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

    18
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell in their book The Plan cite Singapore as a good example of a hybrid model that neatly avoid the pitfalls associated with socialisation and privatisation via the allocation of individual health saving accounts. Because it encourages price sensitivity in the marketplace (i.e patients shop around comparing the services on offer) it rewards efficiency and places a natural limit on what healthcare professionals are able to charge. I would go further, naturally, but this model seems like a reasonable one.
    Its a model which very much suits city states, but doesn't work so well in larger countries where geographical inequalities play a much bigger role.

    DOI - Medically trained and knows the Singapore health system...
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by RtGOAT)
    I'm sick of people saying healthcare is a right. It isn't.

    Medical advances are the result of human invention in the same way that other technolgies are. People don't claim to have a right to own the latest sports car or the latest gadget, they have to earn the ability to buy them, the same should be true with medicine.

    Discuss.
    Vast majority of people neg repping this OP, and I have to question how they have interpreted the post.

    Myself I look at it and largely agree.

    Healthcare isn't a RIGHT, its a privelege. We as a society have banded together and created the NHS (or rather our recent older generations have) into which we pay taxes for a full free at the point of use service.

    But healthcare is increasing exponentially, costs are increasing massively, expectations rise, and us as individuals seem ever more unhappy with the taxation required to pay for it.

    At which point comes the hard decision.
    What is healthcare?
    How far should it go?

    Should we all have a life saving healthcare provided by the NHS?
    Most of us if not all would say yes.

    But look at these and think to yourself if you think this should be paid by you for someone else

    How about gender reassignment healthcare on the NHS?
    Or reconstructive surgery for burns patients?
    Unsightly mole removals?
    How about removing PIP breast implants from those who got them privately?
    What about a drug costing £10,000 per dose which had been shown to increase the life expectancy of end stage prostate cancer by 2 weeks?

    All of these are indeed 'healthcare', but do you believe we have a right to all of these? Or just some.

    ---------------------

    Oh and chefdave you need to back up your assertions that the NHS provides 'an incredibly poor level of service'.
    Because league tables suggest it is one of the most efficient health services int he world providing top value for money (just behind New Zealand usually).
    You get what you pay for, and people often forget they pay comparatively little for the NHS compared to citizens of other countries for their health services.

    I can also point out that whilst it occurs, the level of fraud and 'pocket lining' in the NHS is far below that experienced in private medical sectors in other countries.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The current model of healthcare in the UK is completely unsustainable. Any politician who dares utter anything about cutting health spending is finished.

    The british public have become addicted to debt, and this is immoral, as the poor choices of today are punishing future generations.

    One day health care will change in this country will change, and privatization is invertible. So it might as well happen sooner, while we still have control over its outcome.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Jamie)
    But look at these and think to yourself if you think this should be paid by you for someone else

    How about gender reassignment healthcare on the NHS?
    Or reconstructive surgery for burns patients?
    Unsightly mole removals?
    How about removing PIP breast implants from those who got them privately?
    What about a drug costing £10,000 per dose which had been shown to increase the life expectancy of end stage prostate cancer by 2 weeks?
    I assume I was supposed to read this, and whole-heartedly agree that I shouldn't have to pay for these for someone else. But frankly the only one I'm bothered by is 'unsightly mole removals'. I see no issue with the others
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't think you're getting it.

    The costs are worlds apart because one is a free market and the other is a schlerotic government monopoly, if they were both free markets the costs would be comparable and we would potentially enjoy an abundance of healthcare. Contrary to what the left believe healthcare isn't intrinsically expensive, it's been made so by decades of government bloat - the market is the antidote to this.

    It isn't right to allow a handful of extreme hardship cases to ruin the service for everybody else. By insisting on socialism the poor and mentally vulnerable are dragging standards down for the rest of society leading to a degraded average outcome. Imo the poor are much more likely to obtain healthcare when it's cheap and abundant as opposed to when it's scarce and expensive, markets are a way of achieving this.

    I do get it. There is a free market for the manufacture of drugs and medical devices which are then purchased by health service providers and they are STILL astronomically expensive. Explain to me why health care isn't cheap and abundant under the private health insurance market of the US.

    Secondly- as you mentioned food...
    In a completely deregulated environment what is to stop health care providers from cutting corners? We have seen the horse meat scandal all over Europe, personally I don't mind the thought that I might have consumed perfectly nutritious horse meat at some stage but if that lack of quality control and traceability were to occur in the drugs or medical devices markets, or indeed in the provision of services the impact on the outcome for the patient would be negative. How are you going to ensure that in a deregulated, private health market that measures to cut costs and maximise profits will not affect the quality of care?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Do you have a right to force others to provide you with a service free of charge?
    It isn't free of charge. We all pay taxes towards funding the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cakefish)
    It isn't free of charge. We all pay taxes towards funding the NHS.
    Then if you're already paying for it via your taxes what's the problem with a free market in health? You could even pay for the poor&vulnerable to get treatment too if you wanted, directly.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You don't have a right to force other people to do stuff for you. A right to healthcare is all well and good but from the libertarian perspective it's tantamount to slavery because you're using your 'rights' to force others to labour for you free of charge.
    I presume you and your whole family have private medical insurance?

