Privatise the NHS

[Park Life 70]

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either.

 

The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.

 

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does.

 

 

A 100% publicly funded and run system is a monopoloy you doughnut.

 

The words 'public ownership' make you break out in a sweat innit?

[Fop 1]

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either.

 

The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.

 

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does.

 

 

A 100% publicly funded and run system is a monopoloy you doughnut.

 

 

Yes I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying putting private companies in a similar monopoly/not other choice situation works out no better and often worse.

 

 

Competition (so long as there isn't collusion - i.e. public building works in the UK +10-15% from collusion, and charging the NHS for services +15% from collusion) can drive prices down and efficiency up, but without that competition it doesn't work like that it just becomes a cash cow for the private company with massive profits and dividends - there's numerous examples in the UK's privatisation boom that completely up hold that.

 

Privatisation has many, many pitfalls of its own (look at the private water business model currently causing chaos around the developing world).

[ChezGiven 0]

Parky, its not 100% publicly funded. I cant post PDFs of publications so here is a wiki

 

"The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

 

You know best though eh?

 

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad.

 

 

France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service.

 

The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly.

 

Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have.

 

60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance.

 

Another doughnut.

[ChezGiven 0]

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either.

 

The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.

 

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does.

 

 

A 100% publicly funded and run system is a monopoloy you doughnut.

 

 

Yes I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying putting private companies in a similar monopoly/not other choice situation works out no better and often worse.

 

 

Competition (so long as there isn't collusion - i.e. public building works in the UK +10-15% from collusion, and charging the NHS for services +15% from collusion) can drive prices down and efficiency up, but without that competition it doesn't work like that it just becomes a cash cow for the private company with massive profits and dividends - there's numerous examples in the UK's privatisation boom that completely up hold that.

 

Privatisation has many, many pitfalls of its own (look at the private water business model currently causing chaos around the developing world).

 

The thread title is just provocative, i'm not really advocating complete privatisation.

[Guest alex]

[Park Life 70]

Parky, its not 100% publicly funded. I cant post PDFs of publications so here is a wiki

 

"The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

 

You know best though eh?

 

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad.

 

 

France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service.

 

The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly.

 

Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have.

 

60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance.

 

Another doughnut.

 

 

Just cause a third party handles some of the money doesn't mean it's private healthcare though does it?

 

Are you just saying that some 'private entities' should handle the healthcare financial provision? If so why is that an advantage and how will they make enough money out of it for you to get your Bentley? I want answers!!

 

 

You know you could have said the healthcare system in France is making the country bankrupt.

 

 

What sections of the NHS service/financial services/delivery of care would be better of from privatisation?

Edited June 30, 2008 by Park Life

[sniffer 0]

Canadians who can tend to come to the States for treatment.

[Park Life 70]

Canadians who can tend to come to the States for treatment.

 

...and Americans who can go to Cuba.

[Guest alex]

Canadians who can tend to come to the States for treatment.

But the ones who can't afford it are probably better off (healthcare-wise) than people on a similar income in the US. At a guess, anyway.

Edited June 30, 2008 by alex

[Park Life 70]

Canadians who can tend to come to the States for treatment.

But the ones who can't afford it are probably better off (healthcare-wise) than people on a similar income in the US. At a guess, anyway.

 

Of course they are.

[Guest alex]

Canadians who can tend to come to the States for treatment.

But the ones who can't afford it are probably better off (healthcare-wise) than people on a similar income in the US. At a guess, anyway.

 

Of course they are.

You'd expect the healthcare in the US to be the best in the World at the very top of the tree. Sending Shearer to see Richard Steadman doesn't mean it's better than here overall though. Not sure exactly what point sniffer was making like.

[ChezGiven 0]

Parky, its not 100% publicly funded. I cant post PDFs of publications so here is a wiki

 

"The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

 

You know best though eh?

 

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad.

 

 

France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service.

 

The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly.

 

Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have.

 

60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance.

 

Another doughnut.

 

 

Just cause a third party handles some of the money doesn't mean it's private healthcare though does it?

 

Are you just saying that some 'private entities' should handle the healthcare financial provision? If so why is that an advantage and how will they make enough money out of it for you to get your Bentley? I want answers!!

 

 

You know you could have said the healthcare system in France is making the country bankrupt.

 

 

What sections of the NHS service/financial services/delivery of care would be better of from privatisation?

 

The unemployed are paid for by the state, the employed need an insurer.

