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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Just remind me of the phone number of the private ambulance service you will use if you have a road accident and where is the private A & E department you will be taken to?
    Well, I'd most likely text 'urgent' to 64446.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Unlike a lot of people I do actually think there is run for privatisation in the NHS. Patients are very capable of deciding what food they want, and whether a nurse has been kind to them when helping them to the toilet or not. Hence, privatising catering and even limited ward staff makes sense (though not in the way it has been introduced in this country - where hospitals sell rights to a monopoly to a single company and are then somehow surprised when every corner is cut and the company backs out at the first sign of trouble). A wholly privatised healthcare system though is completely crazy. It incentivises doing more and more treatments whether necessary or not (because more treatment = more £££ for the doctors, and the patient has no clue so will always just go with it). It does not conform to the idea of competition and the free market at all and simply results in a healthcare system (the us) that is mocked around the world, costing almost 3x what ours does for worse results than most of eastern Europe. Just look at the cost of obstetrics alone! . The royal birth cost less than the average in many states.
    What do you think about two-tier or three-tier healthcare? You know---let's say you get diagnosed with cancer. You can take your place in the queue for chemo for free... for a modest fee you can jump the queue, and for a big fee you can get treated YESTERDAY in a single room with high-speed Internet and a 50" television.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    Except it's NOT my choice! I don't want to pay for a service I don't use.

    And I think Labourites are whinier than Tories. Who protested against nuclear weapons? Not Conservatives! Who protested for gay marriage? Not Conservatives! Who protested against involvement in Iraq? Not Conservatives!

    By the way, I'm not rich. Just not blindingly poor, that's all. Parents didn't have to work standing up or saying 'Do you want fries with that?'.
    Well if you're not rich why the hell are you supporting a party that only works for the rich? Say what you like about Labour, at least they throw the poor the odd bone, whatever voodoo they use in financing it (because new lab were too chicken to take it off the rich). You do realise all this income insecurity and persecution of the poor does is harm the middle classes in turn. Misery trickles up.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    No, that's NOT what we have. Britain does not have even a TWO TIER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM! I'd be happy with that if the NHS must be kept.

    But no, if I get lung cancer, I have to wait for chemo even if the patient before me is a smelly, psychologically challenged tramp.
    Yeah, newsflash chumley, you're equal to him. Being richer doesn't make you better than him. This is a democracy, we work on one person one vote not one pound one vote, and thus it is in the provision of our services.

    Can't deal with that? Pay for your own special people's health insurance on top. And as soon as you get seriously, unprofitably ill, watch as they wash their hands of you and hand you off to an NHS hospital!

    By the way, having the free option means premiums are low, they would probably soar by 4 or 5 times without the NHS.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Well if you're not rich why the hell are you supporting a party that only works for the rich? Say what you like about Labour, at least they throw the poor the odd bone, whatever voodoo they use in financing it (because new lab were too chicken to take it off the rich). You do realise all this income insecurity and persecution of the poor does is harm the middle classes in turn. Misery trickles up.
    There's something in between rich and poor. My family are architects and lawyers. We get by.

    Too chicken to take it off the rich? Try too sensible to take it off the middle-class. We'd always get affected by the tax hikes. And besides, I'd never vote for a party that had a leader that never went to uni. At least Thatcher and Major went to Oxford. Sure, Silliband went to LSE but, come on, he's a goose. He'd hike taxes again too. All to preserve your precious so-called social safety net.

    Tories and UKIP work for the middle class. Margaret Thatcher was not upper-class. She was, in fact, solidly lower-class: a grocer's daughter. So was John Major.

    Misery trickles up, and money trickles down. That's why the poor get too much dole money, and the rich get all the headaches.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Yeah, newsflash chumley, you're equal to him. Being richer doesn't make you better than him. This is a democracy, we work on one person one vote not one pound one vote, and thus it is in the provision of our services.

    Can't deal with that? Pay for your own special people's health insurance on top. And as soon as you get seriously, unprofitably ill, watch as they wash their hands of you and hand you off to an NHS hospital!

    By the way, having the free option means premiums are low, they would probably soar by 4 or 5 times without the NHS.
    My mother's father's family was born in Germany. They had a rather sensible voting system: peers got three votes each, knights got two votes, everyone else got one vote. Still a democracy, just a more sensible one.

    It's not that I'm richer... it's that I will DO SOMETHING for this world, but the tramp will do nothing but beg.

    But answer me about the two-tier health system. Wouldn't it be a safe middle-ground?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    There's something in between rich and poor. My family are architects and lawyers. We get by.