    You'd better, because you'd be being unbelievably hypocritical if you don't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't know really, the right not be killed in the street just seems like a sensible idea. As always though it's up for debate.
    the right to a child (or anyone for that matter) to receive cancer treatment no matter the wealth of the parents seems a sensible idea to me.

    I wonder how many of these people shouting the virtues of paying for health care come from families where this is NOT an option?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by askew116)
    I presume you and your whole family have private medical insurance?

    You'd better, because you'd be being unbelievably hypocritical if you don't.
    How can I afford it when the market is being deeply skewed by a government monopoly?

    Please keep up.

    I rarely use the NHS anyway, I've never had an op and the GP hasn't treated an illness of mine as far back as I can remember. When i have used them they've been useless anyway. A bunch of overpaid charlottens imo.

    Is this ok with you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    the right to a child (or anyone for that matter) to receive cancer treatment no matter the wealth of the parents seems a sensible idea to me.

    I wonder how many of these people shouting the virtues of paying for health care come from families where this is NOT an option?
    Please think your argument through from start to finish. I agree that on the surface a right to healthcare is a great idea but what it amounts to in essence is the right to thievery. Would you like it if I came knocking on your door at 3am in pain demanding a 'right' to panadol? philosophically there's no differenc between this and a right to cancer treatment: we're still palming the costs off onto somebody else. I just find this wrong, no matter how many hypothetical cancer ridden children my opponents keep wheeling out.

    I can't afford Bupa. If I get seriously ill I'll have no choice but to use the God-awful NHS. The sooner it's dismantled and replaced with a proper free market the better.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    How can I afford it when the market is being deeply skewed by a government monopoly?

    Please keep up.

    I rarely use the NHS anyway, I've never had an op and the GP hasn't treated an illness of mine as far back as I can remember. When i have used them they've been useless anyway. A bunch of overpaid charlottens imo.

    Is this ok with you?
    You sound like such a lovely person :rolleyes:

    So why should you rarely steal from other people?? Following your logic, anyone who uses the NHS is a thief, regardless of whether they use it rarely or often.

    What a ludicrous argument that is.

    You have (so far) been lucky in not needing to use the NHS very often. I've not been so lucky, and have just come back from a 2 day stay in hospital, where they treated me of a potentially life-threatening condition. Do you begrudge that??

    I have no problem with my taxes going towards funding healthcare - I'm darned proud of our NHS - the doctors and nurses who treated me recently were all fantastic - and I witnessed some truly touching moments of them caring for both myself and other patients, and they earn every penny of their salary.

    Oh, btw, it's charlatans, not charlottens.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    I do get it. There is a free market for the manufacture of drugs and medical devices which are then purchased by health service providers and they are STILL astronomically expensive. Explain to me why health care isn't cheap and abundant under the private health insurance market of the US.

    Secondly- as you mentioned food...
    In a completely deregulated environment what is to stop health care providers from cutting corners? We have seen the horse meat scandal all over Europe, personally I don't mind the thought that I might have consumed perfectly nutritious horse meat at some stage but if that lack of quality control and traceability were to occur in the drugs or medical devices markets, or indeed in the provision of services the impact on the outcome for the patient would be negative. How are you going to ensure that in a deregulated, private health market that measures to cut costs and maximise profits will not affect the quality of care?
    The U.S system is private, it isn't free market. It's like saying our train service operates in a free market because it's owned and run by a handful of private companies. Clearly it doesn't because the barriers to entry are so high that fair competition is virtually impossible - new companies can't start laying their own track! This gives the train operators a hell of a lot of discretion when it comes to ticket pricing. The same mechanism works with U.S healthcare. We could flush out the cronyism though with proper free market economics, no state subsidies, no lucrative government contracts (medicare), just a straightforward system that revolves around patient need.

    I don't know whether you work full time or not, but in my experience there's a fine line between getting the job done quickly and efficiently and what you'd consider to be 'corner cutting'. Just as people are not perfect we cannot expect markets to be perfect, but what we can demand is the rule of law to prevent out-and-out cowboys ripping patients off as well as a dynamic marketplace that drives standards up via competition. It's not about being 100% perfect, that is impossible, we need to assess which system is more likely the best results overall. And lets not forget the NHS cuts corners too, did the recent Mid-Staffordshire hospital scandal pass you by?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by askew116)
    You sound like such a lovely person :rolleyes:

    So why should you rarely steal from other people?? Following your logic, anyone who uses the NHS is a thief, regardless of whether they use it rarely or often.