 

This site allows you to compare 'competing' companies offering different services and levels of coverage.

 

http://mutuelle.compareo.net/

 

I'd also say the vaslty over-sized public sector iin France is causing them financial problems with the millions of civil servants who do nothing but whose jobs are protected by the hugely powerful unions being the main cause.

[Fop 1]

The point about Russia being that its history is the greatest body of evidence against the notion that publicly organised systems are more efficient than private ones. If its going above your head, ask questions, dont be ashamed by that either.

 

The point about Canada being that they use a different system to us with more private funding and provision.

 

If you're talking about the Russian system as a historical overview, I suspect again monopoly plays a bigger role than private/public, it always does.

 

 

A 100% publicly funded and run system is a monopoloy you doughnut.

 

 

Yes I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying putting private companies in a similar monopoly/not other choice situation works out no better and often worse.

 

 

Competition (so long as there isn't collusion - i.e. public building works in the UK +10-15% from collusion, and charging the NHS for services +15% from collusion) can drive prices down and efficiency up, but without that competition it doesn't work like that it just becomes a cash cow for the private company with massive profits and dividends - there's numerous examples in the UK's privatisation boom that completely up hold that.

 

Privatisation has many, many pitfalls of its own (look at the private water business model currently causing chaos around the developing world).

 

The thread title is just provocative, i'm not really advocating complete privatisation.

 

 

Even semi-private can have massive issues if the right safeguards aren't in place, UK dentistry and the recent GP contracts pretty much uphold that.

[Park Life 70]

Parky, its not 100% publicly funded. I cant post PDFs of publications so here is a wiki

 

"The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

 

You know best though eh?

 

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad.

 

 

France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service.

 

The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly.

 

Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have.

 

60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance.

 

Another doughnut.

 

 

Just cause a third party handles some of the money doesn't mean it's private healthcare though does it?

 

Are you just saying that some 'private entities' should handle the healthcare financial provision? If so why is that an advantage and how will they make enough money out of it for you to get your Bentley? I want answers!!

 

 

You know you could have said the healthcare system in France is making the country bankrupt.

 

 

What sections of the NHS service/financial services/delivery of care would be better of from privatisation?

 

The unemployed are paid for by the state, the employed need an insurer.

 

This site allows you to compare 'competing' companies offering different services and levels of coverage.

 

http://mutuelle.compareo.net/

 

I'd also say the vaslty over-sized public sector iin France is causing them financial problems with the millions of civil servants who do nothing but whose jobs are protected by the hugely powerful unions being the main cause.

 

I've got no problem with that as long as ability to pay ie job gaps etc are covered by the state.

 

 

This is nice:

 

"In France, the sicker you get, the less you pay. Chronic diseases, such as diabetes, and critical surgeries, such as a coronary bypass, are reimbursed at 100%. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Patients suffering from colon cancer, for instance, can receive Genentech Inc.'s (DNA ) Avastin without charge. In the U.S., a patient may pay $48,000 a year.

 

France particularly excels in prenatal and early childhood care. Since 1945 the country has built a widespread network of thousands of health-care facilities, called Protection Maternelle et Infantile (PMI), to ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Children are evaluated by a team of private-practice pediatricians, nurses, midwives, psychologists, and social workers. When parents fail to bring their children in for regular checkups, social workers are dispatched to the family home. Mothers even receive a financial incentive for attending their pre- and post-natal visits."

 

 

I'd get out before me and Fop actually fire up the backup servers.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Park Life

[Park Life 70]

Parky, its not 100% publicly funded. I cant post PDFs of publications so here is a wiki

 

"The Canadian system has been 69-75% publicly funded,[26] though most services are delivered by private providers"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared

 

You know best though eh?

 

Well we're above Switzerland, Canada and the U.S.A in the WHo rankings can't be all bad.

 

 

France is No.1 btw. A totally public funded free to all service.

 

The WHO ranking is from 11 years ago, healthcare has changed massively since then. It also values the principle of equal access very highly.

 

Your last sentence is just utter shite, i'm sat here with a payslip in front of me which details how much of my salary goes to EON, my 'mutuelle' in France. They are my insurance company here, which the law basically says i have to have.

 

60% of provision in France is public (i.e the hospitals are state run). Funding comes from insurance.

 

Another doughnut.

 

 

Just cause a third party handles some of the money doesn't mean it's private healthcare though does it?

