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

Should the UK Convert into a Socialist/Communist Economy from a Mixed Economy? Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Fix bayonets.
    The reds don't like it up em!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    The horrific state of healthcare in the US example is the result of governmental intervention in the free market there. The health insurance companies may put profit above life, but health insurance wouldn't even be necessary in many cases if medical costs weren't artificially inflated to allow providers to take advantage of state-mandated health insurance. Non-insured privatised healthcare was perfectly viable prior to that manipulation by the government.
    So then, to put it basically, costs would be minimal in this situation and you wouldn't need insurance?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amit92)
    Haha I guess you don't like Communism? Im not a communist,Its just an economics question my teacher asked in class,so I would see what you guys thought of it?
    Please don't tell me your economics teacher said that producer surplus indicated wasted resources, that the government can price goods more efficiently than the free market, or that the government can make a more efficient allocation of goods than the free market. They should be fired if so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Please don't tell me your economics teacher said that producer surplus indicated wasted resources, that the government can price goods more efficiently than the free market, or that the government can make a more efficient allocation of goods than the free market. They should be fired if so.
    Nope. If there was producer surplus the prices can just be put down to increase demand which would intially get rid of excess supply. Ive realised im wrong there now! LOL. But the other 2statements I agree with :yep:
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    So then, to put it basically, costs would be minimal in this situation and you wouldn't need insurance?
    Basically.

    The gist of the problem in the US is that the states and to a lesser extent federal government require almost all employers to provide health insurance. Now, the vast majority of people come under that heading. Doctors and other healthcare providers know that. As a result, they also know that they can charge to the maximum that any insurance policy allows, since the person who's making the decision to pay (the patient) isn't actually the person paying (the insurance company), and thus doesn't really care that they're paying far more than the treatment actually costs. That's why simple GP visits can cost hundreds of $s in America even if no actual medicines are given as a result.

    Now, as I said, most people have insurance, so it doesn't really matter to them, but unfortunately, as I'm sure you can extrapolate, if you're one of the few that doesn't have insurance, you're completely screwed, because even if you could pay the real cost of treatment you certainly wouldn't be able to afford the artificially inflated fees.

    Without government-mandated insurance people would actually be forced to consider how much they're paying for treatment and realise it's far too high compared to how much it costs the healthcare provider. The market would then naturally lower the price to an appropriate level. Obviously a very small number of people would still be left out in the cold, but if government wanted to sweep in and cover them with a voucher system then it seems to me it'd solve the problem.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amit92)
    Nope. If there was producer surplus the prices can just be put down to increase demand which would intially get rid of excess supply. Ive realised im wrong there now! LOL. But the other 2statements I agree with :yep:
    Producer surplus doesn't mean there is excess supply. It means there are producers more efficient than others who would happily sell for less. Just like consumer surplus means there are consumers who value the product more highly than others and would happily pay more.
    I don't think you understand what efficiency means. It is very rare that the government is able to improve on a market allocation in terms of efficiency, and government control of prices almost always fails, resulting in unemployment, inflation, shortages, impeded growth...
    Typically, when a government is able to improve on the "market" solution, it is because the government broke the market in the first place.
    I could give you mathematical proofs of the above, but they'd be wasted on you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    The horrific state of healthcare in the US example is the result of governmental intervention in the free market there. The health insurance companies may put profit above life, but health insurance wouldn't even be necessary in many cases if medical costs weren't artificially inflated to allow providers to take advantage of state-mandated health insurance. Non-insured or less-insured privatised healthcare was perfectly viable prior to that manipulation by the government.
    Usually health insurances are the ones who keep the price charged by providers down as they establish agreements with them. A basic level of insurance will only allow access to the providers who offer cheaper fees, inciting these providers to accept to be charged less.

    In the US, the ABSENCE of health insurance is what allows certain providers to charge you whatever they like. If you have health insurance and your insurer has an agreement with the provider, the provider's charges are capped due to this agreement. If you have no insurance, or your insurance company has no agreement, the doctor will have the pleasure of charging whatever he likes!

