Turn on thread page Beta

Top Reasons to Privatise Health Care watch

  • View Poll Results: Why do you support private health care?
    Personal responsibility
    6
    9.68%
    Better quality
    6
    9.68%
    Free choice
    6
    9.68%
    I don't support it, you greedy fu..!
    44
    70.97%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Firstly, the amount of money spent on people who need treatment because of their own choices is small.
    Most of the money is spent on either admin (which needs to be done, and is a lot more efficient than other public or private institutions) or on health issues that the person did not cause (cancer, disabilities, dementia, genetic disease, etc).


    (Original post by NGC773)
    Keep the NHS under government control but make people take out Health Insurance. Now before you all rage about extra cost this will be met by a cut in taxes, so people will not lose out money wise.
    There is no way you can lower taxes by the amount needed for most people to be able to afford private insurance.

    (Original post by The-Real-One)
    Yes, I do believe that I will get better quality of healthcare when hospitals and doctors are motivated by profit.
    Evidence?
    I doubt it.
    If a procedure is deemed not cost effective, it won't get done. And so healthcare quality will actually get worse.

    (Original post by The-Real-One)
    What matters is a higher standard of care for a higher number of people. I for one would like the options to choose my drugs, to choose the medical scans I want etc..
    So you think you are better qualified than the doctors?

    (Original post by The-Real-One)
    The role of any government is to appease them so they will die quietly without much fuss or disturbing the rest of the population.
    Wow. You have to be a troll.

    (Original post by DVnotDivvy)
    I guess my main beef against socialised health care is that I don't care about other people's health at all
    Well you should. Because it can very easily affect you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Evidence?
    I doubt it.
    If a procedure is deemed not cost effective, it won't get done. And so healthcare quality will actually get worse.
    cost effective to who? the best procedure that cures the patient will always be the most cost effective unless there is a cheaper procedure that does exactly the same thing. Because to be effective is to be healthy, ie cured.

    in private health care system, health care quality will only actually get worse if you're too poor to pay for the treatent



    So you think you are better qualified than the doctors?
    Absolutely without a doubt. I have had idiot doctors telling me to take painkillers and act normally when I had a genuine problem with my joints and had I taken their idiotic advice, I would have caused further damage. I have also had problems that was picked up by private CT/MRI scans which doctors on the NHS refused to do. So I take the advanced medical scans as evidence when I battle with them to get the treatment I should need but would have never got because they refused to scan me.

    As to choice of drugs, not usually, but in certainly cases, again absolutely, if I had terminal cancer and I wanted better drugs than standard to prolong my life.



    Wow. You have to be a troll.
    I do not consider myself to be a troll, or perhaps trolling has become me. Either way, that is how the world works, I have zero qualms about telling it like it is.
    see bold
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Real-One)
    see bold
    I'm going to ignore your last point cos that is just silly. If you are really suggesting people should just die, then perhaps you should consider dying yourself tbh.

    As for the rest:

    What I mean cost effective is exactly that. If a treatment is deemed to expensive, or too risk, or it may not work, then it just won't be done if money is the ultimate motivation.

    As for the doctors - There are a few times that doctors get it wrong. But they are in the minority. If you think you know more than the doctors - why don't you become one?
    Fact is, most people don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge that doctors and medial professionals do. And I'm going to include you in that. If you have seriously medical problems, perhaps cancer, I doubt you would be able to diagnose and treat that yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't support the US model, but I do support a move towards the private model with state support for those who can't afford it, in the same manner as currently operates in a lot of Europe. It's very difficult to continue to support the NHS when even the propaganda no longer supports the model as effective, it just tries to make out that it's better than not having any.

    I wrote a blog on it a while ago, deconstructing a terrible study of the NHS against six other systems.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DVnotDivvy)
    I've always been a firm believer that your life decisions shouldn't affect my life... or vice versa. So why is it that every time you get drunk and fight someone 4 times bigger than you, or you eat McDonald's until you break the "anyone fatter than any American" record and get nuclear diabetes, or shagged your infertile wife until her vagina spills out like a stillborn... I have to pay for your medical bills?! How did I cause you your medical misfortunes that I need to be held financially accountable for? I know I don't have to pay the entire bill, but why is the government promoting that you push more unhealthy larvae out of your hole and making me pay for it?

    I guess my main beef against socialised health care is that I don't care about other people's health at all, much less people who don't even care enough about their own health to make an effort on their own.

    And if you don't believe me, go out to a pub on a Friday night before last call and see who's not smashing glass over someone else's head... (over health care?)!