 

Are you just saying that some 'private entities' should handle the healthcare financial provision? If so why is that an advantage and how will they make enough money out of it for you to get your Bentley? I want answers!!

 

 

You know you could have said the healthcare system in France is making the country bankrupt.

 

 

What sections of the NHS service/financial services/delivery of care would be better of from privatisation?

 

The unemployed are paid for by the state, the employed need an insurer.

 

This site allows you to compare 'competing' companies offering different services and levels of coverage.

 

http://mutuelle.compareo.net/

 

I'd also say the vaslty over-sized public sector iin France is causing them financial problems with the millions of civil servants who do nothing but whose jobs are protected by the hugely powerful unions being the main cause.

 

 

It's capitalism's way of keeping unemployment down and protecting the money supply.

[ChezGiven 0]

Thanks for proving my point and coming back to the Avastin example which i kicked off the thread with.

 

The reason why you get Avastin in France is because its approved and funded i.e. my mutuelle would pay for it.

 

It was rejected by the UK as they cant afford it.

 

Firing up what? Your bullshit servers?

[Park Life 70]

Thanks for proving my point and coming back to the Avastin example which i kicked off the thread with.

 

The reason why you get Avastin in France is because its approved and funded i.e. my mutuelle would pay for it.

 

It was rejected by the UK as they cant afford it.

 

Firing up what? Your bullshit servers?

 

That's why I said this is nice. Have you got reading issues? Does your Mutuelle cover that?

 

 

From the BMA:

 

"Research on charging systems in various countries including the UK generally shows that they affect lower income groups disproportionately, and so reduce equity45. This effect is compounded by the tendency for these groups to have poorer health and consequently a greater need for healthcare. Within this general pattern, the greatest impact would fall upon particularly vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the disabled and mentally ill, and families with young children."

Edited June 30, 2008 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

So it was nice because it backed up my point?

 

But then you post something to counter it.... my problem is the inconsistency of the argument.

[Park Life 70]

So it was nice because it backed up my point?

 

But then you post something to counter it.... my problem is the inconsistency of the argument.

 

The idea that the NHS just needs more funding is something I no longer subscribe to, but it is also the case that all big organisations are wasteful public or private. IBM was always a classic case study for this.

 

So be kind to ans these questions:

 

Would people working paying higher private insureance premiums get better access to healthcare?

 

Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed?

 

Do you believe the core and nuts and bolts of the system funding or otherwise should remain public?

[ChezGiven 0]

Would people working paying higher private insureance premiums get better access to healthcare?

 

Depends on how you design the system.

 

Under an insurance based system, does everyone get better access to healthcare?

 

You answered this with Avastin and France.

 

Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed?

 

Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital.

 

Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere?

 

Do you believe the core and nuts and bolts of the system funding or otherwise should remain public?

 

Its already changing and the more we mix up the system, funding and provision, the better it will become.

[Park Life 70]

Would people working paying higher private insureance premiums get better access to healthcare?

 

Depends on how you design the system.

 

Under an insurance based system, does everyone get better access to healthcare?

 

You answered this with Avastin and France.

 

Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed?

 

Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital.

 

Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere?

 

Do you believe the core and nuts and bolts of the system funding or otherwise should remain public?

 

Its already changing and the more we mix up the system, funding and provision, the better it will become.

 

 

How would you design it?

[Fop 1]

Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed?

 

Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital.

 

Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere?

 

Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken).

[manc-mag 1]

 

This thread=major pwnage tbh.

[Guest alex]

Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed?

 

Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital.

 

Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere?

 

Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken).

It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it?

[Fop 1]

Long term private care is a misnoma is it not as they terminally ill end up back in the public system? Or has this changed?

 

Depends on how you design the system. Looking after terminally ill patients is expensive and does very little, you cant treat them so the only difference is the surroundings you die in. Going back to the question above, those paying higher premiums could be more liklely to die in a private hospital.

 

Currently people in the UK are selling houses to pay for long term care of the elderly parents, thus destroying their savings. Does this happen elsewhere?

 

Dementia patients are the worst example in the UK at the moment, being forced to sell your house for what is a medical condition that should realistically be covered in the same way that breaking a leg would be (it's just your mind that is broken).

It would be if it cost the same amount. Fixing someone's leg isn't really comparative to years of care though, is it?

 

Aye, but then it's very expensive to treat a lot of things, a lot of things brought on by a persons own behaviour.

 

Whichever way you look at it, it is a travesty.