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

B880 - NHS Operation Funding Bill 2015 watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Then where did this 600,000 figure come from?
    I ave no idea, ask the writer, although in theory there is no reason why there couldn't be 600,000 procedures if the failure rate is high enough

    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    Mental capacity.

    Aesthetic plastic surgery could be part of a continuous process of reconstruction, I thought that was clear enough.

    "Sorry, you're infertile - we have a process that can give you or a child but we're not going to do that, adopt instead. Bu-bye".
    So what you're saying is that some people who do not feel comfortable in their body do so because they are mentally ill, and so should be sent to see a shrink, whilst others should be told "no, that's terrible, we'll correct that for you"?

    re constructive surgery itself is cosmetic surgery though, all plastic surgery is aesthetic and cosmetic.

    The logic being provided here would suggest that absolutely every medical procedure under the sun should be allowed on the NHS, there are options beyond NHS funded IVF.

    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You now that Medicare is socially exclusive right? As most receivers are over the age of 65 and their are certain requirements for eligibility. This is also true for Medicaid that only applies to very low income families and individuals and the government only pays for 50% of the program. The us of course has to get rid of these socialist programs and find alternatives to providing healthcare without increasing healthcare costs. The us needs healthcare reform in this part but overall the us is largely a free private healthcare system. The issue here is that for Medicare and Medicaid the people should have complete control of their healthcare not the government. There is also an issue of sustainability of such programs as Medicare is projected to go bankrupt in 9 years and would require higher amounts of tax money with lower quality healthcare provided.
    I am aware that it is socialy exclusive to certain groups, groups that IIRC make up something like a third of American adults between the two problems, and at the end of the day it is still general taxation being used to contribute towards healthcare for those who cannot necessarily afford insurance otherwise.

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    And if they worked then we wouldn't have heard of surgery.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're suggesting the only reason that these surgeries exist is because other methods don't work and not "hmmm, some people need to lose weight and are too lazy to do it some other way, I'm sure we can think of a way to do it via surgery and make money"
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Except in terms of value for money, where private services gladly charge for fancy pillows and unnecessary exams.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The united states as a result of superior medical technology and expertise have higher cancer survival rates than in Europe as Americans undergo more cancer screenings including MRI and CT scans that are more accessible. Have the highest cancer survival rates in the world for four types of cancer. People get better treatment for diabetes and high cholesterol/hypertension with better access to pharmaceutical treatment and better control of conditions. The us has the most advanced hospitals in the world, since 1966 the us has received the highest number of Nobel prizes in medicine than all other countries combined, has 9 of the top 10 most important medical innovations since 1975. People that reach the age of 75 in the us live longer than those that reach that age in other developed countries.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I ave no idea, ask the writer, although in theory there is no reason why there couldn't be 600,000 procedures if the failure rate is high enough



    So what you're saying is that some people who do not feel comfortable in their body do so because they are mentally ill, and so should be sent to see a shrink, whilst others should be told "no, that's terrible, we'll correct that for you"?

    re constructive surgery itself is cosmetic surgery though, all plastic surgery is aesthetic and cosmetic.

    The logic being provided here would suggest that absolutely every medical procedure under the sun should be allowed on the NHS, there are options beyond NHS funded IVF.



    I am aware that it is socialy exclusive to certain groups, groups that IIRC make up something like a third of American adults between the two problems, and at the end of the day it is still general taxation being used to contribute towards healthcare for those who cannot necessarily afford insurance otherwise.



    You're suggesting the only reason that these surgeries exist is because other methods don't work and not "hmmm, some people need to lose weight and are too lazy to do it some other way, I'm sure we can think of a way to do it via surgery and make money"
    In a nutshell, yes I do. Surgery isn't banter and surgeons don't go out of their way to do it. What you are describing is of course the PRIVATE attitude towards healthcare, hence, if we included it as part of taxpayer funded surgery we negate your problem.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    In a nutshell, yes I do. Surgery isn't banter and surgeons don't go out of their way to do it. What you are describing is of course the PRIVATE attitude towards healthcare, hence, if we included it as part of taxpayer funded surgery we negate your problem.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Working in the public sector does not exempt you from looking for profits, and it doesn't really, doing it in the public sector does not suddenly mean the procedure was never created.
    Offline

    19
    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.
    Absolutely agree.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Working in the public sector does not exempt you from looking for profits, and it doesn't really, doing it in the public sector does not suddenly mean the procedure was never created.
    Healthcare in the UK is not a profit driven industry. Surgeons don't perform risky surgeries just for money. Private firms probably use any excuse to encourage them to come in - another reason why these firms should be discouraged.

