Should the NHS be public or private? Why?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by captain.sensible
because it will make the industry more competitive in terms of services and affordability; the government on its own is pretty uncompetitive because it isn't based on profit, but if you lend out the money to the company in the market that is offering the best service and lowest price, that benefits the tax payers, and if that company starts to go bad and uncompetitive, the government can simply contract with the new better company in the market and can keep doing this whenever there is an opportunity to get more for less
How will these "companies" prove they have the best solution? Also are they profit driven, like at all? Why not just make the current NHS more efficient. This idea that everything needs market like competitiveness is a load of pseudo science. Look at the guys post below me, your method risks being turned into that mess.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by captain.sensible
I'm in favour of not just privatisation of the NHS as I'm never usually ill or seriously injured (and even if I was sick all the time that's still no excuse to make people pay for me), I'm in favour of changing the law to let me buy my own medicine without having to get a prescription first! if I know what specific medicine I need, why do I need to get permission? what am I, a child? sheesh, if I'm over 18 and I'm allowed alcohol then let me buy my own medicines, I'm not going to kill myself, I know what I'm doing, and even if I don't, it's my choice an it's my life (note: I'm talking about the medicine you need prescriptions to obtain, of course)
You will get ill as you get older you plonker. Also you will see so many unethical socioeconomic problems develop.
The difference between the UK health system and the american one is that in the UK the tax goes to help normal people who need it, in America they pay more tax that gets given to the insurance companies who play a part in brainwashing the population into being pro subsidies for the rich and anti subsidies for the poor. You have socialism for the rich and not the poor!
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by L i b
Interesting to see a fairly broad consensus in favour of private elements in the NHS. I wonder if the younger generation is more comfortable with that generally...
I hope not. But then they are doing a great job of getting people to want what is worse for themselves and better for the people above.
Public.
I would never ever ever support a system like America's.
I'm also aware that there is a middle ground in countries such as France, Germany and Japan. But I think our NHS is excellent, and a lot better than certain sections of the media would have us believe.
I would never ever ever support a system like America's.
I'm also aware that there is a middle ground in countries such as France, Germany and Japan. But I think our NHS is excellent, and a lot better than certain sections of the media would have us believe.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
The difference between the UK health system and the american one is that in the UK the tax goes to help normal people who need it, in America they pay more tax that gets given to the insurance companies who play a part in brainwashing the population into being pro subsidies for the rich and anti subsidies for the poor. You have socialism for the rich and not the poor!
You do realise, I hope, that of those evil, profit-driven health insurance companies, the biggest one in Britain is a provident association - BUPA - which doesn't make a single penny in profits and invests anything left over into care, yeah?
This mental idea that insurance somehow must be provided by a for-profit company is simply deliberate tunnel-vision.
Original post by L i b
You do realise, I hope, that of those evil, profit-driven health insurance companies, the biggest one in Britain is a provident association - BUPA - which doesn't make a single penny in profits and invests anything left over into care, yeah?
I was talking about the situation in America. You advocating we should have what they have over here? Pay more in tax for a service the customers still have to pay for?
Original post by L i b
This mental idea that insurance somehow must be provided by a for-profit company is simply deliberate tunnel-vision.
This mental idea that insurance somehow must be provided by a for-profit company is simply deliberate tunnel-vision.
I also don't understand the tunnel vision that all government funded and run services are evil and inefficient.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I was talking about the situation in America. You advocating we should have what they have over here? Pay more in tax for a service the customers still have to pay for?
Well, we should - indeed, do - have plenty of aspects of what they have. Do I think we should incorporate it wholesale? Of course not, and why you'd pick out the United States - the Godwin's Law of private health care - over any of the other numerous country in the world which rely more on independent providers than the UK does is beyond me.
The vast majority of us are talking about provision, not funding. Many of us are comfortable with broad state funding for healthcare, but want more delivered privately. In reality, the vast majority of medical care in the UK is already delivered by independent actors rather than state-operated.
I also don't understand the tunnel vision that all government funded and run services are evil and inefficient.
I've yet to see a single Anarchist in here, so you're only arguing against strawmen of your own creation.
