. also when you are dying from a heart attack you can't exactly 'shop around' for the best deal in the local hospitals.

    i just think that while a bigger move into the private market may be good, there will always need to be some basic state provided service.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Perhaps you'll be sacrificing your gap year trip to South America in order to use the money to enable poor people to get treatment by the NHS. Is it right that there are ill people in Britain while others can afford to be gadding around the world for pleasure?
    Strong e-stalking.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    But that IS what an insurance plan is. You don't just put your money in a bank account, you give it to an insurance company. They do this with tens of thousands of people, only a handful of whom need £50k of liekemia treatment. Thus the insurance company makes money, the liekemia patients save money and everyone loses a bit, but remains safe in the knowledge that, should they need an opperation, the insurance company pays for it.
    in the passage he quoted as the liberatarian solution he said something like, any funds remaining in the account after the person's death will be given to the next of kin, that doesn't sound like insurance to me... if it was implied to go towards insurance then fair enough, but i didn't see anything that hinted towards that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All at once)
    Strong e-stalking.
    The information took 2 mouse clicks to obtain.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    That's what the insurance is for. They'd pay for your travel and time off work (assuming you had that cover).

    There's two things to remember when talking about private insurance in our country, too. Firstly, if the NHS was sold off, not only would be stop paying for it and thus you'd get a big chunk of your tax pay back. Going on an average salary of £25k, you pay about £6.2k in PAYE and NI - add about another £2k for VAT (which is a pretty conservative estimate) and you have about £8.2k you're paying annually into the government coffers. Healthcare comprises 18% of the governments annual expenditure, so if we assume they stop taking this, 18% of £8.2k = ~ £1.5k. That could get you some nice health insurance, and that's for a pretty average annual income.

    If we then also consider the massive tax breaks that we should (though almost certainly wouldn't) get from the enormous boost that the treasury would have just got as a result of selling off the enormous NHS properties and equipment to private enterprise, and you should get even more of your tax money back.

    Couple all this with the fact that the bottom range of health insurance options would get a lot cheaper. At the moment, due to the existance of the NHS, companies have to go above and beyond what they provide if they want to charge people for it. People know that if they go to the nhs, they will get what they need (eventually), albeit with a small chance of catching MRSA. Thus, private companies need to offer a significantly higher quality product if they want to get people to pay yet more for it. This means there is no "cheap" healthcare at the moment, because there's no market for it. With no NHS, there'd suddenly be a load of people who aren't currently using private healthcare with a considerable ammount of their tax back, and a bunch of insurance companies offering cheaper insurance at "NHS" standard healthcare, as it were. That is to say, companies won't need to provide the amazing, hotel-like qualities that they all currently do, just like not all car companies only sell out Rolls Royce's (as they would have to if eveyone was given a Ford Focus by the government).

    So the government would be better off, the product would be better, people would have more money in their pocket and health insurance would come down in price (though of course the hotel-like insurance would still exist for those that want it). Sounds lovely. The only downside is people will need to take some responsibility and sort it out for themselves and shop around, instead of having the government do it all for them.
    Ah come back from lunch and you've already answered other peoples questions to me, saved me a job of doing it myself. Besides you do it better anyway!

    :five:

    Rep to you, if its been 28 days yet...

    edit - Reputation may only be given to the same user every 28 days. You will be able to give out reputation to this user again in 1 days. :puppyeyes:
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by All at once)
    Thank you.

    Is it right that you (anyone in this situation) should be able to get well more quickly than someone not as well off?
    Yes. It wasn't an urgent proceedure so whats the problem. It would be a different matter if it was life or death but it wasn't. Anyway I didn't actually get the treatment through having rich parents. My treatment was covered by a family BUPA plan offered to employees at my mums company.
    In a world without private treatment waiting lists would be totally unmanagable. I was told a year and that was with a large percentage of patients opting for the private route. If everyone was on one big list then people who need treatment more urgently might have to wait longer and those who aren't deemed urgent could wait forever as people with greater need keep coming along and getting bumped up the list. So really I can argue that private healthcare reduces NHS lists meaning those who can't afford private care get seen quicker and better quicker too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I would also like to add that if I go for an operation and pay for it, I pay for what I need. The room, the staff, materials, whatever the doctor needs.

