Turn on thread page Beta

Socialist Healthcare is Fundamentally Flawed watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think private health care would be cheaper. It would mean lower taxes. I think we should have a system where u only pay back a certain ammount so for example if your poor and need an operation you would pay less back a week then a rich person who needs an operation, i know its probably not as easy as that but i think its a good idea. If your under 21k you wont need to pay for ur op. But if your over 21k then u will need to pay back a certain ammount a week.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    I think private health care would be cheaper.
    For who?

    Are these private healthcare providers going to provide their services for free or expect some form of profit? Its just the "everyone taking a slice" issue is one of the main causes for higher costs of healthcare in the US.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Put it like this:

    Our "socialist" healthcare system meant that me and my parents were able to help look after my elderly Gran (who had alzheimer's) for 5 years with help from the NHS and the council. It meant that we were able to help her live in her own house instead of leaving her to die in a crappy "care" home. It meant that when she did die, it was without pain or suffering.

    Under a privitised system, we would not have been able to afford the care she needed, even if we did sell her house so god knows what would have happened.

    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    I think private health care would be cheaper.
    Why?
    If the only motive is profit (which at the end of the day is the case for every private company), then how would health care get cheaper?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Put it like this:

    Our "socialist" healthcare system meant that me and my parents were able to help look after my elderly Gran (who had alzheimer's) for 5 years with help from the NHS and the council. It meant that we were able to help her live in her own house instead of leaving her to die in a crappy "care" home. It meant that when she did die, it was without pain or suffering.

    Under a privitised system, we would not have been able to afford the care she needed, even if we did sell her house so god knows what would have happened.



    Why?
    If the only motive is profit (which at the end of the day is the case for every private company), then how would health care get cheaper?
    I mean a system where u only pay when u use it. IT would be cheaper overall because you wouldnt have to pay as much tax and it could be reduced to about 10%. So if you need an op u cant be refused instead you just pay a certain ammount back a week depending on ur salary.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    I mean a system where u only pay when u use it. IT would be cheaper overall because you wouldnt have to pay as much tax and it could be reduced to about 10%. So if you need an op u cant be refused instead you just pay a certain ammount back a week depending on ur salary.
    But that isn't a true free market then is it?
    Its still somewhat "socialist".

    In a real free market healthcare system it would not be cheaper, as even though taxes would be reduced, the cost of the actual healthcare would be a lot more than the amount you saved by not paying as much tax.

    And even in your suggestion there would be a huge problem as the government would have to "pay" the healthcare company first (like with student loans). The government would have to get that money from somewhere. Taxes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But that isn't a true free market then is it?
    Its still somewhat "socialist".

    In a real free market healthcare system it would not be cheaper, as even though taxes would be reduced, the cost of the actual healthcare would be a lot more than the amount you saved by not paying as much tax.

    And even in your suggestion there would be a huge problem as the government would have to "pay" the healthcare company first (like with student loans). The government would have to get that money from somewhere. Taxes.
    Its just my idea, atleast im actually coming up with suggestions. Even if it is a good idea its still a vote loser and the general electorate are thick lol.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    I mean a system where u only pay when u use it. IT would be cheaper overall because you wouldnt have to pay as much tax and it could be reduced to about 10%. So if you need an op u cant be refused instead you just pay a certain ammount back a week depending on ur salary.
    Its only cheaper if your not ill...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Its only cheaper if your not ill...
    Bingo.

    Healthcare provision can not be scaled back/turned off during 'slack' periods, all those highly-trained medical staff need to be kept employed all through the year. As a result of this those using their services are having to subsidise the cost of retaining such services for those who aren't currently using them. Add on top of that the profit margin at many levels.