    What a ludicrous argument that is.

    You have (so far) been lucky in not needing to use the NHS very often. I've not been so lucky, and have just come back from a 2 day stay in hospital, where they treated me of a potentially life-threatening condition. Do you begrudge that??

    I have no problem with my taxes going towards funding healthcare - I'm darned proud of our NHS - the doctors and nurses who treated me recently were all fantastic - and I witnessed some truly touching moments of them caring for both myself and other patients, and they earn every penny of their salary.

    Oh, btw, it's charlatans, not charlottens.
    So I made one typo in a 4 page thread. Sue me.

    Since you're getting personal you sound a little wet behind the ears if you don't mind me saying so and an economic ignoramus to boot.

    The NHS is capable of providing good treatment but as an institution it' inadvertantly been designed to waste huge amounts of resources because it's immune (no pun intended) to the profit motive. I know profit is considered the devil's work by many well-meaning liberals, but in truth it's a valuable source of economic information. That's all. If suppliers know what consumers are willing to pay for they're able to tailor their services accordingly, this keeps firms efficient and prices low. None of this is applicable to the NHS though because it's entirely government subsidised and unresponsive to the medical needs of patients (from a monetary standpoint) Even if all NHS nurses were related to Florence Nightingale they would be still be working inefficiently because the NHS as an organisation wears a metaphorical blindfold: the state acts as the middle man between patient and doctor and as a result the lines of communication get scrambled. The NHS is doing hardworking doctors and nurses an injustice because it's prevents them from offering a first class service, only the market can offer this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    So I made one typo in a 4 page thread. Sue me.

    Since you're getting personal you sound a little wet behind the ears if you don't mind me saying so and an economic ignoramus to boot.

    The NHS is capable of providing good treatment but as an institution it' inadvertantly been designed to waste huge amounts of resources because it's immune (no pun intended) to the profit motive. I know profit is considered the devil's work by many well-meaning liberals, but in truth it's a valuable source of economic information. That's all. If suppliers know what consumers are willing to pay for they're able to tailor their services accordingly, this keeps firms efficient and prices low. None of this is applicable to the NHS though because it's entirely government subsidised and unresponsive to the medical needs of patients (from a monetary standpoint) Even if all NHS nurses were related to Florence Nightingale they would be still be working inefficiently because the NHS as an organisation wears a metaphorical blindfold: the state acts as the middle man between patient and doctor and as a result the lines of communication get scrambled. The NHS is doing hardworking doctors and nurses an injustice because it's prevents them from offering a first class service, only the market can offer this.
    I really don't care what you think of me, and I was responding to your argument that using the NHS is effectively stealing from fellow citizens, which is a ludicrous argument.

    With regard to your above point, I actually agree with you (believe it or not) that the NHS is inefficient, but privatising it is certainly not the solution. Look at the US - admittedly waiting times are shorter, but they dump sick people on the streets if they can't pay their bills. If you think that's morally right, then I despair for humanity. What the NHS needs is a re-design, to be introduced gradually, but don't ask me how, as I don't know enough about it to give a realistic proposal.

    Back to the topic though, everyone pays for the NHS. Everyone. Just because you can't track your individual taxes through the NHS to the point that you use it, does not mean you are being stolen from by people using the NHS. It's free at the point of use which is the part that you don't seem to understand, which frankly makes you the one that's wet behind the ears.

    I remember hearing somewhere the basic principle of the NHS was taken from Eastern cultures which don't have a national health scheme - when people are healthy they pay their doctors, when they're sick, they don't have to pay them. The difference with the NHS is it goes through the government. Speaking of which, the politicians don't directly run the NHS, they fund it. It's managers within the NHS, who have medical qualifications, that decide where the funds are spent.

    Finally, I don't consider profit the devil's work - it's a vital part of a capitalist society (a society that I believe in), I'm just strongly opposed to it when it's a determining factor in what healthcare someone receives, although I don't mind the pharmaceutical companies working for profit, as they're private companies, and they're not responsible for determining who receives their products.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    The U.S system is private, it isn't free market. It's like saying our train service operates in a free market because it's owned and run by a handful of private companies. Clearly it doesn't because the barriers to entry are so high that fair competition is virtually impossible - new companies can't start laying their own track! This gives the train operators a hell of a lot of discretion when it comes to ticket pricing. The same mechanism works with U.S healthcare. We could flush out the cronyism though with proper free market economics, no state subsidies, no lucrative government contracts (medicare), just a straightforward system that revolves around patient need.

