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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Self harm itself shouldn't cost the NHS much unless done poorly or in a silly way, even then, given it's a symptom rather than a condition in and of itself, it's like saying fever or vomiting costs the NHS.

    If we're talking cost to the NHS, I don't know the cost of sex change surgery, I expect rather a lot, but I would suggest that not doing it and then the person committing suicide, saving decades of medical expense, is probably cheaper than short term failed treatment of said suicidal tendencies.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    And for the sake of simplicity that say each sex change operations costs the NHS exactly 10k and they do 1000 every year we are saving about £10 million a year from not providing them
    Are human beings actually anything more than numbers on a spreadsheet to you lot? Just because vulnerable people killing themselves might save you some governmental loose change doesn't make it a good thing!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Are human beings actually anything more than numbers on a spreadsheet to you lot? Just because vulnerable people killing themselves might save you some governmental loose change doesn't make it a good thing!
    This may not be correct conduct for the house, but preach, preach that so hard
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    C-Section birth reduce the risk of incontinence following birth, reduces the possibility of a prolapse of the uterus, limits heavy bleeding after birth, and in cases where the woman is in Labour for over 12 hours a C-Section birth will reduce strain on the pelvic floor, and bring about a more peaceful birth. Waiting in pain for 12 hours during Labour is a natural, non-life threatening process but it is not a pleasant experience and the stress hormone a long labour causes increase the chance of the baby developing depression after birth.

    Not having a sex change does not cause further weakening of the pelvic floor, it does not cause incontinence, and it does not cause depression in an unborn baby. Natural birth is the most common type of birth but a C-Section birth is the type of birth that causes least amount of strain on the people involved, and is less painful; C-Sections would be the norm if there was not a cost with the surgery involved and a recovery time of six weeks.

    When 64,464 children are being looked after in various schemes, allowing IVF will give the possibility to children to childless couples at a cost the state. If IVF was restricted the alternative would be adoption which reduces the cost on the state by decreasing the number of children needing a loving home, and reducing IVF treatment. The families still receive a child but the state has one less child to look after, the child who is adopted is more able to develop in the warm surroundings of a caring couple than when being passed between different foster parents, and placed in different residential care houses; sometimes in different parts of the country.
    C sections have also been shown to increase the risk of infection compared with normal births. Although I believe that would be covered by the "emergency" category.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Are human beings actually anything more than numbers on a spreadsheet to you lot? Just because vulnerable people killing themselves might save you some governmental loose change doesn't make it a good thing!
    100%

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Why should we pay for someone else's sex change? Why that and not all plastic surgeries to remove defects that make people severely unhappy with themselves, for example?
    They do pay for plastic surgeries when the patient is distressed significantly.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    If you mean an insurance-based system with no state involvement is inevitable then that would appear to be contradicted by most of the developed world.
    Most of the developed world are taken over by socialists/communists and a lot of countries like Switzerland are rich enough to afford free healthcare. The truth is we're not. A lot of developed countries thrive with private healthcare like the United states, Australia and the Netherlands. These countries also happen to have the highest quality healthcare, most pay for doctors and nurses and the highest number of MRI scanners per capita.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Most of the developed world are taken over by socialists/communists and a lot of countries like Switzerland are rich enough to afford free healthcare. The truth is we're not. A lot of developed countries thrive with privat healthcare like the United states, Australia and the Netherlands. These countries also happen to have the highest quality healthcare, most pay for doctors and nurses and the highest number of MRI scanners per capita.
    The USAs quality of healthcare is below that of Cuba's.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    The USAs quality of healthcare is below that of Cuba's.
    Absolute rubbish. Johns Hopkins, Mass general hospital, the Cleveland clinic, Mayo clinic, the best hospitals in the world are based in the us. If you have adequate insurance you get access to the best healthcare in the world.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Absolute rubbish. Johns Hopkins, Mass general hospital, the Cleveland clinic, Mayo clinic, the best hospitals in the world are based in the us. If you have adequate insurance you get access to the best healthcare in the world.
    If you're rich enough to afford it, you mean.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    If you're rich enough to afford it, you mean.
    You don't have to be rich to be insured. The U.S. has arguably the best doctors, medical technology and expertise in the world. Only heart, kidney, intestine or lung transplants could set you back $1 million, transplants usual cost hundreds of thousands. These transplants are rare and an extremely small percentage of Americans would require a transplant of any kind over their lifetime. The survival rates are high aswell as the success rates so I would say it would be worth the cost.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You don't have to be rich to be insured. The U.S. has arguably the best doctors, medical technology and expertise in the world. Only heart, kidney, intestine or lung transplants could set you back $1 million, transplants usual cost hundreds of thousands. These transplants are rare and an extremely small percentage of Americans would require a transplant of any kind over their lifetime. The survival rates are high aswell as the success rates so I would say it would be worth the cost.
    But if you don't have the money then what? Universal healthcare is an absolute must for the right to life to be mained intact. The USA has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba as well as a lower life expectancy. They may have better doctors and better hospitals but they are wasted if they can't be used by everyone.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    But if you don't have the money then what? Universal healthcare is an absolute must for the right to life to be mained intact. The USA has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba as well as a lower life expectancy. They may have better doctors and better hospitals but they are wasted if they can't be used by everyone.
    There you go with your socialist agenda. It's better to have high quality healthcare, then low quality healthcare accessible to everyone. Also name any other country in the world with the United States population that does have a higher life expectancy or lower infant mortality rate? Quality is better than quantity, having a government bearaucracy run our healthcare doesn't make it better.