    The strange thing about this 'fear' some in the US seem to have with regards 'socialised medicine' is that are quite happy to live with and use other socialised institutions. Maybe its something to do with the huge profit margins and widespread lobbying of congress by those with less than impartial motives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Has any one heard about the Singapore healthcare system? In comparison to state and private health care you pay your taxes or your premiums and when you do get ill you expect to be treated and you don't know the real cost for your treatment. Whilst in Singapore a percentage of your wage is placed into a savings account were over time your savings will build up and when you do get ill you will be able to use it. For example let say you have high blood pressure under state or private care you expect to get it whilst on the Singapore healthcare system you will directly know how much statins cost and you might consider doing exercise and cutting back on the junk food instead. The market will see this they will lower the price of the statins making it more affordable and so giving the patient real control.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magnoz)
    Whilst in Singapore a percentage of your wage is placed into a savings account were over time your savings will build up and when you do get ill you will be able to use it.
    So what if the cost of your treatment is much more than what is in the account? (which will be the case for many serious illnesses).
    What about if you need treatment when you are young and so haven't worked?

    (Original post by magnoz)
    you might consider doing exercise and cutting back on the junk food instead.
    So what about people who can't do anything about having high blood pressure?
    You know, the people who have it because it is in their family?
    The people who have it because it is a side effect of other illnesses.

    And what about illnesses that you can't do anything about? Like cancer, or disabilities or whatever.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    So what if the cost of your treatment is much more than what is in the account? (which will be the case for many serious illnesses).
    What about if you need treatment when you are young and so haven't worked?



    So what about people who can't do anything about having high blood pressure?
    You know, the people who have it because it is in their family?
    The people who have it because it is a side effect of other illnesses.

    And what about illnesses that you can't do anything about? Like cancer, or disabilities or whatever.
    Singapore does have the best private healthcare system in the world though, in terms of quality, it has to be said.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Singapore does have the best private healthcare system in the world though, in terms of quality, it has to be said.
    So answers to the questions then?
    I have a feeling that magnoz isn't telling the whole story about it.
    For example, it isn't really a proper private system is it? There is quite a lot of state control and influence and state spending. And that quite a lot of the main hospitals in the country are public (ie - state) hospitals.
    And personally, I would rather have the NHS, where I don't have to worry about paying for the ambulance if I need one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    So what if the cost of your treatment is much more than what is in the account? (which will be the case for many serious illnesses).
    What about if you need treatment when you are young and so haven't worked?


    So what about people who can't do anything about having high blood pressure?
    You know, the people who have it because it is in their family?
    The people who have it because it is a side effect of other illnesses.

    And what about illnesses that you can't do anything about? Like cancer, or disabilities or whatever.
    well in Singapore they have voluntary health insurance that go with your savings account the premiums paid will be small because you will be using the saving account far more often than the health insurance and the second point you had made about young people that have never worked what happens the savings can be withdrawn to pay the hospital bills of the account holder and his or her immediate family members.
    okay when the prices become cheaper they become more affordable for more people and i am not saying the Singapore system can cure all cancers or cure peoples disabilities but there is no health care system in the world that can cure all cancers and disabilities medicine has not got there yet
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    So answers to the questions then?
    I have a feeling that magnoz isn't telling the whole story about it.
    For example, it isn't really a proper private system is it? There is quite a lot of state control and influence and state spending. And that quite a lot of the main hospitals in the country are public (ie - state) hospitals.
    And personally, I would rather have the NHS, where I don't have to worry about paying for the ambulance if I need one.
    i never said it was private the main reason i like the Singapore system because it gives people the patient more control over there health and not the state it will also make the system accountable in a way a centralised bureaucracy cannot if the aim was to improve healthcare of the poorest this is the best way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magnoz)
    well in Singapore they have voluntary health insurance that go with your savings account the premiums paid will be small because you will be using the saving account far more often than the health insurance and the second point you had made about young people that have never worked what happens the savings can be withdrawn to pay the hospital bills of the account holder and his or her immediate family members.
    okay when the prices become cheaper they become more affordable for more people and i am not saying the Singapore system can cure all cancers or cure peoples disabilities but there is no health care system in the world that can cure all cancers and disabilities medicine has not got there yet
    I'm not saying it can cure all cancers.
    What I am saying is the cost of cancer treatment is usually huge. Much much more than what any normal person would ever be able to pay into any savings account.
    You say the health insurance is voluntary. So what if people don't have it, and don't have enough money to pay for their treatment?

