A Capitalist Healthcare System

Watch
Poll: A Capitalist Healthcare System
All for it. (2)
15.38%
Stick with socialised healthcare and the NHS. (11)
84.62%
The US healthcare system is superior. (0)
0%
Maulrus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
In this thread I'm going to explain my theory of why a truly capitalist healthcare system would be the most beneficial form of healthcare system.

I welcome all feedback of course, that's why I'm here. And please let me know if you find any glaring problems with my theory.

A Capitalist Healthcare System would be better than any 'NHS' or 'Big Farmer', not the monopoly health care system they have in the US that's run by a select few companies. I mean a truly competitive healthcare system made up of smaller companies driving medical innovation whilst also fighting for the market and lowering their prices.

Of course, the cutting edge medical solutions would (as they are today) still be reserved for the very wealthiest. However, this would matter much less due to the new medical advancements being made due to the new economy. Just look at what it has done for the technologies industry; things like touch-screen smartphones are now common place where they once were the front pediment of technological opulence.

This kind of capitalist healthcare economy would unfortunately have to be much more regulated by the government in order to avoid monopolies which would restrict healthcare, e.g. the US. But, the government monetary resources saved by this new economy and relieved from the burden of carrying the NHS would be more than enough to supply the budget for this regulation.

So, that's my theory at least. What do you guys think?
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
I think the answer is "its complicated". The US has a largely capitlist health system. American spend the most in the world on healthcare by a country mile but have neither a high life expectancy nor good health outcomes.

By contrasy Cuba has an excellent healthcare system run by a communist government.

But in reality, perhaps neiher is perfect. The problem with the capitalism model is that the goal is profit when the problem is how do you improve health. The idea of improving health when the goal is either to reduce costs or charge for interventions that are not required seem at odds with what a population actually needs.
0
reply
Maulrus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by ByEeek)
I think the answer is "its complicated". The US has a largely capitlist health system. American spend the most in the world on healthcare by a country mile but have neither a high life expectancy nor good health outcomes.

By contrasy Cuba has an excellent healthcare system run by a communist government.

But in reality, perhaps neiher is perfect. The problem with the capitalism model is that the goal is profit when the problem is how do you improve health. The idea of improving health when the goal is either to reduce costs or charge for interventions that are not required seem at odds with what a population actually needs.
America's healthcare system has the problem that it's run by a few very large companies. This does not equate to a healthy capitalist system, it equates to a large monopoly extorting people who need health coverage. I propose a government regulated medical economy so as to avoid this outcome. When the focus is to out do your competitors the logical conclusion is to beat them at the medical options they are supplying. This kind of competition would leave everyone with better, cheaper (albeit not free) healthcare that is making much faster and larger advancements than a government funded system would ever be able to make.
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Maulrus)
I propose a government regulated medical economy so as to avoid this outcome. When the focus is to out do your competitors the logical conclusion is to beat them at the medical options they are supplying.
But that never happens. Any form of commissioning is done on cost and not outcome. But similarly, how do you scrutinise a bid based on outcome? If outcome is the bidfing criteria, then I'll promise to cure 100% of cancer patients if you hand me that £4 billion contract!

It's a nice idea but it won't work. There are sone aspects that do work. GPs are small private businesses but I am not really sure how they are held to account either clinically or financially.

The problem wih healthcare is that bean counters try to quantify care which like teaching is unquantifiable. Good healthcare costs what it costs. And outcomes are driven by prevention, not cure. You name me a business which succeeds by keeping people away?
0
reply
1st superstar
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
Sorry but we shouldn't be striving to have similar things to the US in any shape of form imo (lower food standards, too much patriotism, capitalist health care system etc). I am strongly against a non-universal/non-free healthcare system. Everyone should be allowed to have affordable healthcare and not have to worry about any major medical bills.
2
reply
Maulrus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by 1st superstar)
Sorry but we shouldn't be striving to have similar things to the US in any shape of form imo (lower food standards, too much patriotism, capitalist health care system etc). I am strongly against a non-universal/non-free healthcare system. Everyone should be allowed to have affordable healthcare and not have to worry about any major medical bills.
Did you read my entire argument? I strongly advocate against the US's healthcare system as it's a monopoly. I suggested a that we have a government regulated healthcare market that ensures a large amount of smaller companies in order to assure prices come down (thus allowing universal healthcare) and medical advancements are made significantly faster.
0
reply
1st superstar
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Maulrus)
Did you read my entire argument? I strongly advocate against the US's healthcare system as it's a monopoly. I suggested a that we have a government regulated healthcare market that ensures a large amount of smaller companies in order to assure prices come down (thus allowing universal healthcare) and medical advancements are made significantly faster.
Then yes why not.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
Got to love the hilarity of the third option, a healthcare system that regularly excludes vast swathes of the population forcing them to die from such preventable causes as not being permitted diabetes medication, is no healthcare system in ones opinion.
A better way to describe it would be a racket.
2
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
Government regulated? Have you seen our government lately?

