Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think private healthcare is good mostly because it means that the more people with private healthcare the more people that can have access to NHS care.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rusty33)
    The difference being that private education is optional. Private health care is not.
    Oh I thought we were talking about the current UK system, where we have a free NHS for everyone, but there are private hospitals for those who can afford it. That's what I think is right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker_900)
    Oh I thought we were talking about the current UK system, where we have a free NHS for everyone, but there are private hospitals for those who can afford it. That's what I think is right.
    Not trying to pick on you specifically, but just this view which is expressed a lot -I'm not sure that anyone actually believes this who has thought about it properly.

    While I can understand why some people would want the entire lot to be nationalised (ie. hardline collectivists), if the goal is just to ensure that there is universal access to healthcare I don't see why it is important that some of the hospitals are owned by the government. Why wouldn't government-supplied insurance that will pay for care in 100% privately owned hospitals achieve the same objective? How about a government-funded voucher for healthcare that is 'spent' privately by the individual on a private insurance policy? How about a cash payment of the same value as the voucher? As you move along this chain, there are good economic reasons to believe the state of affairs will be better than under all the previous proposals.

    Once the notion of nationalisation as an ideological imperative is rejected I think the inescapable conclusion is that the most efficient and effective form of welfare that could be provided on a universal, national tax and spend level is a guaranteed minimum income, arranged in some way as not to deter work (and there are various proposals for how this might be accomplished).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    This is more an argument for increasing funding for public healthcare, IMO.
    Not necessarily. First of all, money alone is no guarantee of efficiency. Surely that's been adequately proven over the last decade by Labour who have pumped BILLIONS into the NHS with few results to show for it.

    Secondly, I don't see why an efficient private sector should be an argument for pumping more money into the public sector. Surely it's a better argument for more people going private in the first place.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    I said it shouldn't dictate healthcare.

    Again, this is just an 'the NHS isn't that great' argument. It's equivalent to saying 'My pepperoni pizza only had 2 bits of meat on it and not enough cheese, and the base was chewy! From now on I'm only going to eat caviar!'

    This argument really annoys me. Imagine if people had done nothing but say the same thing about slavery or child labour.
    Not really. If you had a pizza was chewy and gross would you go back and get another one or would you try somewhere else? And we're talking more about life threatening disease and its treatment rather than dinner choices :p:

    I agree that it shouldn't dictate healthcare, but unfortunately it does! And I'm not sure where the slavery and child labour thing came from... I can't even say anything cause I don't understand it
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I think you're basing your argument on a whole series of false premises. People don't get ill often? I'm relatively healthy and I'd say I've been to the doctor's at least twice a year throughout my life. But even if they don't, so what? People don't get into car crashes very often, but car insurance is arguably the market which best looks like perfect competition.
    I said people don't get ill regularly. You get hungry on at least a bi-daily basis - that's regular. Illness however is unpredictable both in it's form and frequency. Chances are, for example, I won't need to be admitted to hospital (touch wood) for the next year or so.

    The upshot of this argument isn't that it happens rarely, but in that they are unpredictable in form and length of time. A car insurance will at most have to pay out a single sum of money. A medical insurance company may have to pay out for a drug prescription for the rest of the individuals life. This is another aspect of why private education is bad - the insurance system, whose advantage is to have as little ill people. But Gremlins already covered this point.
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)

    Agreed. Which is why there will be a good deal of money to be made for anyone who can come up with a neutral rating system for insurance - think of something along the lines of Watch magazine. Hell, if you think knowledge is so lacking, you could start one yourself!
    Medicine isn't something you can do a watch magazine on considering the massive range of treatments, which are constantly changing, across a wide range of specialities. Medicine isn't a product that you can analyse in a 100 leaf magazine like Which Car and expect it to be relevent in a year or so's time.
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Depends what you mean by rationality. I think you're confusing Austrians with the neo-classicals - the Austrians assume *nothing* about rationality in the sense you're using it, while the Neo-classicals assume a lot of dubious axioms.
    I was under the understanding that Austrians believe that people don't make rational desires but make rational choices in order to achieve these desires. In my mind this is little different than the Neo-Classical axiom that people have rational desires, in terms of relience on humans being rational.

    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)

    There's no way hospitals are a natural monopoly. I just think you don't understand the term. Are you seriously saying that if the market for health was liberalized tomorrow, having two national providers would be less efficient than one? Because that's what you're apparently claiming.
    It's a natural monopoly (with a given geographical region) because the cost of hospitals is prohibitively expensive to have two in the same town for instance. Therefore only one can functionally exist and is therefore a natural monopoly. On a national scale this means that you can have multiple companies who effectively don't compete, because most people just go to their local anyway
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Also, who said hospitals have to be privately run? There's no particular reason they do. If people are more comfortable with non-profits running their healthcare, and they do so efficiently enough, there's no reason they wouldn't dominate in a free market.
    Profit companies advertise (the US is again another worrying example of this) and generally use methods of attracting custom that bears no relation to their actual efficacy (again due to lack of knowledge on the patients behalf of their condition and what needs doing). There's a reason pharmaceuticals, for instance, aren't allowed to advertise in this country.