Original post by L i b
I've yet to see a single Anarchist in here, so you're only arguing against strawmen of your own creation.
I've yet to see a single Anarchist in here, so you're only arguing against strawmen of your own creation.
I have anarchist tendancies but what has that got to do with anything? Are you saying that all the goverbnment fearing right wing Americans are anarchists? "all government funded and run services are evil and inefficient" is a very large trait a lot of right wingers have, sheesh.
We are swimming with "liberals" who dislike any form of big government, and you seem to be of the opinion that a state run health service just cant be as good as one which incorporates privatization. Are you a filthy anarchist?
I also think you will find a health system providing care for free will have support from a lot of anarchists.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
You will get ill as you get older you plonker. Also you will see so many unethical socioeconomic problems develop.
so what? why should other people have to be forced to pay for me? just because it's difficult (not impossible) to pay for that's no excuse; it's my body, not theirs.
The difference between the UK health system and the american one is that in the UK the tax goes to help normal people who need it, in America they pay more tax that gets given to the insurance companies who play a part in brainwashing the population into being pro subsidies for the rich and anti subsidies for the poor. You have socialism for the rich and not the poor!
who said I agreed with the american system...?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I have anarchist tendancies but what has that got to do with anything? Are you saying that all the goverbnment fearing right wing Americans are anarchists? "all government funded and run services are evil and inefficient" is a very large trait a lot of right wingers have, sheesh.
No it isn't. To say that all government run services are evil is a trademark of the Anarchist movement. Everyone else implicitly accepts that some government funded and run services are inevitable and good.
We are swimming with "liberals" who dislike any form of big government, and you seem to be of the opinion that a state run health service just cant be as good as one which incorporates privatization.
I don't know if a state-run health service which didn't utilise private contractors could ever work. We've never had one and, to my knowledge, no country on earth has. I know if we were to try to create one, the NHS would collapse entirely overnight though.
I also think you will find a health system providing care for free will have support from a lot of anarchists.
Then, frankly, they're not Anarchists. If they believe in anything funded by taxation, they are not Anarchists. If they believe in a government-run health service, they are not Anarchists.
Original post by L i b
I don't know if a state-run health service which didn't utilise private contractors could ever work. We've never had one and, to my knowledge, no country on earth has. I know if we were to try to create one, the NHS would collapse entirely overnight though.
I don't know if a state-run health service which didn't utilise private contractors could ever work. We've never had one and, to my knowledge, no country on earth has. I know if we were to try to create one, the NHS would collapse entirely overnight though.
The Soviet Union?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I have anarchist tendancies but what has that got to do with anything? Are you saying that all the goverbnment fearing right wing Americans are anarchists? "all government funded and run services are evil and inefficient" is a very large trait a lot of right wingers have, sheesh.
We are swimming with "liberals" who dislike any form of big government, and you seem to be of the opinion that a state run health service just cant be as good as one which incorporates privatization. Are you a filthy anarchist?
I also think you will find a health system providing care for free will have support from a lot of anarchists.
We are swimming with "liberals" who dislike any form of big government, and you seem to be of the opinion that a state run health service just cant be as good as one which incorporates privatization. Are you a filthy anarchist?
I also think you will find a health system providing care for free will have support from a lot of anarchists.
You've allowed the opinion of uber-conservatives to taint your opinion of the right as a whole. People like myself and Lib (those who accept the need for some state provision and funding in some services) are much more representative of the average person on the right than some of the anarcho-capitalists you see here.
Original post by Rakas21
You've allowed the opinion of uber-conservatives to taint your opinion of the right as a whole. People like myself and Lib (those who accept the need for some state provision and funding in some services) are much more representative of the average person on the right than some of the anarcho-capitalists you see here.
I don't hate the right.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
I don't hate the right.
I never said that. I'm just saying that you should not allow anarcho-capitalists or uber-conservatives to taint the picture as a whole. Like the left we're mostly a reasonable bunch.
