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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by small t tory.)
    No, fully privatizing a completely publicly owned service so quickly would be suicide. It needs to be done incrementally and over a period of time. The first thing we need to start doing is encouraging more people to take out private health insurance. The we need to start means testing our healthcare. This system works fantastically in Australia. Basically, when you go to the doctors/hospital you pay the bill up front and then claim back a certain percentage of that money depending on your income. It's a sliding scale so if you're poor you can claim back around 90% of your bills from the government and if you're rich you can only claim back around 15%. If we had a system like this as our NHS then we would save so much money, and it would also encourage people to just go private if they can afford to. But yes, I agree with the principal of part privatisation.
    The Australian system sounds quite good to be honest, although I suggested the Singapore system in my post above I would probably also want to look into the Australian health care model as well now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if it aint broke, don't fix it.

    Nuff said.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If people like the American or Austrialian health systems so much, why don't they go there and not bother the people who are happy with the NHS?

    If private healthcare is so great, more people will use it anyway and eventually, the NHS will strink and disappear on its own without any need to change it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by small t tory.)
    Basically, when you go to the doctors/hospital you pay the bill up front.
    And how do you expect poorer people to pay up front?
    By introducing a system like that, you are effectively damning a large number of people to a life of disease and illness and hell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    And how do you expect poorer people to pay up front?
    By introducing a system like that, you are effectively damning a large number of people to a life of disease and illness and hell.
    If you can claim back 90% of the bill then you just put it on credit, it won't matter. And you can have insurance to pay for the 10% you contribute if you want to. Only the people in abject poverty, i.e. homeless people with absolutely nothing, would be without healthcare. That is an absolute minute amount of the population, hardly a "large number of people."
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by small t tory.)
    If you can claim back 90% of the bill then you just put it on credit, it won't matter. And you can have insurance to pay for the 10% you contribute if you want to. Only the people in abject poverty, i.e. homeless people with absolutely nothing, would be without healthcare. That is an absolute minute amount of the population, hardly a "large number of people."
    Poor people don't matter. Its a well known Tory trait.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scholefield :))
    if it aint broke, don't fix it.

    Nuff said.
    To be fair, the NHS is rather broke. Along with the rest of the public sector.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    To be fair, the NHS is rather broke. Along with the rest of the public sector.
    The NHS is not broke but the government wants to break it so private companies can sherry pick the profitable bits and leave the rest for the taxpayer to pay for.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alhae)
    Our cancer survival rates are pisspoor and waiting lists are too long. The US doesn't suffer either of these problems because it is not the taxpayers that pay for everyones' healthcare, it is themselves. End the nonsense now and privatise the NHS. If you disagree with me then it shows that you cannot face the truth.
    are you retarded? Do you realise how many people you would kill simply because they are to poor to afford the bill?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    The NHS is not broke but the government wants to break it so private companies can sherry pick the profitable bits and leave the rest for the taxpayer to pay for.
    Heard of double entendre?

    Anyway, it'll never happen. The NHS is far too political. I'd be happy to see some reform of the NHS, however. Not privatisation, mind - just taking out a couple of layers of middle management deadwood.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the way to go with the NHS is keeping it free to a certain extent.

    If you're genuinely ill and lead a good healthy lifestyle then yes, it should continue to be free.

    But, if for example you need medical treatment after a night out of heavy drinking. Then you should be billed in part atleast. This would hopefully get people thinking seriously about their health and how they treat their bodies.

    I watched a video a while ago (American it was) which stated that you either pay the farmer (eat well and live healthy) or the doctor (medical bills). We don't have that incentive here, so we pay no-one and therefore relieve ourselves of responsibility of our own health.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by small t tory.)
    If you can claim back 90% of the bill then you just put it on credit, it won't matter. And you can have insurance to pay for the 10% you contribute if you want to. Only the people in abject poverty, i.e. homeless people with absolutely nothing, would be without healthcare. That is an absolute minute amount of the population, hardly a "large number of people."
    what are you going to do with homeless people then? just ignore them and let them die when the technology and care to help them lies right in front of them? you're a tit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordenfruitbat)
    Yeah and what about people that can't afford the healthcare, are you happy to let them die? If you have such a problem with the NHS go use private care like BUPA or something.

    What a stupid thing to say the NHS is a great thing, sure it could be better but privatising it is not a good enough solution.
    This. Simple as.

    As for you, OP. If I don't agree, I "can't face the truth"? What a ridiculous thing to say...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garyedu)
    I think the way to go with the NHS is keeping it free to a certain extent.

    If you're genuinely ill and lead a good healthy lifestyle then yes, it should continue to be free.

    But, if for example you need medical treatment after a night out of heavy drinking. Then you should be billed in part atleast. This would hopefully get people thinking seriously about their health and how they treat their bodies.