    Too chicken to take it off the rich? Try too sensible to take it off the middle-class. We'd always get affected by the tax hikes.

    Tories and UKIP work for the middle class. Margaret Thatcher was not upper-class. She was, in fact, solidly lower-class: a grocer's daughter. So was John Major.
    £40000 is the average household income, if your parents are professionals you probably earn more than double that and literally haven't a clue.

    Still it need not be a war between middle class and poor. There is increasingly NOT something between rich and poor. To the oligarchy, your parents are slaves just as much as any benefit claimant is. And as the wealth distribution gets ever more skewed you would do well to put aside your pretensions and ally with them against the real exploiters. Only together do we stand a chance of getting the rich to give back. But I expect the middle class will keep up their delusion until everyone is dragged down into slavery. Solidarity is a dirty word now.

    Thatcher was upper middle by virtue of Oxbridge education. Major and Callaghan were our most humble PMs. You think the Tories and UKIP work for the middle class, wow. For every pound they placate the middle class with, or nowadays every pound they take off the poor in order to placate them, hundreds are funnelled up to the rich.

    I suppose I wouldn't quite rather starve than have their crumbs, but by God am I going to bite the hand that feeds. I'm certainly not going to doff my cap and vote for privatised healthcare.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    My mother's father's family was born in Germany. They had a rather sensible voting system: peers got three votes each, knights got two votes, everyone else got one vote. Still a democracy, just a more sensible one.

    It's not that I'm richer... it's that I will DO SOMETHING for this world, but the tramp will do nothing but beg.

    But answer me about the two-tier health system. Wouldn't it be a safe middle-ground?
    What we have now is a safe middle ground.

    Your caricature of the tramp, almost literally a straw man, is irrelevant, especially as very few people are on unemployment benefit for more than a year or two.

    Don't flatter yourself: you do far, far less useful work for society if you have a job in the administrative class than someone at the bottom, the real life analogue of your tramp, who does the real work on pain of starvation and income insecurity.

    Unless you're a genuine innovator, you don't really get paid money because you're more capable or contribute more to society: you get paid money if you help the people who have all the money further their interests.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    What we have now is a safe middle ground.

    Your caricature of the tramp, almost literally a straw man, is irrelevant, especially as very few people are on unemployment benefit for more than a year or two.

    Don't flatter yourself: you do far, far less useful work for society if you have a job in the administrative class than someone at the bottom, the real life analogue of your tramp, who does the real work on pain of starvation and income insecurity.

    Unless you're a genuine innovator, you don't really get paid money because you're more capable or contribute more to society: you get paid money if you help the people who have all the money further their interests.
    Well, the "very few" people on long term unemployment benefits must all be in London because I see tons of them. Sleeping on the pavements, covered with blood and piss and puke and sweat, with rotting teeth and smelly clothes. I've been asked for money a few times. Generally, what I do is take out the smallest note I have (usually a tenner) and burn it. That shuts them up.

    But you STILL haven't answered me. Why not a three-tier system under the NHS?

    You know: say I get diagnosed with cancer. I have three options: 1) take my place in the queue for chemo for free; 2) jump the queue for a modest fee; get treated YESTERDAY in a single room with high-speed Internet and a 50" television for an arm and a leg. This way, when film stars and singers and doctors and accountants and bankers and lawyers and, yes, the tramp get ill---they can use the hospital service which most nearly fits their station in life.

    This would make the government profit immensely. Now that I'm thinking on it, I'm not really against the 'government' part. I'm against the 'free for all' part. I think there should be the OPTION of getting health care for free... but I think there should be an equal OPTION of skipping the queue. I'm not against government per se---I just hate the waiting times and the communal hospital rooms.

    And I think what you're saying is pseudo-Marxist blather of the worst kind. I mean, you haven't crossed the line and begun advocating violence against the bourgeoisie quite yet... but come on.

    Finally, how is my worth, as an aspiring barrister, less in your eyes than the shop girl at Tesco? She is replaceable. Anyone at all could do her job, with zero training. What value does her job give to society?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Well if you're not rich why the hell are you supporting a party that only works for the rich? Say what you like about Labour, at least they throw the poor the odd bone, whatever voodoo they use in financing it (because new lab were too chicken to take it off the rich). You do realise all this income insecurity and persecution of the poor does is harm the middle classes in turn. Misery trickles up.
    Throwing the poor a bone in welfare is not something to praise them for. While the Tories are equally guilty, Labour has no plans to tackle low private sector wage growth which is the real issue. If Miliband comes up with a credible plan to give me a 10% wage rise each year without bankrupting business then i'll happily vote for him. I shan't vote for tax credits and the like though, nor his labour market intervention via the job guarantee.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The NHS hasn't suddenly collapsed, this has been a gradual build up and it will get worse as winter continues. It's just the fact that it's election year which makes it have much more publicity.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    But answer me about the two-tier health system. Wouldn't it be a safe middle-ground?
    We kinda have that.