I'd say public, as it was created along with the welfare state to actually benefit the people of the country - privatization is awful - it consists mainly on the fat cats getting money (you see this with the privatization of steel/oil companies, transport and electricity and gas) and the people who pay the taxes actually get the worst end of the stick majority of the time (for example, I have been late to college numerous times because my train has been cancelled with no apology/refund etc), which shouldn't happen again with the NHS. Bevan fought for it because healthcare in the past was horrendous - husbands would get dentures for their wives given to them as wedding gifts from the family as no one had good teeth - and though some people took advantage at first, it broadly benefits us. I just think everyone should be entitled to free health care, but when it comes to the cosmetic side and regards boob jobs etc I'm not sure what side of the fence I'm on.
Original post by NYU2012
However, in a capitalist market, every individual is acting in their own benefit so:
As an initial starting point, I'd say your logic falls down there. In a free market, people have numerous inclinations. As I've pointed out, the largest provider of private healthcare in the UK is a provident association, existing for the benefit of its members.
The economic imperative toward profit is a motive force and is a way of demonstrating the utility of free market capitalism. It isn't, however, its only essence.
It is only in a non-profit non-capitalist means of production that one could ever possibly offer any good or service at its absolute minimum cost.
This would presumably involve the relevant staff also not profiting from the endeavour either then? The moment there is any competition for staff, prices are driven up.
In reality, there is no 'absolute minimum cost', since the cost of labour is so mixed into the equation. Even basic equipment will have a labour cost attached, which is often elevated above any concept of 'minimum'. Indeed, there's even collective bargaining.
Original post by shanellipuff
I'd say public, as it was created along with the welfare state to actually benefit the people of the country - privatization is awful - it consists mainly on the fat cats getting money (you see this with the privatization of steel/oil companies, transport and electricity and gas) and the people who pay the taxes actually get the worst end of the stick majority of the time (for example, I have been late to college numerous times because my train has been cancelled with no apology/refund etc), which shouldn't happen again with the NHS.
I think you have a hugely rose-tinted view of nationalised industries. British Steel ended up predominantly supported by public subsidy - in other words, it flopped - our initial attempts at a state oil company simply didn't work, trains were still late when they were nationalised, it used to take weeks to install a phoneline when BT was nationalised, and British Airways still suffers from the high-cost staffing agreements made when it was nationalised. British Gas prices were one-third less in 2000 in real terms than they were at privatisation in 1987.
Bevan fought for it
Bevan didn't fight for exclusively state provision, or if he did then he lost comprehensively.
He introduced the concept of the NHS as as tripartite system of public health (administered generally by local government), hospitals (nationalised) and the independent contractor services. Even he foresaw that privately administered elements would make up the majority of the NHS, as they do to this day.
I don't know if he liked that situation, but that's the NHS he created.
Original post by goldie56
The Soviet Union?
Fair enough.
Original post by L i b
No it isn't. To say that all government run services are evil is a trademark of the Anarchist movement. Everyone else implicitly accepts that some government funded and run services are inevitable and good.
Firstly I am speaking about the anarchism with socialist style aims. The core principle of anarchy is that any power structure that can not be justified must be dismantled and replaced with a more just alternative and that serves the needs of the majority. The NHS is hardly a structure of oppression, it heals people for free regardless of your socioeconomic standing.
In fact these libertarian socialists will praise what the NHS achieves. They will be pro the outcome of free health care for anyone, in a leftists anarchist society that would be a core service. Whilst they do think that the state on the whole acts to serve the elite they acknowledge that when pressure is put on it the government it can act in the interests of people at the bottom. It would eb idiotic to protest against these positive changes unless a more positive solution is on the agenda. Any anarchist that is grounded in the real world will recognize that more can be done with the government than private tyrannies. They would see a privatized health service as a step in the wrong directions and a state funded health service as a step in the right direction. Until there is a wide network of worker coperatrives to take over it is unrealistic to and stupid to just pull back the state and hand all power to a monopolistic private sector and the guys with the bigger sticks.
If you compare that to far right wing liberals who foam at the mouth at such a large tax funded government run institution providing a service for free as one step towards communism. They are against everything it stands for. The heavy state intervention, the taxation of the rich, the wealth redistribution and see it as an assault to freedom. To say only anarchists are against a health service just seems bizarre to me. This stereotype is a much better fit imo.