    The US health care system is badly organised but it's certainly not in a horrific state. It just doesn't have a system of universal health care. The US government still spends a lot more than ours does on health care. If people valued health care a bit more in this country, maybe we could actually make a difference on the NHS through higher taxes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than the British government - http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...nguage=english
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I recall reading the NHS is more cost effective (though I forget how it was measured)
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than the British government - http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...nguage=english
    Yup. Medicare and medicaid are failures in and of themselves. This is why I really didn't want to use the US as an example, even in a localised sense. Their *******ised Frankenstein of a healthcare system is less palatable to a my libertarian side than the British NHS
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    I recall reading the NHS is more cost effective (though I forget how it was measured)
    Britain certainly spends a much small % of a (smaller, per capita) GDP. Whether this means the NHS is more or less 'efficient' is somewhat subjective - if you die of cancer because NHS treatment isn't as good as US treatment, you're likely to think that the extra 7% GDPPC (or whatever it is, it's been a while since I saw the stats) was an 'efficient' use of money. But certainly the benefits do not rise proportionally to the costs.

    I actually think this is one of the big problems of national medicine in general, as opposed even to a voucher system - it provides no rational mechanism for deciding how much money should be spent on healthcare, unlike in a market where people can continually refine how much of their income they think should be spent on any particular thing.

    But anyway, the US system is clearly not some sort of free market ideal. It more closely resembles a corporatist cartel system - a fascistic model of socialism contrasted against our soviet model.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    :wtf?:

    Are you for real? I strongly urge you to look into how American private health companies are taking over the management of GP surgeries, not to mention the endless contracting of hospital services that goes on, from cooking to cleaning. Make no mistake, bit by bit, and stealthily, the NHS is being sold off.
    Yes, and these are the most efficient and most effective part of the NHS.

    Ya you know why this is happening?

    Because private firms do it MUCH more efficiently than the government.

    People in this topic are talking about getting screwed by insurance companies etc.
    Frankly, I think a system with waiting lists so long that you die whilst waiting for treatment, poorly maintained hospitals and a system that bars you from other treatment if you buy a drug you need privately, is screwming people over much more than the US system.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    :rofl:


    No.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than the British government - http://www.who.int/whosis/database/c...nguage=english
    Yes, thanks, that's what's written in my post. I needed someone to repeat what I'd just written.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamTheMan)
    Yes, thanks, that's what's written in my post. I needed someone to repeat what I'd just written.
    I didn't quote you, and you're not the OP, so maybe I wasn't referring to your post at all!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wish the government was run like a PLC. With every UK citeze claiming one share. Its clearly the most effective and effeicient way to run an organisation. There is no reason we should continue to have this stupid bickery party politics when the original idealogies they stood for are all but dead and all the parties share nearly all major policy view points. Why not just let the MPs sit on the side they want to support on individual subjects rather than being forced into a party hard line.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Fix bayonets.
    I'm with you!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cookieman)
    I wish the government was run like a PLC. With every UK citeze claiming one share. Its clearly the most effective and effeicient way to run an organisation. There is no reason we should continue to have this stupid bickery party politics when the original idealogies they stood for are all but dead and all the parties share nearly all major policy view points. Why not just let the MPs sit on the side they want to support on individual subjects rather than being forced into a party hard line.
    That's pretty much what we do, isn't it? Substitute Parliament for the board or directors...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Yes, and these are the most efficient and most effective part of the NHS.

    Ya you know why this is happening?

    Because private firms do it MUCH more efficiently than the government.
    What ********. The sole purpose of private firms is to generate as much money for themselves as possible. The current MRSA crisis in hospitals could have been far less damaging had the people in charge of cleaning been more concerned with preventing illness rather than profit.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lawl socialism and economics.
 
 
 
  • 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?
  • 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.