    Why do you support (or hate, to be objective) private health care?
    You're so right

    And also so wrong.

    Well done Sir, you receive 1 internets for your trouble.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The amount of people who unfairly abuse the NHS is small in comparison to those who actually use it for HEALTH CARE!!! If you take an economists view then public health care far exceeds private health care for a number of reasons. The first being that public health care means that people have more disposable income so they can stimulate the economy etc and the second being that public healthcare is a positive externality and thus means that it has good spill over effects. How would workers say in car building or in small retail outlets be able to survive if they can't afford health care and so they cant go to work?

    Even though you could argue that a private system would stimulate competition and cause advances in medicine and ultimately cheaper prices this is a large risk to take, and the reasons for staying public is not one based on fact or economics its merely a political one.

    I would however look into reforming our medical system especially in the regards of using Marijuana as a medicine.

    Thank you for your time
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Planar)
    Due to the system of insurance, the one where there are excesses.
    I fail to see what you're trying to say. Any insurance system in the world has excesses.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minus)
    I don't support the US model, but I do support a move towards the private model with state support for those who can't afford it, in the same manner as currently operates in a lot of Europe. It's very difficult to continue to support the NHS when even the propaganda no longer supports the model as effective, it just tries to make out that it's better than not having any.
    Is there any evidence that privatisation (as opposed to, say, the up to 50% increase in healthcare spending that most European countries have) improves healthcare?
    (Original post by Minus)
    I wrote a blog on it a while ago, deconstructing a terrible study of the NHS against six other systems.
    A very thoughtful blog, but you demonstrate clearly that you've never worked within healthcare and a lot of the points you make are erroneous or misleading. I've give you a fuller reply later.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NGC773)
    Keep the NHS under government control but make people take out Health Insurance. Now before you all rage about extra cost this will be met by a cut in taxes, so people will not lose out money wise.

    You take out insurance, if you get ill or break a bone and need medical attention you go to the hospital exactly like before. But the gov charges the insurance company for the service. So this means people who never have to go to hospital get a lower insurance premium and thus save more. Those who are regularly in need of medical care can shop around for the best price.

    For people who cant afford it or a company wont insure the government will have its own scheme where these people can get free care. This will stop idrunks going to A+E every saturday because every monday morning they will see their premums go up or people who smoke to excess or are overweight due to their own habits


    Obviously theres loads of angles with this that need to be looked at and addressed but i think this could be a better way forward.
    It's fair in theory - however my mum has a long term medical condition that means she is in A&E sometimes four days out of seven. No cure at present and there's very little the NHS can do to help her. Ironically, it has been suggested that it is their fault she's ill in the first place. So why should she pay more insurance for an illness that she didn't cause - how is that her fault exactly?

    Or taking a more personal example - I suffer with a few chronic conditions and am in and out of gynaecology quite often. Currently awaiting my fourth operation and further tests. Nothing I have done in my life has caused these conditions; there's no known cause - so again, why should I have to pay more than a healthy person? At present I live on £25 a week as it is so there's very little chance I could afford private healthcare.

    It could only be fair if you charged everyone the same.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daisydaffodil)
    It's fair in theory - however my mum has a long term medical condition that means she is in A&E sometimes four days out of seven. No cure at present and there's very little the NHS can do to help her. Ironically, it has been suggested that it is their fault she's ill in the first place. So why should she pay more insurance for an illness that she didn't cause - how is that her fault exactly?

    Or taking a more personal example - I suffer with a few chronic conditions and am in and out of gynaecology quite often. Currently awaiting my fourth operation and further tests. Nothing I have done in my life has caused these conditions; there's no known cause - so again, why should I have to pay more than a healthy person? At present I live on £25 a week as it is so there's very little chance I could afford private healthcare.

    It could only be fair if you charged everyone the same.
    Yea i agree with your points. Another way you can view it, lets say a perfectly healthy person and never been in hospital, they could be thinking why should they pay more for you to go to hospital...etc

    I think the NHS is good the way we have it know, with a few efficiency savings and reforms to make it slicker i think it would be even better
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Is there any evidence that privatisation (as opposed to, say, the up to 50% increase in healthcare spending that most European countries have) improves healthcare?
    A good question, but I'd rather answer it with a question than an answer because I don't really have one. Can you demonstrate a better way to fund that increase of 30-50% without privatisation?

    We cannot just continue to tax people into oblivion.

