Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    nhs is breaking

    4 billion deficit for london hospitals alone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24508088


    Is it inevitable that the future NHS will be privatized?

    The welfare state in this country is too big for us to afford. The current uk gov debt is 1.2 trillion pounds. (That's 12 zeros).

    A large part come from the welfare system, excessive bureaucracy.
    There are too many unemployed people depending on the welfare system both in benefits and the health side of life who take and take but don't give back into the system to enable a circulation of cash.

    The NHS was in debt from the minute it was conceived. It's an artificial contrivance. Most people pro-NHS are supportive for their own subjective reasons, which is natural but the reality is everything costs money, too many obese people, alcoholics, drunk people getting into fights and accidents, diabetics from poor nutrition etc. Man-made illnesses that are preventable. We've been abusing the NHS and now all the rare users of the NHS are paying for it.

    Is it inevitable that the future NHS will be privatized?

    If it is privatized, we'd be taking care of our health more. We'd be rethinking whether to play rugby in the event we might need to treat a broken ankle.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jem12)
    The current uk gov debt is 1.2 trillion pounds.
    Which, in itself, means precisely nothing. National debt only means anything relative to GDP. A £1.2 trillion debt would be nothing to the US government. At the other end of the scale, Greece's national debt is about £250 billion; huge for Greece, but for the British government it would be a pinprick.

    The actually useful number for expressing the debt is 75% of GDP. In comparison, by the end of WW2 the British national debt was nearly 250% of GDP, but we still built the welfare state and saw one of the biggest rises in living standards in British history.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Privatisation doesn't save money!

    Which government pays more money as %GDP for its healthcare costs, the US (private insurance based) or the UK?

    Answer: The US!

    So I should hope it's not inevitable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Billions of pounds could be saved by restricting access to the NHS from immigrants / tourists (they should get insurance like I do when I go abroad). Furthermore policies could be introduced where self inflicted injury treatment as a result of being negligent/drunk shouldn't be free. For example if somebody gets drunk and starts a fight with a door, punches that door and breaks their fingers, his or her treatment shouldn't be free. This would have a multiplier effect of savings relating to less sick days been taken as people (even if its just a small %) are more reluctant to get drunk knowing the consequences of injuries from this wouldn't be covered). If this was introduced, the NHS would save Billions and become much less of a burden to the tax payer and it could remain.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    ^^ Tourists do actually have to pay as it is currently, unless they're from another EU country and then I think there's usually an agreement. Similarly for immigrants without the proper status it's just point-of-access care that is free - A&E, immediate care etc.

    The problem with self-inflicted injury is that so much stuff is self-inflicted. Chest infections in smokers, injuries to people who are drunk, diabetes in the obese, vascular problems in smokers, cancer in smokers, liver disease in alcohol abusers, hepatitis in IV drug users... where do you draw the line and also how do you establish proof? I mean some people get lung cancer without smoking, so can you say that every single person who smoked and got lung cancer got it BECAUSE they smoked? Who would be responsible for allocating blame? It seems like a great idea but when you look at the logistics of it, it's such a minefield.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No point in discussing sensible things like privatization of public services on here, people regard the NHS as some sort of national religion.

    But one day, hopefully in our life times it will come to an end and we will be free to select from a wider range of better quality health care at a fraction of the cost.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
    Billions of pounds could be saved by restricting access to the NHS from immigrants / tourists (they should get insurance like I do when I go abroad). Furthermore policies could be introduced where self inflicted injury treatment as a result of being negligent/drunk shouldn't be free. For example if somebody gets drunk and starts a fight with a door, punches that door and breaks their fingers, his or her treatment shouldn't be free. This would have a multiplier effect of savings relating to less sick days been taken as people (even if its just a small %) are more reluctant to get drunk knowing the consequences of injuries from this wouldn't be covered). If this was introduced, the NHS would save Billions and become much less of a burden to the tax payer and it could remain.
    That's a good point but it fails as a solution because:

    - It would be really hard to enforce. A&E DPOWs are already congested and adding another layer of analysis to the already quite chaotic environment would be detrimental to the standard of healthcare received.
    - Also, you say this could put people off drinking. However, I would argue that a similar level of people would drink, but they would be far less likely to seek treatment if they injured themselves, which would make this a morally unacceptable option as people would be less likely to pursue necessary treatment as they fear the consequences- undermining the point of the NHS.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Let's just privatize everything and relieve the state of it's half of the social contract, **** us right?