They couldn't regulate a children's birthday party.
1
reply
Maulrus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Napp)
Got to love the hilarity of the third option, a healthcare system that regularly excludes vast swathes of the population forcing them to die from such preventable causes as not being permitted diabetes medication, is no healthcare system in ones opinion.
A better way to describe it would be a racket.
Maybe so, but if that's what people think I want the polls to reflect that else it wouldn't be representative now would it.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Maulrus)
Maybe so, but if that's what people think I want the polls to reflect that else it wouldn't be representative now would it.
I wouldnt call a tsr poll particularly representative to start with but meh.
0
reply
Maulrus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Napp)
I wouldnt call a tsr poll particularly representative to start with but meh.
It's representative of TSR users, is it not??
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Maulrus)
It's representative of TSR users, is it not??
Not really, it is representative of the relatively small number that users of the quarantined UK Politics sub forum who happen across this thread. To be entirely accurate.
0
reply
IbeIC123
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Maulrus)
In this thread I'm going to explain my theory of why a truly capitalist healthcare system would be the most beneficial form of healthcare system.

I welcome all feedback of course, that's why I'm here. And please let me know if you find any glaring problems with my theory.

A Capitalist Healthcare System would be better than any 'NHS' or 'Big Farmer', not the monopoly health care system they have in the US that's run by a select few companies. I mean a truly competitive healthcare system made up of smaller companies driving medical innovation whilst also fighting for the market and lowering their prices.

Of course, the cutting edge medical solutions would (as they are today) still be reserved for the very wealthiest. However, this would matter much less due to the new medical advancements being made due to the new economy. Just look at what it has done for the technologies industry; things like touch-screen smartphones are now common place where they once were the front pediment of technological opulence.

This kind of capitalist healthcare economy would unfortunately have to be much more regulated by the government in order to avoid monopolies which would restrict healthcare, e.g. the US. But, the government monetary resources saved by this new economy and relieved from the burden of carrying the NHS would be more than enough to supply the budget for this regulation.

So, that's my theory at least. What do you guys think?
Collusion is endemic in any free market system, it’s better for companies to work together and work as a “price fixing cabal” because that is way more efficient and rakes in more profit
0
reply
Maulrus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by IbeIC123)
Collusion is endemic in any free market system, it’s better for companies to work together and work as a “price fixing cabal” because that is way more efficient and rakes in more profit
This is why it would be regulated; companies would be legally required to show any financial agreements along with an annual audit of all systems and business documents in order to ensure no collusion between what should be competing entities. Because of the very nature of the medicinal and health market this would be essential, like you previously pointed out.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Maulrus)
Did you read my entire argument? I strongly advocate against the US's healthcare system as it's a monopoly. I suggested a that we have a government regulated healthcare market that ensures a large amount of smaller companies in order to assure prices come down (thus allowing universal healthcare) and medical advancements are made significantly faster.
Wrong argument and the thread isn't making much sense as your propositions are not realistic and they are very unlikely to happen in the UK.

You are deluded if you think that prices will come down if we have a larger amount of smaller companies. No guarantee about it at all..

You put the words regulation & unfortunately together.. Why does make you think that state regulation should be avoided?

Given the experience we all have from life and what happens in other countries such as the US, I think full Nationalization of the NHS is what the State should be looking forward to and to preserve at least what we have.

