Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    How about we privatise education and healthcare. Every person must have a a savings account for social cover..The govt would introduce tax breaks but there would be a compulsory savings fund for education/healthcare/social cover. As far as health care is concerned the government woud provide *emergency cover* for rare instances where the cost of health care is over the nominal saving amount. For low income families the government would provide funds to cover the minimum social cover saving. As far as education is concerned, the money could be used on a wide variety of private schools.

    Could this work? We currently have the necessary information from private schooling and healthcare to make accurate assumptions of the amount of compulsory saving?

    Then we would get the benefits of a private system with equity of a state system. We could also setup an auction to sell off private institutions - as long as the CC regulated the sale and provision of both then it is plausible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont agree

    Privatising education would mean some of the single working mothers or other single parents would get a hard time.

    Putting more strain on the working men and women of the UK at this point in time would not be wise.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Not if there remains adequate social funding for education. Privatisation does not prevent this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    it wouldnt work, your suggestion of some kind of social savings is pointless; who would put money in their own account when they could leave it and get free/covered healthcare?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Education- Yes - increasing competition would only benefit and mean schools would have to raise standards.

    Healthcare - No. Quite simple, not everybody can afford it, yet I would consider health to be the MOST important thing somebody can have. I dont want a system like they have in the US where those who cannot afford it are thrown out of hospitals and left to die.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No because imo it is wrong if someone bright is prevented to attend higher education because of lack of funds.

    And I just plain hate the idea of corporate health insurance companies. Watch "Sicko" by Michael Moore. It is a little bit biased and he tries to make it emotive as possible but you have to agree with him.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew_2006)
    How about we privatise education and healthcare. Every person must have a a savings account for social cover..The govt would introduce tax breaks but there would be a compulsory savings fund for education/healthcare/social cover. As far as health care is concerned the government woud provide *emergency cover* for rare instances where the cost of health care is over the nominal saving amount. For low income families the government would provide funds to cover the minimum social cover saving. As far as education is concerned, the money could be used on a wide variety of private schools.

    Could this work? We currently have the necessary information from private schooling and healthcare to make accurate assumptions of the amount of compulsory saving?

    Then we would get the benefits of a private system with equity of a state system. We could also setup an auction to sell off private institutions - as long as the CC regulated the sale and provision of both then it is plausible.
    Just thinking about healthcare here but here's a few things to think about:

    First of all, instead of paying tax to the government to pay for our healthcare, you propose that these taxes are nulled and the saving is put into some form of compulsary savings account to pay for healthcare. On the face of it, this presents benefits to nobody in particular - it's just a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't it?

    However, the reality is potentially much worse.......

    Imagine that one day I learn to my horror that I actually need to use these savings to pay for a heart bypass. However, the problem is that I'm now paying a private hospital rather than a public one so the costs are likely to be astronomical and I simply don't have enough in my savings account to pay for it. My heart surgery will cost $100,000 but I only have $20,000 saved!! So what next? Well, there's really two options:

    (1) The government covers the gap. In this case, they'd pick up the $80,000 tab. But what use is that? All this would mean is that the government is now subsidizing a private hospital to do work that is probably 3 times more expensive than it was when it was a public hospital. And where does that $80,000 come from?

    (2) In addition to savings account one must also carry compulsary gap insurance. In this case my insurer would pay the $80,000 (unless I have been royally screwed in the small print and find that I'm not covered for the operation) but in this case, can I expect my premiums to go up 300% next year or, worse still, that my policy is terminated when it comes up for renewal next year and I end up with no coverage?

    Another thing worth considering is that by having private savings accounts people will often skimp on getting the care they need or put it off until a later date because they don't have enough set aside. Asides from putting ordinary people in the position of making healthcare descisions they are not qualified to make, the dangers of this are pretty obvious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So let me explain:

    The idea is that the government still provides for those who need it (low income families). It's just an idea to work with a free market system and have competitive forces in play..

    The system would not be free as someone above suggested. You would have to save to cover healthcare bills.

    People seem to get the impression that a private system is going to mean doctor's checking people's wallets before they operate. Of course if someone is dying, one operates regardless.

    But then again if it be compulsory to have a social savings account, then this problem shouldn't arise.

    The american healthcare system is completely different, due to the bureaucratic nature of providing 'insurance'. Such a system above would be low on bureaucracy evidently..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Empirical evidence suggests that a high portion of private education is not good. Compare, for example, the PISA scores between UK (private education fairly common) and Finland (private schools practically inexistent).

    Of course correlation does not always imply causation, but there seems to be a link there.

    I don't think the quality of healthcare would really rise if it was privatised, either. Some may argue government-run hospitals are less efficient, but on the other hand a nation wide healthcare system implies large economies of scale.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Yes for both.

