Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What are your views on this?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't fancy the idea to be honest.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wouldn't want it to happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's a brilliant incentitive to overthrow the government.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why? Surely if we are on the road to privatisation, then there must be some advantage to it happening?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Will it work?

    Not that most on these forums could answer it without fingerpointing and party political bias.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr.InshaAllah)
    Why? Surely if we are on the road to privatisation, then there must be some advantage to it happening?
    I cannot see any major advantages for the end user.

    I can see massive advantages for medical insurance companies and the like.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't it the case that it is already semi-privatized?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alfissti)
    Isn't it the case that it is already semi-privatized?
    Moot point. It depends on one's definition of privatisation. It is true to say that parts of the NHS have been sold off - so recently PRUK (which was a NHS owned group which had something to do with blood) was sold off to an American firm.

    This is not the only example - things such as transport services in certain areas have been sold on to the private sector.

    Some say that this alone is essentially privatisation. Others say that privatisation would only happen if the whole NHS as we know it was taken apart and rebuilt as a US style affair.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I want to become a doctor so I am all for it
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Terrible idea
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No. It would lead to healthcare policies becoming less transparent, reduce the influence the public has on it, and potentially create more opportunities for abuse to happen unnoticed. Power goes in the hands of the companies rather than the government, and changes will come about through money/sponsors rather than number of people supporting them. Kind of like American presidential elections.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr.InshaAllah)
    Why? Surely if we are on the road to privatisation, then there must be some advantage to it happening?
    Sure for this lot.

    http://socialinvestigations.blogspot...-links-to.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I cannot see any major advantages for the end user.

    I can see massive advantages for medical insurance companies and the like.
    So what are the major disadvantages do you think?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aldanyh)
    No. It would lead to healthcare policies becoming less transparent, reduce the influence the public has on it, and potentially create more opportunities for abuse to happen unnoticed. Power goes in the hands of the companies rather than the government, and changes will come about through money/sponsors rather than number of people supporting them. Kind of like American presidential elections.
    But with the lack of money available, and the cuts NHS is making. Don't you think its for the best?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr.InshaAllah)
    So what are the major disadvantages do you think?
    The biggest is the question of how medical care would be funded should it not be from taxation. The usual answer to this is private medical insurance. However not everyone would be able to afford this... and insurance companies are not actually in the business of paying out claims. They will do everything they can do to avoid helping the person who has been paying into a policy.

    Not only that, but a lot of insurance policies would make life harder for certain categories of people - like those who have an existing medical problem.

    Another issue is that privatisation inevitably means that the taxpayer is screwed in any event. Like the railways, where we pay our incredibly high rail fairs, the train companies also shaft the taxpayer for some more money in the form of subsidies. This happens in the US with healthcare already. In short, we would end up paying twice.

    So I guess the main points are quality of care, access to care and cost. That and the fact that I think that the idea of placing a focus on profit when it comes to healthcare is just absurd.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Privatisation is good if

    1. You are reasonably wealthy so can afford good health insurance, if taxes are reduced then you may even be better off although don't take this for granted: good health insurance is expensive, in places like Switzerland and the US you have to expect to pay a considerable chunk of your pay cheque to the insurer

    2. You are fit and healthy and don't have any chronic conditions or serious illnesses. Private healthcare is good if you need something like a hernia operation, rather than waiting on the NHS for months you can get to see a consultant soon, get the operation booked in at a point that suits you and get it done. No messing or waiting around. The competition and 'service' element of healthcare shows up in this type of treatment, patients in a private market get to exercise choice and can choose the provider they want and the insurer picks up the bill (or most of the bill); the best providers get the most customers.

    Where it is not good is if you have a chronic condition or a serious illness because in these situations the choice element disappears. A lot of people underestimate the control a private health insurer has over you when you face very expensive treatment. People feel like the NHS has control over them and get annoyed where there are issues like the 'postcode lottery' where one primary care trust wouldn't pay for a certain drug whereas another one would. But these kind of harsh decisions happen all the time when patients with serious conditions facing expensive treatment have an insurer: the insurer's bottom line is about minimising their liability and they have got good lawyers to make sure they do this, if they don't legally have to cover the treatment you need they won't, they will only offer you something cheaper.

    The customer service element disappears here as well because patients with chronic conditions or serious illnesses are always a bad bet for an insurer. As an insurer you stay profitable by making sure the vast majority of your policy holders pay more in to their insurance cover than you pay out in terms of healthcare: but with health, the customers that you make a loss on can be very very expensive and you can make large losses on them, so if a patient develops chronic health issues or a serious illness you want them off your books. That person is only ever going to be a loss maker in the future. Cancer survivors have real problems getting health insurance in the future because the risks of recurrence or future related health problems are just not a good bet for an insurer.