    If we as a society tackled obesity successfully then people wouldn't require surgery. Society needs to do more. The existence of surgery indicates the flaw, not because saw a chance to make some cash.

    Also, I like how you criticised the idea of private firms, operating for profit in the health service, here we agree.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Healthcare in the UK is not a profit driven industry. Surgeons don't perform risky surgeries just for money. Private firms probably use any excuse to encourage them to come in - another reason why these firms should be discouraged.

    If we as a society tackled obesity successfully then people wouldn't require surgery. Society needs to do more. The existence of surgery indicates the flaw, not because saw a chance to make some cash.

    Also, I like how you criticised the idea of private firms, operating for profit in the health service, here we agree.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Private medical sector isn't profit driven?

    And who said I was criticising, we need more profit motives in the health services

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Private medical sector isn't profit driven?

    And who said I was criticising, we need more profit motives in the health services

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, it is.

    We need more profit motive, but doing a surgery for profit is outrageous?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Healthcare in the UK is not a profit driven industry. Surgeons don't perform risky surgeries just for money. Private firms probably use any excuse to encourage them to come in - another reason why these firms should be discouraged.

    If we as a society tackled obesity successfully then people wouldn't require surgery. Society needs to do more. The existence of surgery indicates the flaw, not because saw a chance to make some cash.

    Also, I like how you criticised the idea of private firms, operating for profit in the health service, here we agree.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    First of all, most privatisation is non profit privatisation. Second, patients should have a freedom of choice on what type of healthcare they get and shouldn't let the government decide on their behalf. Also a competitive health sector is probably what the UK needs and would result in higher quality healthcare. Finally, the fact that you call upon "society" just demonstrates how socialists and socialism as a whole is out of touch with reality.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    First of all, most privatisation is non profit privatisation. Second, patients should have a freedom of choice on what type of healthcare they get and shouldn't let the government decide on their behalf. Also a competitive health sector is probably what the UK needs and would result in higher quality healthcare. Finally, the fact that you call upon "society" just demonstrates how socialists and socialism as a whole is out of touch with reality.
    Considering your argument revolves around the belief that the US system is a model to follow, that it's better to have some people have the finest care money can buy but are happy to deprive people who can't afford it basic care I query the bubble you live in.

    I believe in socialised health care, hence I use the term society, because it's taxpayer funded and therefore we run it as a society. How dare I assume that I should be allowed a say in how to run the health service.

    If you mean charity and non-for - profits I can understand, but the greater role of for profit groups in health care is alarming. Saying "there's not that much of it" doesn't mean it's not a problem.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Ejaculate into a cup, use a syringe and do it that way.
    2muchinternet5me
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Well, it is.

    We need more profit motive, but doing a surgery for profit is outrageous?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I never said that profit for surgery is outrageous, if you have ever had a private procedure done you would see it's hardly irregular; a consultant dealing with cateracts and the likes will be earning something like £500-1000 per hour as a consultant, and charge in the region of £600 for the operation itself, which is not even a 20 minute procedure, then at least one more £200+ consultancy after to check it's fine; and that £600 is just the surgeon's fees, it's then a load more on top for the hospital fees.

    IIRC, it was 260 per half hour consultation and 635 for the surgery, not including hospital fees for the surgery, nearly 1k including

    And a profit motive encorages efficiency. As I've said more than once, do any of you have Hinchingbrooke as your local hospital? No, well I think I'm maybe more 'qualified' to talk of the benefit of private management. Oh, and whilst at conference I was talking to a lady who worked in the health service before setting up her own physio and she largely agreed. Before you declare "oh, she's a Tory, of course she'll agree" that wasn't entirely the case and, for the time being, she would actually be better off staying in the NHS.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I never said that profit for surgery is outrageous, if you have ever had a private procedure done you would see it's hardly irregular; a consultant dealing with cateracts and the likes will be earning something like £500-1000 per hour as a consultant, and charge in the region of £600 for the operation itself, which is not even a 20 minute procedure, then at least one more £200+ consultancy after to check it's fine; and that £600 is just the surgeon's fees, it's then a load more on top for the hospital fees.