    If I pay taxes towards the NHS, I'm also paying for smokey joe 60 a day, 25 units of alcohol a week to get his 2nd coronary bypass or liver. At the end of the day people in lower depcat areas are more likely to smoke/drink/eat poorly and they TEND TO (not all of them) be the ones on benefits and not contributing to the service Sweeping generalisation I know but I believe it is warranted.

    Edenr also made a very good point that people using private healthcare frees up extra resources for the NHS. Essentially they're paying for care they don't use.

    I probably would have been all rosy and ooooh everyone should be equal but frankly I've experienced NHS 'care' and it is incredibly subpar. The food they give you, the attention they give you (like I said I couldn't walk and they refused to take me to the bathroom). I don't know about you but when I go in for surgery or hospital testing I'm bloody terrified and the private nurses actually take time to speak to you. The doctors aren't any more or less skilled because they tend to work both NHS and private jobs but I believe they are given an environment where they can perform better
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All at once)
    Is it right that some people should be able to buy a better standard of healthcare than others?
    Until the ******* government sorts it out so that we don't have to pay money to save our own lives and pay for medicine etc, yes. To be honest the vast majority of people who do 'opt-out' and go private wouldn't have voted for Labour anyway, so why should we have to put up with their mismanagement and general fouling up of the NHS system? If anything it's unfair that people who don't use the NHS have to pay for it.

    Health insurance. It's really quite cheap. Pretty much everyone could have access to private healthcare if they so wished, because if you've got insurance they pay for you when you get sick. So if you just spent £100 or so less each year, you could buy insurance with the money and get access to decent standards of healthcare, rather than being on here moaning about whether it's fair or not.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    You have to support it! The NHS would die completely if everyone who's now on private switched.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I believe in subsidized or 'free' health care for everyone, up to a limit. I believe that free diagnosis and treatment for most ailments and treatments should be offered, to a good standard of quality in terms of treatment and care. A viable alternative to this would be no taxes levied for health care, and health care to be effectively pay-as-you-need. The problem with this is that taxes are effectively enforced money management, and many people would find it hard to keep enough money aside for health care bills, even if they did not have such high a tax burden.

    However, I also think that health care can be a paid service and that people who wish to sell it should not be prevented from doing so, as long as they have the right qualifications. If someone wishes to try their luck with private health care, that is their choice and what they spend their money on is their business.

    In the end, life isn't fair, and as long as people can get the important treatment they need, I don't think it is right for people to bleat about other people having a better deal than them. If they are getting faster treatment, shorter waiting lists and better quality service, it is because they are paying for it with money that they earned. It doesn't just drop out of the sky onto them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by junglemonkey)
    If I pay taxes towards the NHS, I'm also paying for smokey joe 60 a day, 25 units of alcohol a week to get his 2nd coronary bypass or liver. At the end of the day people in lower depcat areas are more likely to smoke/drink/eat poorly and they TEND TO (not all of them) be the ones on benefits and not contributing to the service Sweeping generalisation I know but I believe it is warranted.
    To be fair, smokey joe with his cigarettes and alcohol and their absolutely enormous duty pay for the illnesses they cause then some (and by "some" i mean, depending on the study, anywhere from double the ammount they cost to 7x the ammount they cost). Without them smoking and drinking, we'd all have to pay even more towards the NHS (or else have a worse service).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I get my health care (private) paid for until I turn 21 by my dads company, but in all honesty, I would prefer to use the nhs. I wouldnt, because there are plenty of people needing surgery and I cant go picking and choosing which service I like better. Its just something about the nhs that seems like we know them. Private healthcare can often be about money and reputation whereas the nhs aren't getting anything from it. They carry on to do a good job even with the bad rep in the media lately.

    Good points obv, clean private rooms. Facilities such as TV, phone etc.
    Quick (no waiting times)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All at once)
    Is it right that some people should be able to buy a better standard of healthcare than others?
    Yes, of course. Why not?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    To be fair, smokey joe with his cigarettes and alcohol and their absolutely enormous duty pay for the illnesses they cause then some (and by "some" i mean, depending on the study, anywhere from double the ammount they cost to 7x the ammount they cost). Without them smoking and drinking, we'd all have to pay even more towards the NHS (or else have a worse service).
    Bravo to you, and reverse bravo to the moron you quoted
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Symbioticenigma)
    At the end of the day, all emotive argument aside, health care is still a service, which is exchanged for money, be it from an individual or from the taxpayer. Doctors etc. don't work for free.
    Indeed so, and of course many doctors would not both going into the profession or indeed not leaving the UK to practice abroad unless they thought they could make more money than the NHS is prepared to pay for them.