    It's kind of like the school system. A private school is on average going to have better grades than state school and provide a better quality education. Once insurance becomes affordable and accessible to everyone in the us then they would no doubt have the best healthcare system in the world.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    But if you don't have the money then what? Universal healthcare is an absolute must for the right to life to be mained intact. The USA has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba as well as a lower life expectancy. They may have better doctors and better hospitals but they are wasted if they can't be used by everyone.
    I don't think I even have to say a think, you and @saorise are making the sane arguments I would, but far better
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    There you go with your socialist agenda. It's better to have high quality healthcare, then low quality healthcare accessible to everyone. Also name any other country in the world with the United States population that does have a higher life expectancy or lower infant mortality rate? Quality is better than quantity, having a government bearaucracy run our healthcare doesn't make it better.
    Who said anything about low quality healthcare? We have one of the best health institutions in the world, and if you want a bit of luxury then you're perfectly within your own rights to get health insurance here too. Europe as a whole would be one place with a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate.

    It's kind of like the school system. A private school is on average going to have better grades than state school and provide a better quality education. Once insurance becomes affordable and accessible to everyone in the us then they would no doubt have the best healthcare system in the world.
    However the general trend is that comprehensives are catching up to private schools in results and in some places the state run schools are actually out performing the private schools altogether.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    I don't think I even have to say a think, you and @saorise are making the sane arguments I would, but far better
    It's easy to argue against someone so blinded by ideology that they have no idea about how the real world works.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    Most of the developed world are taken over by socialists/communists and a lot of countries like Switzerland are rich enough to afford free healthcare. The truth is we're not. A lot of developed countries thrive with private healthcare like the United states, Australia and the Netherlands. These countries also happen to have the highest quality healthcare, most pay for doctors and nurses and the highest number of MRI scanners per capita.
    OK, so the Netherlands has a government-controlled fixed price for health insurance. Rather than the Government providing this insurance, as is essentially the case in the UK, it is provided by private companies. There's even a regulated employers' co-pay system in place.

    It's perhaps slightly regressive (and more expensive per capita, which might explain the higher quality) but it's not a capitalist free-for-all.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    There you go with your socialist agenda. It's better to have high quality healthcare, then low quality healthcare accessible to everyone. Also name any other country in the world with the United States population that does have a higher life expectancy or lower infant mortality rate? Quality is better than quantity, having a government bearaucracy run our healthcare doesn't make it better.

    It's kind of like the school system. A private school is on average going to have better grades than state school and provide a better quality education. Once insurance becomes affordable and accessible to everyone in the us then they would no doubt have the best healthcare system in the world.
    We have higher quality healthcare than the US. Life expectancy ahead of the US.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'll find the source when I get home, but we in the UK invest significantly less in our NHS than other Countries invest in their public health care systems, would explain some of the short comings I'd think
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    I'll find the source when I get home, but we in the UK invest significantly less in our NHS than other Countries invest in their public health care systems, would explain some of the short comings I'd think
    The USA spend much more on Healthcare relatively than we do, a single payer system would significantly cut their costs.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Who said anything about low quality healthcare? We have one of the best health institutions in the world, and if you want a bit of luxury then you're perfectly within your own rights to get health insurance here too. Europe as a whole would be one place with a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality rate.
    UK hospitals lack modern equipment such as MRI scanners, have longer surgery waiting times, low pay for doctors and nurses causing low morale among healthcare professionals, hospitals expected to be shut down due to budget cuts: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...d-deficit-2020

    Free healthcare isn't sustainable and privatisation is inevitable one way or another. Don't be under any illusion that the NHS is anyway comparable in terms of quality to private healthcare providers in the developed world.
 
 
 
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: November 10, 2015
Poll
Are you going to a festival?

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.