    A lot of supporters of private healthcare recognise this and the kind of system they want is a dual system where the state is responsible for chronic and serious illness cover and private healthcare provides simpler treatment which it can do faster and providing more choice. This sounds good in theory but there is a big market failure in the insurance model here, because you then have the private healthcare providers wanting to take all the "good bets", ie healthy people opting in, and then leaving the "bad bets" to the state. But somebody has to fund the state healthcare and that means it has to come from taxes, so you can't have this dual choice model at the same time as reducing taxes....it only works if you have a private model working along side a state taxation funded NHS.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    The biggest is the question of how medical care would be funded should it not be from taxation. The usual answer to this is private medical insurance. However not everyone would be able to afford this... and insurance companies are not actually in the business of paying out claims. They will do everything they can do to avoid helping the person who has been paying into a policy.

    Not only that, but a lot of insurance policies would make life harder for certain categories of people - like those who have an existing medical problem.

    Another issue is that privatisation inevitably means that the taxpayer is screwed in any event. Like the railways, where we pay our incredibly high rail fairs, the train companies also shaft the taxpayer for some more money in the form of subsidies. This happens in the US with healthcare already. In short, we would end up paying twice.

    So I guess the main points are quality of care, access to care and cost. That and the fact that I think that the idea of placing a focus on profit when it comes to healthcare is just absurd.
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Privatisation is good if

    1. You are reasonably wealthy so can afford good health insurance, if taxes are reduced then you may even be better off although don't take this for granted: good health insurance is expensive, in places like Switzerland and the US you have to expect to pay a considerable chunk of your pay cheque to the insurer

    2. You are fit and healthy and don't have any chronic conditions or serious illnesses. Private healthcare is good if you need something like a hernia operation, rather than waiting on the NHS for months you can get to see a consultant soon, get the operation booked in at a point that suits you and get it done. No messing or waiting around. The competition and 'service' element of healthcare shows up in this type of treatment, patients in a private market get to exercise choice and can choose the provider they want and the insurer picks up the bill (or most of the bill); the best providers get the most customers.

    Where it is not good is if you have a chronic condition or a serious illness because in these situations the choice element disappears. A lot of people underestimate the control a private health insurer has over you when you face very expensive treatment. People feel like the NHS has control over them and get annoyed where there are issues like the 'postcode lottery' where one primary care trust wouldn't pay for a certain drug whereas another one would. But these kind of harsh decisions happen all the time when patients with serious conditions facing expensive treatment have an insurer: the insurer's bottom line is about minimising their liability and they have got good lawyers to make sure they do this, if they don't legally have to cover the treatment you need they won't, they will only offer you something cheaper.

    The customer service element disappears here as well because patients with chronic conditions or serious illnesses are always a bad bet for an insurer. As an insurer you stay profitable by making sure the vast majority of your policy holders pay more in to their insurance cover than you pay out in terms of healthcare: but with health, the customers that you make a loss on can be very very expensive and you can make large losses on them, so if a patient develops chronic health issues or a serious illness you want them off your books. That person is only ever going to be a loss maker in the future. Cancer survivors have real problems getting health insurance in the future because the risks of recurrence or future related health problems are just not a good bet for an insurer.

    A lot of supporters of private healthcare recognise this and the kind of system they want is a dual system where the state is responsible for chronic and serious illness cover and private healthcare provides simpler treatment which it can do faster and providing more choice. This sounds good in theory but there is a big market failure in the insurance model here, because you then have the private healthcare providers wanting to take all the "good bets", ie healthy people opting in, and then leaving the "bad bets" to the state. But somebody has to fund the state healthcare and that means it has to come from taxes, so you can't have this dual choice model at the same time as reducing taxes....it only works if you have a private model working along side a state taxation funded NHS.
    I totally agree with both of you, I'm trying to start up a debate because I want to hear the good sides to privatizing the NHS but there is hardly any.. I can only see an advantage to people who are really wealthy...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Wouldn't want it to happen.
    But its the tories wet dream.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    people are more responsible over their bodies and you won't get people attacking overweight people for "wasting their money"

    I want affordable and good quality healthcare for everyone, but I am open to the idea that this doesn't mean the state has to provide and force people to pay for something they may not get full use from.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.