    (Original post by magnoz)
    i never said it was private the main reason i like the Singapore system because it gives people the patient more control over there health and not the state it will also make the system accountable in a way a centralised bureaucracy cannot if the aim was to improve healthcare of the poorest this is the best way.
    Ocassus did say it was private though.
    And there is no reason that a state provided system can be accountable (as it is already accountable as you can sue the NHS trust, doctors can be struck off etc etc).

    And why is patient choice so important anyway?
    Most people don't have a clue what is best for them. Doctors do.
    Plus, we already have the ability to choose our GP's and our hospitals, what else do you want?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How has it failed when the best healthcare systems in the world are socialisst ones and the worst in the world (even the worst in just MEDCs) are privatised ones?

    Countless nations have based their healthcare systems on the highly successful British NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    I'm not saying it can cure all cancers.
    What I am saying is the cost of cancer treatment is usually huge. Much much more than what any normal person would ever be able to pay into any savings account.
    You say the health insurance is voluntary. So what if people don't have it, and don't have enough money to pay for their treatment?


    And why is patient choice so important anyway?
    Most people don't have a clue what is best for them. Doctors do.
    Plus, we already have the ability to choose our GP's and our hospitals, what else do you want?
    So what if people don't have it, and don't have enough money to pay for their treatment?
    i believe the state is not responsible for you but you are responsible for yourself and if you are unlucky to have cancer it is not the states fault for not preparing you for the worst. It is your responsibly whether to get voluntary health insurance with your compulsory savings account or not

    why is patient choice so important anyway?
    Lets say that the UK did adopt the Singapore system and you fell ill and you are given choice of 2 medication the first drug can you make you better quickly and it is cheaper than the second drug but it can make better a little more quickly than the first drug logic will tell you to go for the first drug because even though both drug will make you well the first one is cheaper and as you the patient have a health savings account you make the choice. In comparison to NHS and private you don't know how much things cost and you don't know what other medication there might be because it is not available by the NHS or private
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magnoz)
    i believe the state is not responsible for you but you are responsible for yourself and if you are unlucky to have cancer it is not the states fault for not preparing you for the worst. It is your responsibly whether to get voluntary health insurance with your compulsory savings account or not
    And that is where we disagree.
    What about people who literally cannot afford health insurance?
    You think people should just die if they can't afford it?
    How nice.

    You can't predict things like Cancer, or Alzheimer's. You can't save for that. The costs are just too huge.
    And with health insurance, who is to say that things like "pre-exisiting conditions" or genetic illnesses won't be taken into account? We already see insurers in other areas trying to wiggle out of paying up when they should.

    (Original post by magnoz)
    Lets say that the UK did adopt the Singapore system and you fell ill and you are given choice of 2 medication the first drug can you make you better quickly and it is cheaper than the second drug but it can make better a little more quickly than the first drug logic will tell you to go for the first drug because even though both drug will make you well the first one is cheaper and as you the patient have a health savings account you make the choice. In comparison to NHS and private you don't know how much things cost and you don't know what other medication there might be because it is not available by the NHS or private
    But do you think that patients are in a better position to choose than doctors? I don't think they are.

    And your situation makes little sense anyway, as it is more than likely that the NHS would already use the first drug in your example (as it is cheaper and is more effective).

    In a private situation, you would probably have to choose between one or the other. Either a cheap and less effective drug, or an expensive but more effective drug.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    And that is where we disagree.
    What about people who literally cannot afford health insurance?
    You think people should just die if they can't afford it?
    How nice.

    You can't predict things like Cancer, or Alzheimer's. You can't save for that. The costs are just too huge.
    And with health insurance, who is to say that things like "pre-exisiting conditions" or genetic illnesses won't be taken into account? We already see insurers in other areas trying to wiggle out of paying up when they should.