By the way, the words Capitalist & Healthcare together will make even traditional Tory Voters very skeptical...

So far we have had 10 years of consecutive and terrible Tory Governments.
Hundreds of new...Food banks all across the country
Thousands and thousands of new homeless people and millions more in zero hours contracts, part time employment, and unemployment, all living with state benefits as a result.

The last we want is a Capitalist Health System of any form.
Last edited by Lucifer323; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
Since the poll is rather biased and limited in its options i neglected to vote.

Essentially though the answer for me is that i would move to a more European healthcare system which should not be surprising given that health outcomes are higher.

I would ideally (excluding children, pensioners and the disabled) require private insurance for essentially any service provided for less than £1k (so basically tests, cheap outpatient services like seeing a foot specialist) and remove the burden of minor health services from the NHS in addition to concluding a complete review of all NHS services so that things like abortion, IVF and transgender services are no longer provided in most instances (want one, go private). For the NHS itself i would lean towards models used by France, Italy and Japan. In Japan the state basically agrees to pay 70% of your health costs (presumably reimbursement or deferred billing) and France has a similar system (though more beaurocratic) whereby you can basically claim your money back (so Japan is probably better) however Italy essentially has a French/British style NHS but only operates to minimum targets, in Italy you actually pay more if you want things like a next day appointment or to jump a waiting list.

The other European option followed by many(though i don't think i favour it) is essentially the US model done with common sense. Everything is private but insurance is mandatory and the state provides a top up for the poor.

In short i would not tear down the NHS but i would offload services to the private sector and require a higher contribution from patients for non-emergency services in order to restrain NHS budget rises to a fixed 2.5% rise per annum (or CPI+0.5%).
0
reply
Maulrus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Lucifer323)
Wrong argument and the thread isn't making much sense as your propositions are not realistic and they are very unlikely to happen in the UK.

You are deluted if you think that prices will come down if we have a larger amount of smaller companies. No guarantee about it at all..

You put the words regulation & unfortunately together.. Why does make you think that state regulation should be avoided?

Given the experience we all have from life and what happens in other countries such as the US, I think full Nationalization of the NHS is what the State should be looking forward to and to preserve at least what we have.

By the way, the words Capitalist & Healthcare together will make even traditional Tory Voters very skeptical...

So far we have had 10 years of consecutive and terrible Tory Governments.
Hundreds of new...Foof banks all across the country
Thousands and thousands of new homeless people and millions more in zero hours contracts, part time employment, and unemployment, all living with state benefits as a result.

The last we want is a Capitalist Health System of any form.
First of all; Hello again, its nice to see you participating in this debate, albeit rather disrespectfully.

I'm aware of the bad reputation that capitalism has when it comes to healthcare, I explain why I think it would be beneficial in my original post. From my experience most people when it comes to healthcare believe that socialised healthcare is the best way, I am merely playing devil's advocate in suggesting the contrary.

'Unfortunately' and 'government regulation' are not always positioned together in my sentences, in some cases, like the case I am suggesting, it can be extremely necessary. However, the general consequences of economic and business regulation tend to be great tax expense and stagnation of business, all with (depending on the situation) no guarantee of a beneficial element to balance the scales. In a medical economy, as proven by the US's healthcare situation, it would be a necessity.

Finally, with reference to your opening point, I most certainly am not 'deluted', or deluded as I assume you meant to write. I am not proposing that prices 'might' come down, I am informing you that it would be the only logical out come in a fair, competitive, healthcare economy. And this isn't just a hypothesis, it has been tested in many other fields of business, technology for example; not too long ago our mobile phones did not have a touch-screen, now it's common place. How do you think this came about? As the tech businesses had more competition they needed to improve their technology in order to offer something that the competing companies did not. The same thing would happen in a medical economy, as one company comes out with more effective medical solutions, other companies have to invest in developing a new medical option that will output better results, or perhaps come up with a way of cheaper manufacturing.

The fact that you merely brought up misunderstandings of my initial proposal in your criticism is a testament to how the majority of people, like you said, see the words capitalist and healthcare in the same sentence and don't take the time to understand how it would work.

