Privatisation of the NHS

[Babur]

There are currently fears in the UK that the Health and Social Care Bill which has recently passed a major hurdle in the House of Lords will ultimately lead to the privatisation of the NHS.Thus the bill faces considerable opposition from NHS doctors.The coalition government defends it by stating that it will be strengthening commissioning of NHS services,increasing democratic accountability and public voice,liberating provision of NHS services,strengthening public health services,reforming health and care arm’s-length bodies.I am creating a poll to see which of these arguments convince TWC the most, that of the opposition or the coalition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?newsfeed=true

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publications...2011/index.htm

[Claudius Gothicus]

This is a Rightists vs Leftists issue... none is going to agree on anything.

One thing is true, if the State assumes it's responsibility as constant auditor(of course the auditing commissions should be politically led by the opposition) of a possibly privatized Healthcare Service and if the service in itself creates profit(a moderate to large rate of profit) then it could possibly work.

The problem with Public Services that get privatized is when said public services do not generate profit and have a natural tendency toward losing money(for example the Trains), in other cases like Telephonic Companies if there's enough profit involved then the privatization(through adequate monitoring of course) can work.

But again... this is a Left vs Right issue and none is going to agree on it.

[Babur]

This is a Rightists vs Leftists issue... none is going to agree on anything.

indeed

One thing is true, if the State assumes it's responsibility as constant auditor(of course the auditing commissions should be politically led by the opposition) of a possibly privatized Healthcare Service and if the service in itself creates profit(a moderate to large rate of profit) then it could possibly work.

well in the UK there are private healthcare options already

The problem with Public Services that get privatized is when said public services do not generate profit and have a natural tendency toward losing money(for example the Trains), in other cases like Telephonic Companies if there's enough profit involved then the privatization(through adequate monitoring of course) can work.

if there is privatisation, healthcare costs could increase in the longtime though.

But again... this is a Left vs Right issue and none is going to agree on it.

true

[Claudius Gothicus]

well in the UK there are private healthcare options already

Which is why the privatization of a NHS that's free for all would simply be dysfunctional to what it was made for in the first place, allow for the population to not fall into complete despair in terms of Medical Health.

if there is privatisation, healthcare costs could increase in the longtime though.

For the consumers of said services I guess, yeah that's why privatizing it and applying fees is simply going against what the original purpose of the System aimed at.

Honestly I'm a big supporter of mixed systems, where some people find it better to pay fees and intern themselves in privately funded hospitals while others, the one's who can't pay, are given the same treatment and safeness in Publicly funded ones.

The main issue is... when things like these get privatized who's going to pay for it? the directly affected(the one's who can't afford a private system)? the entire population through taxes?

[Menelik_I]

This is a Rightists vs Leftists issue... none is going to agree on anything.

This whole ''Tory want to destroy NHS'' is the leftist version of ''Obama is a OMFG Soviet mole sent by Stalin and Mao !?!?''

The UK conservatives aren't interested in privatization of NHS and in fact Cameron see NHS eradication people like Daniel Hannan as ing idiots.

The problem with Public Services that get privatized is when said public services do not generate profit and have a natural tendency toward losing money(for example the Trains), in other cases like Telephonic Companies if there's enough profit involved then the privatization(through adequate monitoring of course) can work.

Getting a losing business model to a private organization don't make it work.

It is like complaining about a chef cooking a crappy meal from a crappy recipe.

[Babur]

This whole ''Tory want to destroy NHS'' is the leftist version of ''Obama is a OMFG Soviet mole sent by Stalin and Mao !?!?''

The UK conservatives aren't interested in privatization of NHS and in fact Cameron see NHS eradication people like Daniel Hannan as ing idiots.

true,partisanship doesn't help this issue

Getting a losing business model to a private organization don't make it work.

It is like complaining about a chef cooking a crappy meal from a crappy recipe.

of course but those private organisations should have some regulations regardless of that.

[Menelik_I]

of course but those private organisations should have some regulations regardless of that.

As a Ayn Randroid rich white racist, who want to sell little babies for millions and nuke little kittens while counting the sex slave I import from Malaysia... I thoroughly object to this extreme expansion of government power

[Babur]

As a Ayn Randroid rich white racist, who want to sell little babies for millions and nuke little kittens while counting the sex slave I import from Malaysia... I thoroughly object to this extreme expansion of government power

lol

Which is why the privatization of a NHS that's free for all would simply be dysfunctional to what it was made for in the first place, allow for the population to not fall into complete despair in terms of Medical Health.

exactly, especially for those who can't afford private health insurance here

For the consumers of said services I guess, yeah that's why privatizing it and applying fees is simply going against what the original purpose of the System aimed at.

Honestly I'm a big supporter of mixed systems, where some people find it better to pay fees and intern themselves in privately funded hospitals while others, the one's who can't pay, are given the same treatment and safeness in Publicly funded ones.

I am also a supporter of a mixed system, since I do have private health insurance as well.I am with AXA.

The main issue is... when things like these get privatized who's going to pay for it? the directly affected(the one's who can't afford a private system)? the entire population through taxes?

well the opposition would undoubtedly say that the Tories and their supporters would be the ones paying for it.

[molonthegreat]

It can only lead to good results seeing how ineffective the public sector is.