    I watched a video a while ago (American it was) which stated that you either pay the farmer (eat well and live healthy) or the doctor (medical bills). We don't have that incentive here, so we pay no-one and therefore relieve ourselves of responsibility of our own health.
    so you get pissed and then get started on - have a fight end up in hospital and you think they should ten have to pay some of the cost because they were drunk....how are you going to decide who has tp pay and who doesnt? think it through! healthcare should be available to all and people who abuse their bodies do this for a number of reasons but mainly because they arnt happy with themselves and their situation. you need to sort out the problems that cause the escapism etc. which lead to abuse of your own body, not erode the principles that the NHS was founded upon. fair points?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    what are you going to do with homeless people then? just ignore them and let them die when the technology and care to help them lies right in front of them? you're a tit.
    Yes, the help for them to get out of abject poverty also lies right in front of them, a lot choose not to take that opportunity. Or would you rather the state molly coddled and tucked them in every night. You clearly undervalue the power of the individual to change their own life, it is not up to everybody else to do it for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by small t tory.)
    Yes, the help for them to get out of abject poverty also lies right in front of them, a lot choose not to take that opportunity. Or would you rather the state molly coddled and tucked them in every night. You clearly undervalue the power of the individual to change their own life, it is not up to everybody else to do it for them.
    lets be clear - there are more job seekers than there are vacancies - 5 to 1. so you are saying that homeless people, with drug and or alcohol problems, with mental health issues, without a bank account, an address, decent clothes is going to stand a chance in getting a job against all the other people? why do you think i want the state to tuck them into bed at night? clearly i said they should be given free healthcare - its quite different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alhae)
    Our cancer survival rates are pisspoor and waiting lists are too long. The US doesn't suffer either of these problems because it is not the taxpayers that pay for everyones' healthcare, it is themselves. End the nonsense now and privatise the NHS. If you disagree with me then it shows that you cannot face the truth.
    We have not yet found a cure, dumbass.

    By the sounds of it you should be arguing against privatisation because education in state schools is government funded and you're as ignorant as they come! Even if you're privately educated it proves that the service they are providing you is pisspoor seeing as you know nothing about the way normal people live.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by small t tory.)
    If you can claim back 90% of the bill then you just put it on credit, it won't matter. And you can have insurance to pay for the 10% you contribute if you want to. Only the people in abject poverty, i.e. homeless people with absolutely nothing, would be without healthcare. That is an absolute minute amount of the population, hardly a "large number of people."
    And because forcing people into debt is such a good idea :rolleyes:
    Plus, a a large section of the poorer people in our country cannot get credit. So what do you suggest they do then?
    And what about people who have cancer, or dementia etc? Where the up-front costs for treatment / care would be huge. Much greater that what most normal people would be able to borrow.

    Plus, it may be a small percentage of the population, but what you are suggesting still amounts of state supported murder.
    I am sure if you found yourself in that situation you would soon change your mind.

    (Original post by small t tory.)
    Yes, the help for them to get out of abject poverty also lies right in front of them, a lot choose not to take that opportunity. Or would you rather the state molly coddled and tucked them in every night. You clearly undervalue the power of the individual to change their own life, it is not up to everybody else to do it for them.
    You are so naive and clearly do not live in the real world.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Heard of double entendre?

    Anyway, it'll never happen. The NHS is far too political. I'd be happy to see some reform of the NHS, however. Not privatisation, mind - just taking out a couple of layers of middle management deadwood.
    I'm curious as to how much middle management deadwood you think there is.

    In the private sector, the average percentage of turnover spent on middle management is 15%, with private sector best being around 10%.

    Now take a guess as to the percentage spent on middle management in the NHS? It's around 5%.

    There's not much fat to trim there.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garyedu)
    I think the way to go with the NHS is keeping it free to a certain extent.

    If you're genuinely ill and lead a good healthy lifestyle then yes, it should continue to be free.

    But, if for example you need medical treatment after a night out of heavy drinking. Then you should be billed in part atleast. This would hopefully get people thinking seriously about their health and how they treat their bodies.

    I watched a video a while ago (American it was) which stated that you either pay the farmer (eat well and live healthy) or the doctor (medical bills). We don't have that incentive here, so we pay no-one and therefore relieve ourselves of responsibility of our own health.
    I think the bureaucarcy to set up a system to first find out if people deserves free treatment or not is going to be big and expensive.

    How would you ensure people who abuse their bodies are billed and those that don't are not? Will the NHS have to employ thousands of investigators to dig into the circumstances of how people needed treatment? Then bill them for treatment and have a system of appeals when people contests their bill? I think it going to very expensive and may actually cost more than it can collect.

    What if someone has smoked and has lung cancer? Would you automatically bill the person for treatment but they could claim smoking has nothing to do with their cancer and noone can say for sure what caused it since lung cancer can arise without any apparent causes.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.