    I don't know whether you work full time or not, but in my experience there's a fine line between getting the job done quickly and efficiently and what you'd consider to be 'corner cutting' [1]. Just as people are not perfect we cannot expect markets to be perfect, but what we can demand is the rule of law to prevent out-and-out cowboys ripping patients off as well as a dynamic marketplace that drives standards up via competition[2]. It's not about being 100% perfect, that is impossible, we need to assess which system is more likely the best results overall. And lets not forget the NHS cuts corners too, did the recent Mid-Staffordshire hospital scandal pass you by [3]?

    [1]. I don't find that thought re-assuring.
    [2]. So you agree that tight regulation and quality control is an absolute must where healthcare is provided regardless of whether it's public or private?
    [3]. I wasn't living in the UK when that story initially broke. I have heard some of the details and read some of the report findings when they came out. To describe it as "corner cutting" is generous- as someone who is studying in a health profession and someone who has family in nursing I found it shocking and upsetting.

    I think we could find common ground. I have no problem with increasing competition to drive down prices and improve patient care but the key difference still remains- I believe that free health care for vulnerable people is desirable and you don't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    [1]. I don't find that thought re-assuring.
    [2]. So you agree that tight regulation and quality control is an absolute must where healthcare is provided regardless of whether it's public or private?
    [3]. I wasn't living in the UK when that story initially broke. I have heard some of the details and read some of the report findings when they came out. To describe it as "corner cutting" is generous- as someone who is studying in a health profession and someone who has family in nursing I found it shocking and upsetting.

    I think we could find common ground. I have no problem with increasing competition to drive down prices and improve patient care but the key difference still remains- I believe that free health care for vulnerable people is desirable and you don't.
    1) In my experience that's the real world. One man's corner cutting is another man's bright, money saving idea, as long as the intention was honourable I don't see what the problem is. Taking ages over something and throwing loads of money at it doesn't guarantee a good result, cutting corners however may achieve the same outcome for a fraction of the cost. If the idea fails though and causes harm though it should of course be discarded in favour of ideas that work. Private companies don't tend to keep ideas that fail however: it costs them lots of money.

    2) The 'regulation' I'm talking about probably differs from your version. I believe in market regulation. If a company supplies a bad product I believe the market should allow that company to fail, and if they deliberately rip consumers off or harm them in any way the courts should be there to help arrange a compensation package. The NHS can't fail of course because it's not subject to the market. Therefore in my eyes it is not regulated.

    There's no such thing as 'free' healthcare - somebody has to pick up the tab. The only question is who.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    1) In my experience that's the real world. One man's corner cutting is another man's bright, money saving idea, as long as the intention was honourable I don't see what the problem is. Taking ages over something and throwing loads of money at it doesn't guarantee a good result, cutting corners however may achieve the same outcome for a fraction of the cost. If the idea fails though and causes harm though it should of course be discarded in favour of ideas that work. Private companies don't tend to keep ideas that fail however: it costs them lots of money.

    2) The 'regulation' I'm talking about probably differs from your version. I believe in market regulation. If a company supplies a bad product I believe the market should allow that company to fail, and if they deliberately rip consumers off or harm them in any way the courts should be there to help arrange a compensation package. The NHS can't fail of course because it's not subject to the market. Therefore in my eyes it is not regulated.

    There's no such thing as 'free' healthcare - somebody has to pick up the tab. The only question is who.
    I'm all in favour of an idea or innovation that will save time and money. I don't like waste either but that distinction between efficiency and cutting corners is an important one to make, especially in health. If a patient is left permanently disabled or dies because of a bad product it's cold comfort to turn around and tell them or their family-"don't worry, the company failed here's a compensation package".

    Of course it's not "free" as such. Nothing is really free. I mean freely available and when I say that I mean that cost is not a prohibitive factor.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by askew116)
    Finally, I don't consider profit the devil's work - it's a vital part of a capitalist society (a society that I believe in), I'm just strongly opposed to it when it's a determining factor in what healthcare someone receives, although I don't mind the pharmaceutical companies working for profit, as they're private companies, and they're not responsible for determining who receives their products.
    I still don't think I've got my position across effectively yet.

    Irrespective of what you or I consider to be right or wrong, economically we can only discover the true cost of a service, any service, when we allow the free market to supply it.

    Those who support the NHS say this: "healthcare is expensive, it will always be expensive, so therefore we need gov't funding to ensure the poor & vulnerable get the treatment they need"

    My point is that we don't know the true cost of medicine so we cannot make an informed decision until we have that information.

    If -under free market conditions- it cost £200,000 a time to cure cancer in children then yes I would consider some form of redistribution, but how the hell can we make that decision rationally when the market is subject to so many distortions?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    My point is that we don't know the true cost of medicine so we cannot make an informed until we have that information.
    I assuming you meant decisions.

    We shouldn't have to be making decisions, whether they're informed or ill-informed. People shouldn't have to decide on healthcare depending on the price of it. It should be provided to those who need it.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.