    Moreover, the US again is an example of how non-profit organisations wouldn't dominate medicine (in my view to it's deteriment) - any that are successful just get taken over by someone wanting to make a quick buck. The NHS, for all it's faults, has proved to be more cost efficient than free market systems precisely for this reason - it remains non-profit and continues to be.
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    The WHO - scroll down to the "Per capita government expenditure on health(PPP int. $)" section and you'll see:

    United Kingdom - 2261.0
    United States of America - 2862.0.
    Fair enough - differs from my source. Although I would point out that this is just an example of how cost inefficient the US system actually is when the government pays a fraction of the total expediture and still pays more than the UK government
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    You're making a mistake which a lot of doctors do here, by assuming that the goal of patients is to have precisely the treatment doctors want them to have. The fact that people are choosing local hospitals is strong evidence that for them, local hospitals are better. Maybe not in a medical sense, but in a holistic one. Maybe being close to home, close to relatives outweighs medical efficiency for some people? I don't see what's wrong with that.
    I'm not denying that - in fact that's almost certainly the case - many patients I speak to hold concerns over being close to home. However I don't see how this is an arguement against the NHS. If all people care about is the location then there's not going to be any competition when it comes to biomedical efficacy, hence the argument that competition will improve service is largely moot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are we debating the CONCEPT of private healthcare or the practicalities?

    I think the concept is wrong and it shouldn't be allowed, but it's actually doing a fair bit of good in practice, taking some of the pressure off the failing NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People who support grossly ineffeiciant and failing government monopolies. How can you justify it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    People who support grossly ineffeiciant and failing government monopolies. How can you justify it.
    It saves the lives of millions who otherwise would die.

    Not everyone can afford private healthcare.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by All at once)
    Is it right that some people should be able to buy a better standard of healthcare than others?
    Are you a communist?


    Is it right that some people spend so much of their income destroying their health, leaving others to pick up the tab..?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Jamie)
    Are you a communist?
    Not at all.

    Is it right that some people spend so much of their income destroying their health, leaving others to pick up the tab..?
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...4&postcount=53

    I presume that covers what you're hinting at.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yshield)
    I think the concept is wrong and it shouldn't be allowed..........
    Why not? What's it got to do with you how I spend my money?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Why not? What's it got to do with you how I spend my money?
    This is my money. This is my country. This is my land.

    You owe it all to those around you, I thought maybe you'd be more grateful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    let us not forget that in the UK by choosing to go private you are in no way harming anyone else's healthcare. to the contrary the money you spend on private is money that would have been spent by the NHS. the same applies for time. so by choosing to go private you have in fact reduced the expenditure and waiting lists of the NHS freeing up resources to those who need them most. private healthcare also creates jobs, and i hope i don't need to explain why that's a good thing.
    the argument against private healthcare therefore goes along the lines of i see person x paying for healthcare. i don't want to pay for healthcare therefore he should not be allowed to pay for healthcare. taking away a private sector takes away our civil liberties and our right to choose. unless you can argue that someone taking private healthcare harms the health of those on the NHS (although as i've argued it is the opposite) there is no argument for elimination of private healthcare. if the private sector were eliminated the expenditure of the NHS would drastically rise (this would of course mean a large rise in taxes. so those using the NHS would actually pay for people to come out of the private sector, whilst those who used the private sector might even save money) as would the waiting lists which are long enough as it is. people should always have a choice as long as the choice doesn't harm others
    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?

    Yes. It is more than right, it is perfect.

    There is no such thing as a right to property or service. There are only rights to action. You are free to get healthcare by any means you choose. Do it yourself. Pay for it. Persuade a doctor with your charm.
    Anything.

    You are *not* entitled to claim the work of others, however. It doesn't matter whether one man wants my wallet or a thousand men want it - rational men do not give up their property against their will. The biggest joke on socialism is that its victims can stop it so easily, as soon as they realise they immolation is not a virtue.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yshield)
    This is my money. This is my country. This is my land.

    You owe it all to those around you, I thought maybe you'd be more grateful.
    No. The money in my pocket is mine just as the money in your pocket is yours. I should have thought that my decision to wisely spend my money on my health and wellbeing would be regarded as commendable (I could instead be spending it on cigarettes and booze) but you seem to want to make it illegal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tito2502)
    Yes. It is more than right, it is perfect.

    There is no such thing as a right to property or service. There are only rights to action.

    It doesn't matter whether one man wants my wallet or a thousand men want it - rational men do not give up their property against their will.
    It shouldn't be against your will to give up your wallet for another. This is the problem with the world.

    Selfishness is not a good argument.

    The only people who think the system is fair are those that profit from how broken it is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yshield)
    It shouldn't be against your will to give up your wallet for another. This is the problem with the world.

    Selfishness is not a good argument.

    The only people who think the system is fair are those that profit from how broken it is.
    Selfishness, is a primary virtue.

    Benefit does not derive from immolation. All that is consumed must first be created - there is no intrinsic wealth.

    I would happily give up my wallet for a friend, or for someone I admired - but never would I do it against my own self interest. It is of course in my interest to perpetuate those I value. However, my friends do not threaten me with prison if I refuse to buy them things - the strangers who presently demand my wallet are.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by yshield)
    It shouldn't be against your will to give up your wallet for another. This is the problem with the world.

    Selfishness is not a good argument.

    The only people who think the system is fair are those that profit from how broken it is.
    A popular socialist argument. However, they are always exposed as hypocrites when they themselves have many material possessions they do not need. Do you really need a computer? Would you give up your wallet for another man?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    A popular socialist argument. However, they are always exposed as hypocrites when they themselves have many material possessions they do not need. Do you really need a computer? Would you give up your wallet for another man?
    There's a difference between the person I strive to be and the person I am, but I don't think there is any shame in that.


    Edit: I'd like to add to that that surely it is better to have good intentions and fall short than selfish intentions and succeed?
 
 
 
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.