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

Socialist Healthcare is Fundamentally Flawed Watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    You're hung up about the Singapore healthcare system. I've covered this a thousand times before on this forum, but I'll do it again:

    Singapore may on paper seem like a dream. It costs half the amount as the UK per capita and apparently uses these MSAs to control costs. However, there are a number of important points to consider:

    -In healthcare, the vast majority of healthcare is spent on the over 65s. Singapore has a young population, with half the proportion of >65s as the UK. If the UK were to knock off half it's elderly population, it's health costs would be comparable to Singapore in a stroke.
    -The Singapore government is incredibly authortarian with strict price controls on medical goods and services. Not exactly free market eh?
    -Singapore is a small metropolitan state. It's much easier to coordinate and run a cost-effective healthcare service than in a larger, less population dense country like ourselves.
    -Crucially, MSA haven't been show to decrease costs when tried elsewhere, suggesting some other factor (say the low elderly population, or the government intervention) is the main reason for it's 'success'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magnoz)
    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
    So basically, if your you get seriously ill early yorur ****ed. If you where poor all your life and you get seriously ill your ****ed. If you haven't been able to afford health insurance your ****ed. If you have a illness that requires constant, long term treatment your ****ed.

    No thanks mate, I'll stick with the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think anyone really wants us to be like the US and privatise healthcare except Pharmeceutical companies

    oh and the rich(i think)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    So basically, if your you get seriously ill early yorur ****ed. If you where poor all your life and you get seriously ill your ****ed. If you haven't been able to afford health insurance your ****ed. If you have a illness that requires constant, long term treatment your ****ed.

    No thanks mate, I'll stick with the NHS.
    That's a bit of a lie, actually. If you're poor - you're covered by the subsidy and your medical savings accounts are topped up. If you have a long-term or serious illness, then you're covered by catastrophe insurance, oh, and that is state-provided in Singapore. It's a hybrid system and none of the criticisms you just levelled stand up to any scrutiny.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Really? Because I can certainly choose to pay extra and get additional private treatment if I so wish...
    Indeed, and end up paying twice for the same thing...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Indeed, and end up paying twice for the same thing...
    You do realise that private health providers like Bupa rely heavily on the NHS?
    So you are not paying twice for the same thing.

    If people who use private care didn't pay into the NHS, then the fair thing to do would be to disallow them the use of any NHS facility. Thus meaning the private companies would have to spend money developing in those areas, meaning your premiums would go up.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Indeed, and end up paying twice for the same thing...
    The private sector relies on the NHS for training of their employees, physical resources e.g. hospitals and the implicit guarantee that the NHS will take on any complications of private treatment.

    In any case, you would 'pay twice' in many of the 'hybrid' systems you admire.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The idea of a profit motive being involved in health care is laughable, it really is.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    That's a bit of a lie, actually. If you're poor - you're covered by the subsidy and your medical savings accounts are topped up. If you have a long-term or serious illness, then you're covered by catastrophe insurance, oh, and that is state-provided in Singapore. It's a hybrid system and none of the criticisms you just levelled stand up to any scrutiny.
    I've never quite understood the idea of completely paying for some people's health insurance but not others. If the government is guaranteeing a service, surely it should have a say in how that service is run? Otherwise, there is no incentive for healthcare providers to control costs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Indeed, and end up paying twice for the same thing...
    Errrrrr, incorrect. Would you like to try for double jeopardy where scores can really change?

    My previous job provided private healthcare, through one of the major UK private healthcare providers.

    Private healthcare in the UK does not 'duplicate' many of the essential parts of healthcare, usually the majority of the healthcare offered under UK private healthcare is of a 2nd line nature, rehabilitation, physiotherapy, etc. Very rarely will it cover 1st line healthcare and with procedures such as operations private healthcare will only provide if the wait for an operation on the NHS is 'significant'.

    Of course with private insurance being a business the person at the other end of the phone when you enquire about using your policy for some treatment is often the one who will decide what a 'significant wait' is. Alternitively, as with HMO's in the US, it'll be passed to a clinical specialist who, with one eye on the profit margin, will approve or decline the request.

    If your request is declined this can affect your future premiums.

    If your request is approved this will affect you future premiums and usually you'll end up in the same operating theatre and under the same surgeon as you would have with the NHS. If there are any complications then your case will be off-loaded to the NHS as the private healthcare companies have neither the resources nor wish to deal with any expense beyond that which they initially budgeted for.