    IIRC, it was 260 per half hour consultation and 635 for the surgery, not including hospital fees for the surgery, nearly 1k including

    And a profit motive encorages efficiency. As I've said more than once, do any of you have Hinchingbrooke as your local hospital? No, well I think I'm maybe more 'qualified' to talk of the benefit of private management. Oh, and whilst at conference I was talking to a lady who worked in the health service before setting up her own physio and she largely agreed. Before you declare "oh, she's a Tory, of course she'll agree" that wasn't entirely the case and, for the time being, she would actually be better off staying in the NHS.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What is your point about the first paragraph? Are you saying that you think that fee is adequate? If you wish to use a private alternative to jump the queue and are prepared to pay for it then I back it.

    If private firms "charge" the state per procedure, then this means unnecessary procedures will be done. If it simply receives funding, then they will do the bare minimum and may miss out on smaller details.

    Physios I could understand fitting that category, easier to compare, easier to standardise if they are in sports. For basics not so sure.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Considering your argument revolves around the belief that the US system is a model to follow, that it's better to have some people have the finest care money can buy but are happy to deprive people who can't afford it basic care I query the bubble you live in.

    I believe in socialised health care, hence I use the term society, because it's taxpayer funded and therefore we run it as a society. How dare I assume that I should be allowed a say in how to run the health service.

    If you mean charity and non-for - profits I can understand, but the greater role of for profit groups in health care is alarming. Saying "there's not that much of it" doesn't mean it's not a problem.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're under the illusion that "social" healthcare means that the people get to control their healthcare. The reality is the government controls your healthcare and how much is spent on your healthcare. You don't get to choose whether or not the NHS gets budget cuts or more funding. The NHS is underfunded, inefficient and a healthcare monopoly in the UK. With private healthcare the people get to decide what healthcare service they require. Less competitive, inefficient hospitals get shut down while more successful hospitals thrive. In my opinion, ethically speaking a private healthcare service is morally superior to a state run healthcare service.

    The only issue is affordability that's where the government could get involved. The government makes healthcare more affordable and accessible while most healthcare providers remain privately owned. This is what the UK desperately needs.

    Privatisation would help the UK get the most advance hospitals possible, more efficient healthcare, better medical technology, better and more highly motivated healthcare professionals, higher cancer survival rates, lower mortality rates, better treatment and more accesible treatment.

    The majority of privatisation would be non profit while a minority would be for profit. There would still be state run hospitals in the UK but would make a lower percentage of total healthcare providers. For profit privatisation isn't as horrible as you think and would probably add much needed competition in this sector. In the us non profit hospitals by far offer the best service so I wouldn't worry about for profits that much.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ali1302)
    You're under the illusion that "social" healthcare means that the people get to control their healthcare. The reality is the government controls your healthcare and how much is spent on your healthcare. You don't get to choose whether or not the NHS gets budget cuts or more funding. The NHS is underfunded, inefficient and a healthcare monopoly in the UK. With private healthcare the people get to decide what healthcare service they require. Less competitive, inefficient hospitals get shut down while more successful hospitals thrive. In my opinion, ethically speaking a private healthcare service is morally superior to a state run healthcare service.

    The only issue is affordability that's where the government could get involved. The government makes healthcare more affordable and accessible while most healthcare providers remain privately owned. This is what the UK desperately needs.

    Privatisation would help the UK get the most advance hospitals possible, more efficient healthcare, better medical technology, better and more highly motivated healthcare professionals, higher cancer survival rates, lower mortality rates, better treatment and more accesible treatment.

    The majority of privatisation would be non profit while a minority would be for profit. There would still be state run hospitals in the UK but would make a lower percentage of total healthcare providers. For profit privatisation isn't as horrible as you think and would probably add much needed competition in this sector. In the us non profit hospitals by far offer the best service so I wouldn't worry about for profits that much.
    Yet people are a poor judge of quality. Complaints from the public revolve around non-healthcare concerns, it need be regulators, not competition that measures quality. Because patients think the doctors are nicer in hospital A means they may overlook that the staff are better trained in B, and there's no way to compare recovery rates simply. The best surgeons have the highest rates of complications because they specifically take on high risk cases.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    "Operations due to lifestyle choice" is vague, surely debatably this includes, say, gastric bands.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am in favour of people paying for gastric bands.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    I am in favour of people paying for gastric bands.
    Of all previously outlined, the one that definitely shouldn't be, as it saves money in the long term.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This is in cessation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This has gone to a second reading.
 
 
 
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
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

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.