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

    5
    ReputationRep:
    If it ain't broke don't fix it..

    For all it's faults the NHS and for that matter the state schooling system is more than adequate.

    Everyone who needs helathcare can get it whatever they're income - they can just walk right up and get it. They don't have to worry about whether they have adequate savings/insurance to cover it. Why do we need to complicate things further.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xBubblesx)
    If it ain't broke don't fix it..

    For all it's faults the NHS and for that matter the state schooling system is more than adequate.

    Everyone who needs helathcare can get it whatever they're income - they can just walk right up and get it. They don't have to worry about whether they have adequate savings/insurance to cover it. Why do we need to complicate things further.
    Because it could be cheaper/more efficient whilst providing better service; for example the health services in Singapore. Just because it's alright, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and make it better.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I hear what you're saying about the NHS. It is a fantastic service, given that free and readily available. But the standard of treatment could be so much better, and waiting lists could be reduced.

    The idea - of the system I propose - is that YOU HAVE to set aside a certain amount of money each year for normal medical expenses.

    And then like in singapore you could have optional premium.emergency insurance. There would in reality be little INSURANCE - only for emergency for cover. It's not a great solution, but I think the govt picking up the tab might create perverse incentives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I havent read all the threas .i will when i can .its just that its 2am in the morning right now .

    but i gotta tell you - it would cost far more to pay for healthcare and education privately as opposed to paying for them thru taxes .trust me .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NEVERYOUMIND)
    I havent read all the threas .i will when i can .its just that its 2am in the morning right now .

    but i gotta tell you - it would cost far more to pay for healthcare and education privately as opposed to paying for them thru taxes .trust me .
    That post was about as intellectually insightful as Katie Price's new novel...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    but i am right .

    watch the filmn sicko .if we privatise healthcare like they done in the USA it will mean that millions will not be able to afford the most basic of care .in america, 50mill ppl cannot afford health insurance. privatising healthcare will only lead to companies who put profits before ppl . who are more concerned about getting your money than helping you. it will mean ppl will be overchaged for a lower quality service . gas and electricity companies were privatised .it has now meant you have 6 energy companies who all massively ovfer charge .that is why they are getting these MASSIVE profits. there is no choice when all the prices are very very high. there is no competition to provide a better service when you have companies in cartels like we have here.

    if we were to privatising healthcare and the education system, it would be a decision we would regret and a decision future generations will hate us for.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NEVERYOUMIND)
    but i am right .

    watch the filmn sicko .if we privatise healthcare like they done in the USA it will mean that millions will not be able to afford the most basic of care .in america, 50mill ppl cannot afford health insurance. privatising healthcare will only lead to companies who put profits before ppl . who are more concerned about getting your money than helping you. it will mean ppl will be overchaged for a lower quality service . gas and electricity companies were privatised .it has now meant you have 6 energy companies who all massively ovfer charge .that is why they are getting these MASSIVE profits. there is no choice when all the prices are very very high. there is no competition to provide a better service when you have companies in cartels like we have here.

    if we were to privatising healthcare and the education system, it would be a decision we would regret and a decision future generations will hate us for.
    Sicko is a filmed designed to shock, and you can't mix fact with fiction.

    Let's not blame privatisation. The American system fails due to it's overly bureaucratic insurance sytem. Compare this to syngapore, who spend less per head than America and Britain and have a fantastic health care system. Seriiously Syngapore is tesitment to the benefits of private health care. There is no reason we couldn't adopt a system like that here.

    Let's not make this a debate about energy companies as well. That could be privatised better and could work as well.

    Nevertheless the system I have proposed a million times before in this thread, is not health care based on bureauratic insurance. The only insurance would be for extreme cases. In general people are able to cover their own health care bills (some with government support, some without)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i was just thinking .what about this :

    healthcae satys nationalised .but instead of paying taxes we just pay for what we need .e.g. pay for a visi to the doctor. this way it is well regulated and ppl arent ripped off .

    what dya think ?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For a start how do you know your providing a service at a good price - only market forces can effectively allocate resources.

    How can you you assure that this govt doesn't use its monopsony power to employ workers at knock of rates.

    I don't think it makes sense for the goverment to have monopoly control over health care. Why not privatise, improve competition and thus improve efficiency.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew_2006)
    Let's not blame privatisation. The American system fails due to it's overly bureaucratic insurance sytem. Compare this to syngapore, who spend less per head than America and Britain and have a fantastic health care system. Seriiously Syngapore is tesitment to the benefits of private health care. There is no reason we couldn't adopt a system like that here.
    No, let's blame privatisation. We can only judge healthcare systems by what actually happens in the real world and the US epitomises this - raised healthcare costs, treatment only on ability to pay, and administration of unneccesary treatment, reducing efficiency (the latter is actually a huge, often unspoken, problem in the US).

    If you want to talk Singapore, you're making a massive ecological fallacy that the healthcare saving accounts are anything to do with the cost of healthcare. There are a few reasons why Singapore's healthcare system is cheaper than ours;
    -The government has strict controls on the cost both of medical supplies and products.
    -The demographics of Singapore are incredibly different from the western world e.g. there have half the proportion of population that are elderly (i.e. >65). As the elderly are usually the greatest expense for healthcare, I imagine if we immediately got rid of half our elderly population, we too would enjoy a much cheaper healthcare system
    -Singapore itself is a small very urbanised country - the infrastructure and access issues that plague other countries aren't an issue here.

    There's a reason Singapore's supposed 'privatised healthcare' utopia hasn't been emulated elsewhere....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew_2006)
    For a start how do you know your providing a service at a good price - only market forces can effectively allocate resources.

    How can you you assure that this govt doesn't use its monopsony power to employ workers at knock of rates.