Original post by L i b
Then, frankly, they're not Anarchists. If they believe in anything funded by taxation, they are not Anarchists. If they believe in a government-run health service, they are not Anarchists.
Then, frankly, they're not Anarchists. If they believe in anything funded by taxation, they are not Anarchists. If they believe in a government-run health service, they are not Anarchists.
Well I only have anarchist sympathies so maybe I am not the best person to ask but I fairly sure they would see a health service provided by a government as progressive and case where the majority have successfully seized some power and forced a great social change. They would still rather see state capitalism replaced but since it is hear they will defend any positive aspects it has that if dismantled would move society further away from an anarchist ideal. Everyone has there own personally preference to certain ideologies, doesn't mean you will only accept a 100% pure version of it.
Then again some anarchist probably are anti everything but they are not all of the anarchists.
1:40 - 2:15 gives a proper anarchist's view on this, albeit a short one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__vv6eRj2-k
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by captain.sensible
so what? why should other people have to be forced to pay for me? just because it's difficult (not impossible) to pay for that's no excuse; it's my body, not theirs.
Where do you stop applying this principle? If this is an argument against state-funded healthcare, is it also potentially an argument against state-funded police and courts, for example?
Original post by anarchism101
Where do you stop applying this principle? If this is an argument against state-funded healthcare, is it also potentially an argument against state-funded police and courts, for example?
you do have a point and I do recognise what you're saying, but you coul also go the other way with that, e.g. if you have health care privatised why not everything, e.g. food production and free provisions, water supply (and free provisions), day care, public transport, cars/bicycles, houses, holidays, etc. what I'd say is that up until you have your negative liberty (which exists only until it's taken away, unlike things like positive liberty of health care which only exists if you're given it by a government) protected opposed to provided, then that's all people need, and I'd say that slavery, robbery and other coercive acts would not allow for freedom but for freedom to be taken away at any time by those with economic and physical power opposed to consensual and utilitarian acts like trading and contracting, so having a government tax you perhaps 5-10%~ for the police, courts, parliament, etc would enable the freest possible society with the least amount of coercion against individuals (and by coercion of course I'm referring to the potential for imperfect human beings with power to use it against the weak, which is distinct from simply having rich and poor people where nobody harms each other~ via police protection/criminal justice). so obviously the principle of "I should pay for me, you should pay for yourself" when applied 100% does not protect me *or* you, because if I worked for myself, you could take my property away, and vice versa, so in order to ensure that the basis principle of individual self-provision is upheld, the police/army (to protect us against the infringement of individual peace) and the courts (to ensure contracts are enforced and that criminals are penalised) and also the parliament (to decide simple things e.g. warfare in the chance of self-defence against other nations) should exist so that the minimum amount of coercion (5-10%~ taxation) is ever required. so it's going for the most objectivity as you can without defeating the purpose of protecting individuals against others as the idea of how society should be able to exist as (although I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to come together and collectivise their property voluntarily).
I like to think of the police as referees like you have in a football match but applied to a market/peace-based society - to ensure that people don't break the rules (e.g. slavery, robbery, etc), then you need at least some kind of competant control, and owned by the public (e.g. the referee of a football match is not on anybody's side but simply enforces a just game) but you don't/shouldn't need the referee to provide you with goals or penalty kick offs like some arguing for the government providing health care etc
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Should nurses be paid more?
- Work experience
- Absolutely furious with the NHS
- NHS are a joke
- State pretend incompetence
- help w my epq title pls :-)
- Insurance is really high for new drivers
- Relationships as a police officer
- Career in psychotherapy
- Spire Healthcare: Death of NHS-funded private patient raises safety concerns
- EPQ help
- NHS Jobs constantly unsuccessful with my job applications
- Nutrition or dietetics
- Masters vs Diploma: justifiable impact on opportunities as a self-employed therapist?
- Hospital receptionist interview
- Should I become a Pharmacist?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Dental fees
- If you think you will be rich as a dentist you're mistaken (I'm an associate Dentist)
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