    (It could be argued that Labour doubling the NHS budget in 13 years resulted in further inefficiency, so there isn't any evidence to suggest that throwing more money at it won't just result in even higher inefficiency, but I'm not going to make this argument because I don't feel that I can make the calculations properly)

    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    A very thoughtful blog, but you demonstrate clearly that you've never worked within healthcare and a lot of the points you make are erroneous or misleading. I've give you a fuller reply later.
    Thank you, I look forward to the reply. I haven't attempted to mislead anybody, so if you can give me any empirical evidence to suggest that what I've said is wrong, I'll be happy to revise the blog.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Minus)
    A good question, but I'd rather answer it with a question than an answer because I don't really have one. Can you demonstrate a better way to fund that increase of 30-50% without privatisation?

    We cannot just continue to tax people into oblivion.
    What's the fundamental difference between taxation and paying out of pocket? Taxes may be lower in privatized system but the individuals budget is still hit as hard.
    (Original post by Minus)
    (It could be argued that Labour doubling the NHS budget in 13 years resulted in further inefficiency, so there isn't any evidence to suggest that throwing more money at it won't just result in even higher inefficiency, but I'm not going to make this argument because I don't feel that I can make the calculations properly)
    Inefficiency is a unavoidable consequence of increasing funding. Privatised systems aren't particularly more efficient than the NHS.
    (Original post by Minus)
    Thank you, I look forward to the reply. I haven't attempted to mislead anybody, so if you can give me any empirical evidence to suggest that what I've said is wrong, I'll be happy to revise the blog.
    I'm not sure I can provide empirical evidence, but I'll just take some of your points you raised;

    -You dismiss guidelines as being unimportant, yet one of the key determinents in cost-effectiveness and efficiency of a treatment is clear decided guidelines. This is especially true for conditions such as Hypertension, depression etc where there are a lot of bewildering options for treatment which can (and are) used ineffectively and inefficiently without clear guideline use. It's certainly as important as infection control.

    - Treatments not given due to cost is quite common in medical practice. Sometimes this makes the media e.g. AChE inhibitors for Alzheimer. However, this is particularly controversial when you compare the amount of money we have available in respective countries.

    -Prompts are hugely useful as a doctor. There are a lot of things doctors need to remember, and whilst they remember most things, things such as Blood pressure checks get forgotten. Most GPs systems have a prompt when the notes are pulled up for a new patient saying 'This patient needs or is due X, Y or Z'. It's an efficient use of time and resources and ensures people don't slip through the net with high blood pressure etc. Its a good example of adopting new technology in a simple efficient way, especially when care is so dispersed these days.

    -Keeping the same doctor for 5 years or more is a good thing. Each new doctor has to get up to speed with the patient's condition and the patients ideas, concerns and expectations, not to mention their circumstances. Having continuity of care with one doctor is not only more efficient but better for the patient. (And there is high mobility within the health service in this country. If you don't like or want a particular doctor, you are perfectly entitled to change care to another doctor)

    -The issue about patient's past medical history is a symptom of our dispersed care and the failure of the new IT system, which would solve it, to be implemented.

    -Things in equity are duplicated with access, because it is important. Having one without the other is like asking for the mean without the SD. It is a sociologically consistent fact that lower socio-economic groups engage less with medicine than higher economic groups and the measure of this needs to be analysed. I'm not entirely sure why you discounted it.

    -Finally you seem to judge the NHS almost entirely on waiting times. In a world where healthcare is free at the point of access, we restrict by waiting time rather than cost - there isn't a feasibly alternative. The waiting times may not be great in comparison to other countries, but why do you measure the NHS by this measure alone? Not to mention that the NHS is massively improving in this regard. We are a world away from the 18 month waiting lists of pre-1997 and even further away from John Majors aspiration to restrict waiting times to 2 years.

    It is generally quite difficult to measure healthcare. Pure outcomes are skewed by other factors (diet, overall funding level, incidence of disease etc), so other measures need to be used. By and large, the methodology used by the Commonwealth Fund is one of the best considered in the profession and their conclusions are valid.

    As a final point, there's very little evidence in the literature that privatisation of a healthcare system improves outcomes. As I mentioned above, measuring different countries is always going to be flawed in some way. However, if there was an area that increased privatisation allowing for a well-controlled analysis, that would be an ideal way to solve the problem. Luckily there has been such a study, but the implications for privatisation aren't good.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rylit91)
    I'm not much in the way of a socialist, but you may as well tattoo 'STUPID' on your forehead. Have you ever been to A&E? To hospital? Were you born in a private hospital? What if you have a near fatal accident? Why should people have to pay for your carelessness? Bet you wouldn't be complaining then. Moreover, if we abolish the NHS, it would mean having sacrificed our position as a true world power for absolutely nothing. If it wasn't for the stupid Labour govt after the war, we'd still be a force to be reckoned with. As it is, they not only threw themselves at the yank for cash, but then spent it on the NHS and various other aspects of the Beveridge Report. I agree that it would have been better to invest it in industry and acquire the wealth, and maintain a top position, before implementing all of this, but if we abolish it now then it would all have been in vain.