    Private schools cater for individual needs because it isin't constrained by a national cirriculum and generally provides a better standard of education. Under a universal private system schools would actively offer bursaries, grants, fee exemptions/reductions for individuals who have potential. Its just a matter of getting rif of asymmetric information.

    As for health-care, if we demolish the NHS we would have a better health service and generally healthier nation. An insurance system will force people to take into account their life styles without without the government having to act like a nanny state. I think under genuine market economy, companies would insure people on lower incomes as their eventual pursuit is for maximum profits.

    As for people with low incomes I do wonder if their situation would really be better under a 'tax-funded' health service (out of their wages) which most likely due to their geographical location will face huge waiting lists, mediocre standards and will have to pay for perscriptions.

    Both either way both won't happen in the near future because you have a challenge in convincing the masses that both aren't free and you would most likely would have commited political suicide by proposing the idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew2006)
    So let me explain:

    The idea is that the government still provides for those who need it (low income families). It's just an idea to work with a free market system and have competitive forces in play..

    The system would not be free as someone above suggested. You would have to save to cover healthcare bills.

    People seem to get the impression that a private system is going to mean doctor's checking people's wallets before they operate. Of course if someone is dying, one operates regardless.

    But then again if it be compulsory to have a social savings account, then this problem shouldn't arise.

    The american healthcare system is completely different, due to the bureaucratic nature of providing 'insurance'. Such a system above would be low on bureaucracy evidently..
    But then you have to decipher who "needs" it. That then becomes controversial and unpopular.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arnie Pie In The Sky)
    No because imo it is wrong if someone bright is prevented to attend higher education because of lack of funds.

    And I just plain hate the idea of corporate health insurance companies. Watch "Sicko" by Michael Moore. It is a little bit biased and he tries to make it emotive as possible but you have to agree with him.
    What do you mean it's a little biased? It's a film made to express an opinion. How could that not be biased? There is no way to objectively say private healthcare is not working and we need a single payer system.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Howard - rather than people skimping on healthcare, does it not provide the incentive for people to take measures to increase their health *personally*. It saves people leaching off the NHS for all kinds of problems that they could probably resolve themselves. People might also make more informed decisions, if they could directly see the financial consequences of poor lifestyle choices.

    As well, the idea of having a savings account, is making a fairer private system. We could improve standards, choice and have a system that is less bureaucratic and more investable.

    Also why is option 1 not viable? They pick up the tab - fair enough. After all a competive market shouldn't produce expensive outcomes, if it is regulated properly.

    I appreciate you response Howard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deadmau5)
    What do you mean it's a little biased? It's a film made to express an opinion. How could that not be biased? There is no way to objectively say private healthcare is not working and we need a single payer system.
    I meant to say it's a little bit TOO biased. For example, he interviewed Benn.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew_2006)
    Also why is option 1 not viable? They pick up the tab - fair enough. After all a competive market shouldn't produce expensive outcomes, if it is regulated properly.
    But healthcare provision is never really competitive. The barriers to entry are just too high (Lot's of people can open a sandwich shop but very few people/institutions can or want to open a couple of hospitals costing hundreds of millions or even billions) so all you end up with in the end is regional monopolies or ologopolies so you (or your insurance company) can be assured of paying insane amounts of money for treatment. That's exactly what you see in the US.

    Also, what do you mean by saying that "a competive market shouldn't produce expensive outcomes, if it is regulated properly"? Your use of "regulated properly" in this context troubles me. Do you mean that government should act to cap the costs of certain procedures? If so, this isn't a competitive market anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    would not work
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew_2006)
    Howard - rather than people skimping on healthcare, does it not provide the incentive for people to take measures to increase their health *personally*. It saves people leaching off the NHS for all kinds of problems that they could probably resolve themselves. People might also make more informed decisions, if they could directly see the financial consequences of poor lifestyle choices.
    The experience in the US is that when people lose their insurance coverage (perhaps as a result of a job loss for example) and have to pay for healthcare out of their own pockets they skimp on treatment. They "put up" with the tooth cavity that needs filling or they take one pill a day rather than the two they were prescribed. Call it a hunch, but I suspect that the same sort of behaviour would be true for people who have insufficient savings in their healthcare account.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eulerwaswrong)
    would not work
    Crap contribution.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    But the idea is that it's not a system of social insurance. People have to set a nominal amount aside according to their income, if too low then the government makes up the difference. It wouldn't be tired to an employer or company.

    I agree with you about the monopoly/oligopoly situation. That is the most difficult issue to resolve. But surely privatisation would encourage at least a few big firms to invest, which should produce good results.

    When I say regulated, I mean to stop anti-competitive practices like price fixing of treatment etc (collusion between firms in prive health care)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I cannot be arsed to debate this again. Christ. We need one mega-massive-multi thread for this.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.