    If people seriously believe medicine should be a charitable thing, they should be looking to medics to provide their services for free, rather than for the government to subsidise it. I doubt they'll get very far, however.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (i) No tax should go directly to health care and tax brackets to be adjusted
    (ii) all healthcare is now deemed private
    (iii) Various insurance options are available (ziekenfonds if you will)
    (iv) Below a certain income you pay a nominal amount for a "state" organised/ subsidised though still privately run Ziekenfond.

    why?

    (i)You can now opt to purchase only "packets" that you want
    (ii) You have full and free choice over what care you receive
    (iii) You are dealing with a private company and your complaints/ issues have more resonance
    (iv) alas, it is always the case that state run affairs are dreadfull money pits
    (v) Its stops whitehall poking its nose in when it isn't wanted.

    Does it work?
    Take a look at the Dutch Healthcare system; the answer is yes.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    If I have enough money to pay for a certain service, then I should be able to have it. If that means better treatment than poor people, so be it, that's life and we aren't communist.
    You're skirting the actual question slightly: Why should something as essentially arbitrary as personal wealth be used to determine whether someone has access to adequate healthcare? It is, of course, a very difficult question to answer without sounding like a misanthropic jerk.

    My opinion on the matter is that we should keep the insurance system national, expand it to things like dentistry and opticians, then let practices essentially run themselves (with certain conditions attached to the national insurance scheme, such as institutions being obliged to take in anyone regardless, no additional fees may be charged, all patients entitled to the same standard of treatment, etc.). So kind of like what many continental countries have, just with one big insurance scheme rather than lots of little ones.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    I just simply feel the NHS is not cost effecient to a majority of people in the country. With a private company nothing is going to be done unless it generates profits - and what generates profit when there is competition about - good servise.
    You've got a serious misunderstanding of healthcare here. Yes privitised companies may get more efficient as far as profit is concerned but this doesn't make it cost efficient. For one thing, the healthcare profession in this country is trained from the off to strive for cost efficiency i.e. use a stethoscope to diagnose the problem rather than just bunging them in for an expensive MRI scan. Also curing the patient and generating profit are often opposed - it's not hard to see a situation where it's preferable for a company to keep a patient dependent on drugs they have to pay for rather than a one-off treatment that will prevent the problem altogether. This is shown perfectly by the performance of the US health system (the most privitised comparable western healthcare system) where twice as much is spent per capita as us. Hardly cost efficient.
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    So nothing gets done unless good servise is the outcome; otherwise people will go to the alternatives and you'll be shut down. There would be none of this needless beaurocracy etc because that is not relevant to good servise. Hence people NEVER pay for anything "pointless" which currently not only do they do, but they are forced to do.
    You're assuming of course people will stop and think about their available choices when they're involved in, say, a car accident. Even in more long term diseases like cancer, 95% of people still prefer to stay as local as possible. This negates any possibility of 'shopping around' somewhat.
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    And that raises an interesting moral point - in a private healthcare system nobody is forced into anything. They can choose who they get their healthcare from, they can even choose no health insurance if they so desire. Now I'd want health insurance. But if other people don't that's their decision and who am I to take their money and force them to spend it in places they don't want it spent?
    Again 95% prefer to go to their local hospital rather than shop around. Unless of course you're implying we build a couple of extra hospitals near the same location to provide competition?
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    The ONLY issue is that people might want certain insurances, but not be able to afford it, through no fault of their own. For that you can have a very cheap insurance to cover essential operations but no more, you could also seek to alleiviate poverty in other areas not relevant to healthcare.
    Define 'essential operation'.
    (Original post by tis_me_lord)
    The "well if you don't like the NHS use BUPA" argument isn't valid either. Nobody should have to pay TWICE for their health care.
    I keep a cricket bat in my room to prevent burglers and don't need police. I shouldn't have to pay twice for that. Except that's a rubbish argument and so yours.

    Moreover, BUPA rely a lot on the NHS for resources - both on the research it produces and the fact it covers the £250,000+ it costs to train a medical student (in addition provides them with their initial experience) that BUPA uses.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Don't agree with the way private health care is at all. As someone with a life-long condition, I won't be able able to get it, yet don't need/require any form of treatment for it.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.