    I don't think it makes sense for the goverment to have monopoly control over health care. Why not privatise, improve competition and thus improve efficiency.

    that is the usual arguement for privatisation but as i said - look at what has happened now energy companies are private .there's 6 big companies and no competiton becasue they have all agreed to rip consumers off. and even if one chooses to have slightly lower prices they are still massively over-pricing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Have you not thought that it's more to do with high input prices? The telecom market, for example, has been massively successful in reducing prices. It's got nothing to do with the failings of privatisation but the manner in which is was deregulated was the problem.

    Obviously privatisation needs the right implentation. But as we have seen in the case of Syngapore, it will always yield the best results.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew_2006)
    Obviously privatisation needs the right implentation. But as we have seen in the case of Syngapore, it will always yield the best results.
    Did you not even read my post? Singapore, aside from being far from a privitised system, yields it's 'best results' due to it's unique demographic makeup. You're making a huge (and misled) ecological fallacy in believing the success of the Singapore healthcare system is due to privatisation. Just because a **** crows before sunrise doesn't mean that chickens secretly control solar events.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    No, let's blame privatisation. We can only judge healthcare systems by what actually happens in the real world and the US epitomises this - raised healthcare costs, treatment only on ability to pay, and administration of unneccesary treatment, reducing efficiency (the latter is actually a huge, often unspoken, problem in the US).
    I agree, the US healthcare system is terrible. What I don't understand is why you see this as a problem with privatised systems: given that the US government spends more per capita (yes, more - see the WHO site http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html) on its citizens' healthcare than the UK does, shouldn't you be concluding that it's really government run healthcare that's the problem?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    I agree, the US healthcare system is terrible. What I don't understand is why you see this as a problem with privatised systems: given that the US government spends more per capita (yes, more - see the WHO site http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html) on its citizens' healthcare than the UK does, shouldn't you be concluding that it's really government run healthcare that's the problem?
    Actually I take that as a criticism of privatisation rather than government spending. American government involvement in healthcare occured long after the price of healthcare was inflated by privatisation. The fact that they spend more (but much less proportionally) is only evidence of how bad the American system is in the first place.

    Moreover, if government run healthcare is the problem then I dare you to find a privatised healthcare model that has actually produced better results than european healthcare.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i am not sure if i have said this - but our own British healthcare is slowly becoming privatised (american style). its creeping in slowly .the governemnt does it thru PFI agreements ,which is like back-door privatisation .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Did you not even read my post? Singapore, aside from being far from a privitised system, yields it's 'best results' due to it's unique demographic makeup. You're making a huge (and misled) ecological fallacy in believing the success of the Singapore healthcare system is due to privatisation. Just because a **** crows before sunrise doesn't mean that chickens secretly control solar events.
    I didnt read it, what did you say?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew_2006)
    I didnt read it, what did you say?
    Why don't you read it then....

    It's just a few posts above this one (#50). I even quoted you in it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Actually I take that as a criticism of privatisation rather than government spending.
    Of course you would, no surprise there. But I do think it shows up nicely the blinkered view you have of government intervention: despite that fact that the US government spends more per capita on its citizens' health care than the UK, even though we have universal healthcare, you still blame privatization. Has it not occurred to you that a healthcare system where the government intervenes more than in most systems entirely run by governments, may not be a very good example of private healthcare?

    American government involvement in healthcare occurred long after the price of healthcare was inflated by privatisation. The fact that they spend more (but much less proportionally) is only evidence of how bad the American system is in the first place.
    Agreed, the American system is bad. But you're not giving any argument as to why it's bad because of its free market aspects rather than its government run aspects. I think the latter is quite heavily to blame, and I'd suggest you read books like this if you want to see why.

    Moreover, if government run healthcare is the problem then I dare you to find a privatised healthcare model that has actually produced better results than european healthcare.
    Well, people have been pointing them out. Singapore, for one. And there's no monolithic thing which is 'European healthcare' - European countries have varying systems, with differing degrees of market involvement. It's no coincidence that a system like France's, with a far greater role for markets and private insurance, outperforms the NHS.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Of course you would, no surprise there. But I do think it shows up nicely the blinkered view you have of government intervention: despite that fact that the US government spends more per capita on its citizens' health care than the UK, even though we have universal healthcare, you still blame privatization. Has it not occurred to you that a healthcare system where the government intervenes more than in most systems entirely run by governments, may not be a very good example of private healthcare?
    There's no homogenous thing called 'government spending'. Just because the US spends more per capita than other countries doesn't mean that money is well spent - it is just funding the current system (which is predominantly privatised). The fact that the US government is willing to pour money into a hole to try and solve the healthcare problem doesn't detract from the US healthcare's privatised core and origin.
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Agreed, the American system is bad. But you're not giving any argument as to why it's bad because of its free market aspects rather than its government run aspects. I think the latter is quite heavily to blame, and I'd suggest you read books like this if you want to see why.
    I've got neither the time nor money to buy and read books - can you summarise the premise?
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)

    Well, people have been pointing them out. Singapore, for one. And there's no monolithic thing which is 'European healthcare' - European countries have varying systems, with differing degrees of market involvement. It's no coincidence that a system like France's, with a far greater role for markets and private insurance, outperforms the NHS.
    I have already pointed out above some of the ways in which Singapore is neither privatised nor particularly impressive in it's results. As for France and Europe, they have remarkable amounts of government involvement. They may utilise free market principles to create competition, but they divorce this from any kind of financial consequence to the general population through the state run national insurance. And indeed 2/3s of the French hospitals are public ones anyway. This isn't exactly a plethora of privatisation causing the good healthcare. Rather it is a state run system that utilises a free market concept restricted within it's own system. Quite frankly, I don't see any issue with that.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.