    So, UK private healtcare. A great way to make money doing 2nd line work but luckily for the shareholders, if things get a little messy, the patient can be shifted to the NHS to keep those profit margins healthy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    You're hung up about the Singapore healthcare system. I've covered this a thousand times before on this forum, but I'll do it again:

    Singapore may on paper seem like a dream. It costs half the amount as the UK per capita and apparently uses these MSAs to control costs. However, there are a number of important points to consider:

    -In healthcare, the vast majority of healthcare is spent on the over 65s. Singapore has a young population, with half the proportion of >65s as the UK. If the UK were to knock off half it's elderly population, it's health costs would be comparable to Singapore in a stroke.
    -The Singapore government is incredibly authortarian with strict price controls on medical goods and services. Not exactly free market eh?
    -Singapore is a small metropolitan state. It's much easier to coordinate and run a cost-effective healthcare service than in a larger, less population dense country like ourselves.
    -Crucially, MSA haven't been show to decrease costs when tried elsewhere, suggesting some other factor (say the low elderly population, or the government intervention) is the main reason for it's 'success'.
    The state covers the cost of catastrophic stuff such as cancer treatments, alzheimers, etc. Everything else, the state matches how much you pay I believe, so you both pay 50/50 more or less. That's how it works there. I don't think anyone's suggested it's free market. In fact, there isn't a single free market health care system around the world afaik.

    People often bring up America to compare the NHS to a hypothetical free market system, but that's a terrible example. The US has a lot of medical laws and drug prohibition laws and regulations which gets in the way of medical costs being driven down over time. For example, that's why they import a lot of drugs from Britain because a certain drug might not be banned here and it would be far cheaper if they could get it domestically and allow drug manufacturers to compete - just one reason why health care is so expensive in the US.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Er-El)
    The state covers the cost of catastrophic stuff such as cancer treatments, alzheimers, etc. Everything else, the state matches how much you pay I believe, so you both pay 50/50 more or less. That's how it works there. I don't think anyone's suggested it's free market. In fact, there isn't a single free market health care system around the world afaik.
    I'm not entirely sure what your point is. All my points are aimed at saying why the Singaporean system is the privatised success other posters were saying - they still stand.
    (Original post by Er-El)
    People often bring up America to compare the NHS to a hypothetical free market system, but that's a terrible example. The US has a lot of medical laws and drug prohibition laws and regulations which gets in the way of medical costs being driven down over time. For example, that's why they import a lot of drugs from Britain because a certain drug might not be banned here and it would be far cheaper if they could get it domestically and allow drug manufacturers to compete - just one reason why health care is so expensive in the US.
    So you're saying the US healthcare system isn't free market because it has regulations? The car industry has plenty of regulations, but is largely considered free market. Whilst the US system may not be 100% unregulated, free market it can be considered the most free market western healthcare system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    I'm not entirely sure what your point is. All my points are aimed at saying why the Singaporean system is the privatised success other posters were saying - they still stand.

    So you're saying the US healthcare system isn't free market because it has regulations? The car industry has plenty of regulations, but is largely considered free market. Whilst the US system may not be 100% unregulated, free market it can be considered the most free market western healthcare system.
    Not by definition it isn't, especially because it has so many regulations (private market and free-enterprise are 2 distinct things), and neither is the car manufacture industry. I wouldn't contend someone calling it free market tho, but I still think the US is far from being the most appropriate example when comparing cost of health care of fully privatised versus a fully state run organisation.

    Personally, the reason I like the unique Singapore style health care system (where 10 of the hospitals happen to be state owned and there is regulation as a safety net for unreasonable costs - but that's besides the point) is because the evidence speaks for itself. It's not a monopolistic, centralised organisation. Whether the hospitals and clinics are state or privately owned doesn't necessarily have any bearings on this. Although the fact Singapore is a small city state is a valid point to consider too.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    So you're saying the US healthcare system isn't free market because it has regulations? The car industry has plenty of regulations, but is largely considered free market. Whilst the US system may not be 100% unregulated, free market it can be considered the most free market western healthcare system.
    It's not a free-market when 46% of spending comes from the state (higher than Singapore which is 33%), you prevent competition across state borders and have tax incentives such that the person receiving the treatment does not make the choice of insurance.

    That happens with cars, toys, food, computers, books? You bet it doesn't. It's not that it 'has regulations', it is that it has specific regulations which stop it functioning as a market.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.