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StephenNaulls)
    That's a good point but it fails as a solution because:

    - It would be really hard to enforce. A&E DPOWs are already congested and adding another layer of analysis to the already quite chaotic environment would be detrimental to the standard of healthcare received.
    - Also, you say this could put people off drinking. However, I would argue that a similar level of people would drink, but they would be far less likely to seek treatment if they injured themselves, which would make this a morally unacceptable option as people would be less likely to pursue necessary treatment as they fear the consequences- undermining the point of the NHS.
    For the first point, if some one is in a life threatening position where they are unable to provide proof that they are entitled to treatment, they can still receive treatment (as foreigners don't come to the UK with stab wounds etc. so that isn't a problem. For point 2, other countries turn people away, there are plenty of countries (even in the Western world) that if you just turn up at a hospital with out insurance or money etc. you wont receive treatment, we need to start doing that. why should the majority suffer for the benefit of a tiny minority? My proposals would save billions of pounds per year (some of which could go towards providing better healthcare - thus saving more lives).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    ^^ Tourists do actually have to pay as it is currently, unless they're from another EU country and then I think there's usually an agreement. Similarly for immigrants without the proper status it's just point-of-access care that is free - A&E, immediate care etc.

    The problem with self-inflicted injury is that so much stuff is self-inflicted. Chest infections in smokers, injuries to people who are drunk, diabetes in the obese, vascular problems in smokers, cancer in smokers, liver disease in alcohol abusers, hepatitis in IV drug users... where do you draw the line and also how do you establish proof? I mean some people get lung cancer without smoking, so can you say that every single person who smoked and got lung cancer got it BECAUSE they smoked? Who would be responsible for allocating blame? It seems like a great idea but when you look at the logistics of it, it's such a minefield.
    What they are supposed to do and what they actually do are 2 very different things. Furthermore, it is the EU health tourist that are a major problem. The tax payers of this country pay for any EU citizen to come to the UK and receive health care. Brilliant isn't it? Aren't we lucky? (Sarcasm)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yi-Ge-Ningderen)
    For the first point, if some one is in a life threatening position where they are unable to provide proof that they are entitled to treatment, they can still receive treatment (as foreigners don't come to the UK with stab wounds etc. so that isn't a problem. For point 2, other countries turn people away, there are plenty of countries (even in the Western world) that if you just turn up at a hospital with out insurance or money etc. you wont receive treatment, we need to start doing that. why should the majority suffer for the benefit of a tiny minority? My proposals would save billions of pounds per year (some of which could go towards providing better healthcare - thus saving more lives).
    We'd be better off dissolving the NHS than implementing your reforms to it; they contradict everything that the NHS was established for. I want to be a doctor and would never feel comfortable operating in a system where I'd have to turn people in need away simply because they don't have the correct insurance. It's just not right.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Not necessarily, privatisation of an NHS was actually trialed in Australia and turned out to be more costly to the government, putting them in more debt at the time. That said, the way it is now is unsustainable. So it could go either way
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jem12)
    nhs is breaking

    4 billion deficit for london hospitals alone
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24508088


    Is it inevitable that the future NHS will be privatized?

    The welfare state in this country is too big for us to afford. The current uk gov debt is 1.2 trillion pounds. (That's 12 zeros).

    A large part come from the welfare system, excessive bureaucracy.
    There are too many unemployed people depending on the welfare system both in benefits and the health side of life who take and take but don't give back into the system to enable a circulation of cash.

    The NHS was in debt from the minute it was conceived. It's an artificial contrivance. Most people pro-NHS are supportive for their own subjective reasons, which is natural but the reality is everything costs money, too many obese people, alcoholics, drunk people getting into fights and accidents, diabetics from poor nutrition etc. Man-made illnesses that are preventable. We've been abusing the NHS and now all the rare users of the NHS are paying for it.

    Is it inevitable that the future NHS will be privatized?

    If it is privatized, we'd be taking care of our health more. We'd be rethinking whether to play rugby in the event we might need to treat a broken ankle.
    WTF ? Is that the only thing worth debating on here...privatisation of national bodies ? First the Royal Mail, then the NHS...what's next ? The Monarchy ? :unimpressed:
 
 
 
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.