    The NHS is there for everyone including those ditched by private medical companies.

    If you want extra, you can pay for it via insurance.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    We kinda have that.

    The NHS is there for everyone including those ditched by private medical companies.

    If you want extra, you can pay for it via insurance.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, but the private medical companies CAN drop you as a client. I hadn't thought of that originally---but I think it should be all right for doctors to be permitted to take 'tips' to prioritise a patient, for instance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    immigration ?

    the labour deficit ?

    What's going on ?
    Close to an election and they want more money, which the Tories are going to give but not as much as they want.

    Reality is it's a gradual degradation of service due to increased costs without increased funding.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dungarees)
    Also to the person who wants to privatise the NHS - the US gov spends almost twice as much on their healthcare system per capita than the UK, despite being completely privatised.
    1. The US is not the only healthcare system in the world we can compare against, nor does one example make your point.

    2. The standard of healthcare for someone reasonably well insured in the United States would be considerably higher than what is available on the NHS in the UK.

    3. The US healthcare system is not "completely privatised". Around 20% of hospitals are state-owned in the US. Indeed, under 20% are for-profit institutions. This is coupled with enormous state provision through schemes like medicare and medicaid. In fact, almost 50% of health spending in the US is carried out by the state - compared to about 80% in Britain (figures, again, from the World Bank).

    The NHS is one of the most efficient systems in the world, if not the most. We spend barely anything on it compared to other countries.
    Wrong and wrong.

    Forget developed nations, we spend less per capita than countries like Sierra Leone.
    According to the World Bank, the UK spent $3,647 USD per capita on healthcare. Sierra Leone spent $96. So wrong again.

    In a privatised system, what happens to those unlucky enough to be born with chronic conditions? Do you think insurance companies will touch them? As if. Are you willing to let these people suffer without treatment just so you can save some taxes? Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to afford private healthcare or education.
    Is anyone advocating such a system? I've yet to meet a single person who does, and I worked in health policy for a good couple of years.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    2. The standard of healthcare for someone reasonably well insured in the United States would be considerably higher than what is available on the NHS in the UK.
    Couldn't you have NHS and private and have money left over in the UK for what someone reasonably well insured in the United States would be paying though?

    (Original post by L i b)
    Wrong and wrong.
    Really?

    (Original post by L i b)
    I worked in health policy for a good couple of years.
    :eek: Scary
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    Couldn't you have NHS and private and have money left over in the UK for what someone reasonably well insured in the United States would be paying though?
    The point was on overall health spending: the person I was replying to was suggesting the UK system was more efficient because overall health spending in the UK was lower. To increase private provision by topping-up would increase overall health spending, thus rather destroying her argument.

    Really?
    Yep, we actually spend a pretty significant amount of cash on it, comparatively. UK health outcomes aren't particularly fantastic either. But of course, there's a great many ways to dispute the figures: quite what qualifies as medical or personal care, for example, or where NHS provision ends and local authority provision begins.

    There are plenty of things I don't like about how the NHS operates, but believe it or not the grand elements of it aren't particularly my priority. What really requires reform is social care provision and health care in community settings - and integration of them away from the NHS/local authority distinction is vital.

    Improve these areas, and you get a knock-on improvement in the NHS by reducing things like bed-blocking and A&E attendances, and reduce the costs of treating the regular users like the elderly.

    :eek: Scary
    Cheeky sod.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    combination of a number of factors

    1. clueless general population and a lack of people taking responsibility for their own health

    2. 111 trying to use none clinical call takers to provide advice

    3. the continued presence of tractor production comissars in local authorities and theior bleeding of budgets meaning service provision is cut to keep the tractor production commissars in their shiny offices. - with consequent impact on demand for health services and delays of transfer of care.

    4. frontline staff in the NHS ignoring the instructions from the tractor production commissars to record fraudulent data
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:


    There's some truth to that I think.

    There are other factors of course. One of them is probably that we are all living longer. Which isn't a failing :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    There's some truth to that I think.
    It works both ways, of course. If there's a private enterprise the state wants to take over, it inevitably has a good deal of power to make it fail, when it can then nationalise it either for free or at a knock-down price.

    This is especially true of highly regulated or semi-nationalised areas (think the railway franchises, where essentially the state still controls almost all of the business's strategic direction).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.