    To sum up, Labour have ruined this country.
    Well, to answer your questions, in order:

    1. Yes I have been to an emergency room. But that was in the military so I didn't give a damn.

    2. Yes I have been to a hospital, to a private hospital, to see my stepdad's dying father, before he left us with lots of money. He wrote me an IOU.

    3. I don't remember what hospital I was born in. Although to be honest, it probably was, since it was in a rundown part of Liverpool.

    4. If you have a near fatal accident, well that's what insurance is for. It's really your job to take care of your own well-being, not mine. If you're too poor to buy insurance for yourself, incorporate, or go to a charity Armenian church outside of town, where all the illegal immigrants go... unless they're not white enough for you.

    5. People shouldn't pay for my carelessness because, 1 I'm not reckless... completely, 2 You would get to sue me for everything I own, goodbye gold watch and goldfish. It's called personal responsibility, it sounds like you doubt your own.

    The rest of your post is just a blur of anti-Labour, anti-American, and nationalistic opinionated crap sooo, I'm gonna leave it that... yup. :unsure:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DVnotDivvy)
    Well, to answer your questions, in order:

    1. Yes I have been to an emergency room. But that was in the military so I didn't give a damn.

    2. Yes I have been to a hospital, to a private hospital, to see my stepdad's dying father, before he left us with lots of money. He wrote me an IOU.

    3. I don't remember what hospital I was born in. Although to be honest, it probably was, since it was in a rundown part of Liverpool.

    4. If you have a near fatal accident, well that's what insurance is for. It's really your job to take care of your own well-being, not mine. If you're too poor to buy insurance for yourself, incorporate, or go to a charity Armenian church outside of town, where all the illegal immigrants go... unless they're not white enough for you.

    5. People shouldn't pay for my carelessness because, 1 I'm not reckless... completely, 2 You would get to sue me for everything I own, goodbye gold watch and goldfish. It's called personal responsibility, it sounds like you doubt your own.

    The rest of your post is just a blur of anti-Labour, anti-American, and nationalistic opinionated crap sooo, I'm gonna leave it that... yup. :unsure:
    please tell me i've misread this and your actually arguing against privatisation
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kopite493)
    please tell me i've misread this and your actually arguing against privatisation
    In what way do interpret that as my argument against privatisation? :confused:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    My views on private healthcare are pretty much summed up by Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. Definitely worth a watch for anyone interested in this issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DVnotDivvy)
    Well, to answer your questions, in order:

    1. Yes I have been to an emergency room. But that was in the military so I didn't give a damn.

    2. Yes I have been to a hospital, to a private hospital, to see my stepdad's dying father, before he left us with lots of money. He wrote me an IOU.

    3. I don't remember what hospital I was born in. Although to be honest, it probably was, since it was in a rundown part of Liverpool.

    4. If you have a near fatal accident, well that's what insurance is for. It's really your job to take care of your own well-being, not mine. If you're too poor to buy insurance for yourself, incorporate, or go to a charity Armenian church outside of town, where all the illegal immigrants go... unless they're not white enough for you.

    5. People shouldn't pay for my carelessness because, 1 I'm not reckless... completely, 2 You would get to sue me for everything I own, goodbye gold watch and goldfish. It's called personal responsibility, it sounds like you doubt your own.

    The rest of your post is just a blur of anti-Labour, anti-American, and nationalistic opinionated crap sooo, I'm gonna leave it that... yup. :unsure:
    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DVnotDivvy)
    In what way do interpret that as my argument against privatisation? :confused:
    i was asking have i misread as you stated your from liverpool yet it seems like your arguing for privatisation
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kopite493)
    i was asking have i misread as you stated your from liverpool yet it seems like your arguing for privatisation
    Oh, well, I was born there, but that doesn't necessarily make me a socialist. But yea, I'm very much in favour of privatisation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think healthcare needs some form of competition element to raise standards and reduce waste, but remain free at the point of use for those on low incomes.

    How we achieve this I am unsure. The Singapore model looks good, but whether it could be effectively replicated on a larger scale remains to be seen.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.