I hope this answered all your questions, if you have others I would be happy to answer them.
0
reply
Lucifer323
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Maulrus)
First of all; Hello again, its nice to see you participating in this debate, albeit rather disrespectfully.

I'm aware of the bad reputation that capitalism has when it comes to healthcare, I explain why I think it would be beneficial in my original post. From my experience most people when it comes to healthcare believe that socialised healthcare is the best way, I am merely playing devil's advocate in suggesting the contrary.

'Unfortunately' and 'government regulation' are not always positioned together in my sentences, in some cases, like the case I am suggesting, it can be extremely necessary. However, the general consequences of economic and business regulation tend to be great tax expense and stagnation of business, all with (depending on the situation) no guarantee of a beneficial element to balance the scales. In a medical economy, as proven by the US's healthcare situation, it would be a necessity.

Finally, with reference to your opening point, I most certainly am not 'deluted', or deluded as I assume you meant to write. I am not proposing that prices 'might' come down, I am informing you that it would be the only logical out come in a fair, competitive, healthcare economy. And this isn't just a hypothesis, it has been tested in many other fields of business, technology for example; not too long ago our mobile phones did not have a touch-screen, now it's common place. How do you think this came about? As the tech businesses had more competition they needed to improve their technology in order to offer something that the competing companies did not. The same thing would happen in a medical economy, as one company comes out with more effective medical solutions, other companies have to invest in developing a new medical option that will output better results, or perhaps come up with a way of cheaper manufacturing.

The fact that you merely brought up misunderstandings of my initial proposal in your criticism is a testament to how the majority of people, like you said, see the words capitalist and healthcare in the same sentence and don't take the time to understand how it would work.

I hope this answered all your questions, if you have others I would be happy to answer them.
I haven't misunderstood your comments at all. There is a again a distinct difference between theory and application. The two worlds sometimes are mutually exclusive and this is the case with what you are planning to hsooen and what will actually happen.

The UK has one of the best healthcare systems in the world despite the pressures and growing numbers of people who use the system as well as a growing population.

On the other hand we have the US System which is a disaster for humankind.

Most decent European healthcare systems are like our own, in Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Italy, etc. Some of the poorest countries in Europe however have adopted a more privitazed system, although still under the control of the state, but without the most success and given the financial crisis of our times.

Still, there is a huge difference between theory and application.

My understanding is that when you try privatize health, education, services of any kind, etc, millions of people are left without health, education, etc. Already happened elsewhere. You just have to learn using the examples from elsewhere.

Pardon me for the typos, this is what happens when you write from a mobile phone, fast..
0
reply
Maulrus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Lucifer323)
I haven't misunderstood your comments at all. There is a again a distinct difference between theory and application. The two worlds sometimes are mutually exclusive and this is the case with what you are planning to hsooen and what will actually happen.

The UK has one of the best healthcare systems in the world despite the pressures and growing numbers of people who use the system as well as a growing population.

On the other hand we have the US System which is a disaster for humankind.

Most decent European healthcare systems are like our own, in Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Italy, etc. Some of the poorest countries in Europe however have adopted a more privitazed system, although still under the control of the state, but without the most success and given the financial crisis of our times.

Still, there is a huge difference between theory and application.

My understanding is that when you try privatize health, education, services of any kind, etc, millions of people are left without health, education, etc. Already happened elsewhere. You just have to learn using the examples from elsewhere.

Pardon me for the typos, this is what happens when you write from a mobile phone, fast..
You say that it is inapplicable, and would only work 'in theory' but why is that? I'm not suggesting we let the already massive businesses from the US invest in our healthcare system, I am suggesting we use home-grown companies from the UK and other European states. And this has been proven to work, I gave you an example in the technology sector but it can be proven in just about any area of business that can be improved with research and investment; manufacturing, technology, software, prosthetics, and so many more.

Like I said before, the competition for improvement would drive prices down and leave better options for those whom can afford it (sadly), but the lowest options available to the general public would still be far superior than the offerings of today's healthcare system. This is all not to mention the relief it would have on the government budget; think of what we could do with that money elsewhere!

So, my question to you are; why would it be inapplicable and only work 'in theory' when it has been proven in so many other business sectors?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (75)
21.49%
No (274)
78.51%

Watched Threads

View All