    But do you think that patients are in a better position to choose than doctors? I don't think they are.

    And your situation makes little sense anyway, as it is more than likely that the NHS would already use the first drug in your example (as it is cheaper and is more effective).

    In a private situation, you would probably have to choose between one or the other. Either a cheap and less effective drug, or an expensive but more effective drug.
    What about people who literally cannot afford health insurance?
    in Singapore people literally can afford it why because as i have said earlier people use there savings account more than there health insurance and so the premiums are low in comparison in the USA premiums are very high why because people use them all the time (well the people who can afford it that is)

    You think people should just die if they can't afford it?
    no i am not saying that people just die because they can not afford it as 80% of health expenditure happens in the last to years of you life according to the WHO so with all that saving during your life you will be able to afford it and if it somehow does overwhelm the savings account you will have your voluntary health insurance

    You can't predict things like Cancer, or Alzheimer's.
    your right we can't predict things like cancer or Alzheimer's we can only test for them and currently there is a test for Alzheimer's and there are test for most types of cancer

    But do you think that patients are in a better position to choose than doctors? I don't think they are.
    so if you think patients can't choose the medication, so why do you think that patients should have the right to choose there doctor or the hospital? In those cases are you saying doctors are not in the best position? At the end of the day the only person who knows you well is yourself and doctors simply advise you and you have to make the final choice.

    And your situation makes little sense anyway, as it is more than likely that the NHS would already use the first drug in your example
    you could be right that the NHS had the one of moment and had chosen to be clever but in this situation the NHS would have chosen the far more expensive treatment at the expense of the tax payer and any way my situation did make sense i said that the first drug was cheaper than the second drug but made you better quickly whilst the second drug was expensive but only made you better a little more quickly
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magnoz)
    in Singapore people literally can afford it why because as i have said earlier people use there savings account more than there health insurance and so the premiums are low in comparison in the USA premiums are very high why because people use them all the time (well the people who can afford it that is)
    But what I am trying to say is that for a lot of conditions, you will never ever save enough. We are talking hundreds of thousands of pounds. So people WOULD have to use their insurance a lot. Especially as we have an ageing population.

    (Original post by magnoz)
    no i am not saying that people just die because they can not afford it as 80% of health expenditure happens in the last to years of you life according to the WHO so with all that saving during your life you will be able to afford it and if it somehow does overwhelm the savings account you will have your voluntary health insurance
    But again, for many conditions (especially those that occur in late age like dementia) the costs of treatment and care are huge. I really think you are hugely under estimating how much some things cost.


    (Original post by magnoz)
    your right we can't predict things like cancer or Alzheimer's we can only test for them and currently there is a test for Alzheimer's and there are test for most types of cancer
    But those tests:
    1 - Cost money (which the person would have to pay).
    2 - Can't help you in saving up for treatment.

    (Original post by magnoz)
    so if you think patients can't choose the medication, so why do you think that patients should have the right to choose there doctor or the hospital? In those cases are you saying doctors are not in the best position? At the end of the day the only person who knows you well is yourself and doctors simply advise you and you have to make the final choice.
    I didn't say patients should not be able to choose medication. I just don't see the point. Doctors are doctors for a reason. They will know a lot more than you will. They will be in a much better position to say what is wrong than you.

    (Original post by magnoz)
    you could be right that the NHS had the one of moment and had chosen to be clever but in this situation the NHS would have chosen the far more expensive treatment at the expense of the tax payer and any way my situation did make sense i said that the first drug was cheaper than the second drug but made you better quickly whilst the second drug was expensive but only made you better a little more quickly
    I still don't really get what you are trying to argue here.
    Are you saying currently the NHS will choose the most expensive medication just because they can? If so, then you are so far off the mark it is hard to believe. If anything, it is the other way around, and the NHS will try to use the cheapest option.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.