[Sphere]

The problem with the NHS is the allocation of medical resources is done by politicians. Even if they have the best of intentions, it is an impossible task.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The problem with the NHS is the allocation of medical resources is done by politicians. Even if they have the best of intentions, it is an impossible task.

Should be an autonomous system then, with a fixed budget. Internal self-management and regular monitoring by third parties and the government?

[Prosaic Visitant]

Should be an autonomous system then, with a fixed budget. Internal self-management and regular monitoring by third parties and the government?

I'd support this notion, if only to see how well or not it works. Doubtless, politicians would still find a way to enforce their ever-shifting agendas on it.

This is a Rightists vs Leftists issue... none is going to agree on anything.

Except when someone inevitably makes a factual/ quotation mistake, is mercilessly pounded for it and then grudgingly concedes the mishap.

[Father Jack]

It is a bit of a myth that privatisation creates a better system. Just look at our railway networks for one. The NHS needs changes, but health ministers have been using it as a playground for policies for the last few decades and all it has done is create confusion, piss off doctors, nurses and other NHS staff. However, as the BMA has highlighted, these are the wrong changes. What the NHS needs is a better management system who consult the medical professionals before making decisions. From my experience of working in NHS trusts the civil servant management have no clue how day to day doctors and nurses do their jobs or what their needs are. If doctors are consulted about what their needs are then savings could be made on drug and medical supply procurements, often management will just buy a huge amount of drugs which are rarely used.

source - I have spent the summer working in the NHS + talking to health professionals (I am applying for grad med school). Also helps having family members who are senior doctors, this subject is a common dinner table conversation.

[neoptolemos]

It is a bit of a myth that privatisation creates a better system. Just look at our railway networks for one. The NHS needs changes, but health ministers have been using it as a playground for policies for the last few decades and all it has done is create confusion, piss off doctors, nurses and other NHS staff. However, as the BMA has highlighted, these are the wrong changes. What the NHS needs is a better management system who consult the medical professionals before making decisions. From my experience of working in NHS trusts the civil servant management have no clue how day to day doctors and nurses do their jobs or what their needs are. If doctors are consulted about what their needs are then savings could be made on drug and medical supply procurements, often management will just buy a huge amount of drugs which are rarely used.

source - I have spent the summer working in the NHS + talking to health professionals (I am applying for grad med school). Also helps having family members who are senior doctors, this subject is a common dinner table conversation.

good points

[Denny Crane!]

good points

Didn't really mention any of the services in the NHS that are already private though and have been for a long ass time or the intended reforms just a lot of vague....privatisation is bad yeah? Well the NHS is already private in many ways but the NHS is now and at the present and for all intents and purposes forever free at the point of use. In the ways that it IS private the new bill rightly or wrongly seeks to introduce competition to but not a single person here or precious few in the media want to address that.

Just do what all the random "yeah because privatisation is bad derp" are doing here.

It ain't like it is hard to read about.

[neoptolemos]

Didn't really mention any of the services in the NHS that are already private though and have been for a long ass time or the intended reforms just a lot of vague....privatisation is bad yeah? Well the NHS is already private in many ways but the NHS is now and at the present and for all intents and purposes forever free at the point of use. In the ways that it IS private the new bill rightly or wrongly seeks to introduce competition to but not a single person here or precious few in the media want to address that.

Just do what all the random "yeah because privatisation is bad derp" are doing here.

It ain't like it is hard to read about.

Well, being raised and worked in a system mimicking the NHS, i can say that although a total privatization is in the wrong direction, in some aspects a private initiative may be supplemental and beneficial to the current situation.If the private sector under government regulation can act along with the NHS then the situation will become even better. But the certain is that basic healthcare should be provided by the state to the citizens. I am aware that NHS provides that but it requires additional funding by the patient for long term services.
Among doctors the system praised the most is this actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_health_care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...h_care_systems

[justicar5]

Didn't really mention any of the services in the NHS that are already private though and have been for a long ass time or the intended reforms just a lot of vague....privatisation is bad yeah? Well the NHS is already private in many ways but the NHS is now and at the present and for all intents and purposes forever free at the point of use. In the ways that it IS private the new bill rightly or wrongly seeks to introduce competition to but not a single person here or precious few in the media want to address that.

Just do what all the random "yeah because privatisation is bad derp" are doing here.

It ain't like it is hard to read about.

Give the last set of reforms time to at least show if they work (PFI doesn't for instance) don't change things every six months. Even a bad plan is stable can be modified given proper analysis of it's affects ( a terrible home wrecker of a plan however needs to die fast)

[Denny Crane!]

Give the last set of reforms time to at least show if they work (PFI doesn't for instance) don't change things every six months. Even a bad plan is stable can be modified given proper analysis of it's affects ( a terrible home wrecker of a plan however needs to die fast)

PFI does work when it isn't adminstered by a retarded Labour government. The whole point of PFI was to share risk, not with Labour though, publicise the risk and privatise the profits! The retard way, much like most of Labours way.

[Treize]

I made a mistake it should be no, here privatisation has led to higher costs and lower quality so I would not advice it.

[Father Jack]

LSJ, care to prove any of that?

IPA - we privatised our railways 20 years or so ago. The quality did not improve and it just became far more expensive, profit was worth more than the consumer quality. It is now probably one of the worst railway networks in Europe.