PDA

View Full Version : NHS - Good for the economy or bad?



Moh
17-11-2010, 02:32 AM
Do you think the NHS is good for the economy or bad?

We had this discussion at college and we realised it's actually bad. All the employees are paid by the government and when they pay tax, it goes back to the government. That means the government isn't gaining anything from it.

Whereas if all the hospitals were private and you had to pay for your medical care (because tax would be less without the NHS people would be able to afford it and people unable to pay for medical care would be paid for by the government - still a lot less). So because the money to pay the employees of the private hospitals would come from the private sector, the government wont be paying the wages but will still gain money from tax and with lower tax, businesses will be able to hire more employees.

Also with private hospitals, they would be able to meet the demands, so better equipment, more beds and much nicer to stay at. So like Bupa.

People wouldn't even loose their jobs because there will be a higher demand on private hospitals.

What do you think? :)

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Moderator): Thread moved from "Discuss Anything" as I feel it's more suited here.

-:Undertaker:-
17-11-2010, 03:06 AM
The welfare state is unfundable and will have to be cut back, in all western countries (which the Conservatives are not doing and government debt is expected to continue to spiral out of control). It is predicted that within a few decades, all US Federal spending will end up being spent on medicare and social security alone. Europe on the other hand is in a dire mess as it is, with much more to come with a pensions crisis as the population is ageing across Europe (less so in the United Kingdom) which will push healthcare costs through the roof.

It must be pointed out though to people who hail the NHS; before the NHS poor people recieved free treatment (and also did not have to pay towards it in crippling taxes as they do now) in good quality charitable hospitals which were small, clean and far less costly than the large hospitals we are so determined to run nowadays. The wealthy meanwhile before the NHS did have to pay for medical treatment, until the NHS came along when they got it free (they paid in taxes but of course that doesnt harm them as much as it harms the poor).


-------


"You don’t have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can’t expect the managed care system that we have today to work, because it promotes and rewards the corporations. It’s the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that’s why the prices are high. It’s only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices." - Ron Paul

"If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone.. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years." - Ron Paul

Jordy
17-11-2010, 11:44 PM
The NHS doesn't really affect the economy as such. I'm confused by your post, you appear to be asking whether it's good or bad for the economy but also whether we should have the NHS at all.

Whilst the point is true you make about us all being more wealthy without the NHS due to lesser taxes, the working class is unlikely to be able to afford it still, it's very doubtful they could afford the prices or insurance and they would therefore receive no or little health care which in my eyes is totally unacceptable. Health care is a right for everyone, regardless of your wealth.

Conservative,
17-11-2010, 11:54 PM
It's more than just paying for a bed I'd you break your arm.

What about if you are currently receiving an expensive medication on prescription? I know people who, if the nhs Did not exist, would not be able to afford their medication due to it's ridiculous cost and therefore would probably be dying or dead.

The NHS was designed so that no matter who you are, what your problem is or how rich you are you can get health care. If we take a step back and go to private health care the poor and Ill will suffer - and they are the people who the NHS was designed for in the first place.

It may cost us a lot, but without it we penalise those born with illnesses which is completely unfair and I think although the tax will drop the people in general won't benefit due to having to pay more for health insurance plus any medication plus paying for doctors appointments and more.

It's ridiculous to suggest getting rid of it because it would destroy the health system and make some already poor and sick people even worse off.

Alkaz
18-11-2010, 02:32 AM
If the NHS was to be binned there would probably be a limit to how much you earn before you have to pay for your health care. This will probably have to be subsidised by the government. Also all of these brilliant private hospitals will probably be trying to cash in on it a lot more than what they do now as they probably wouldn't be able to meet such demand which this will create. There will probably be a whole host of things that you could be charged for.

Most things, especially the NHS I think if they were properly controlled would not cost no where near as much as they do now. I wonder how much of the billions which is given to fund the NHS each year just, disappears. I think most normal people would rather pay the tax and have a 'free' health service so I think getting rid of it would be a bad idea.

Moh
18-11-2010, 03:35 AM
Those who are unable to afford health care would be given help by the government and to make sure that it's affordable, the government would put a cap on it.

The government provide too many public services, they're spending more than they're receiving from the private sector. If they continue as they are, they won't be able to afford the NHS.

-:Undertaker:-
18-11-2010, 09:38 PM
If the NHS was to be binned there would probably be a limit to how much you earn before you have to pay for your health care. This will probably have to be subsidised by the government. Also all of these brilliant private hospitals will probably be trying to cash in on it a lot more than what they do now as they probably wouldn't be able to meet such demand which this will create. There will probably be a whole host of things that you could be charged for.

Most things, especially the NHS I think if they were properly controlled would not cost no where near as much as they do now. I wonder how much of the billions which is given to fund the NHS each year just, disappears. I think most normal people would rather pay the tax and have a 'free' health service so I think getting rid of it would be a bad idea.

The problem with privatisation is that we haven't gone far enough, so that rather than a government monopoly pushing up the prices the private companies hold the same positions. I will give an example with the bus services, big companies are given monopolies over entire cities - the true free market would say that anyone can go out and buy a bus, get a driving license and serve any route they wish for any price they wanted. Imagine, you'd break the monopoly of the private companies and they would be forced to bring down prices to compete with one another.

The same applies to healthcare whether its under the state monopoly or a state-private monopoly.

Jordy
18-11-2010, 09:57 PM
The problem with privatisation is that we haven't gone far enough, so that rather than a government monopoly pushing up the prices the private companies hold the same positions. I will give an example with the bus services, big companies are given monopolies over entire cities - the true free market would say that anyone can go out and buy a bus, get a driving license and serve any route they wish for any price they wanted. Imagine, you'd break the monopoly of the private companies and they would be forced to bring down prices to compete with one another.

The same applies to healthcare whether its under the state monopoly or a state-private monopoly.Yeah essentially Arriva, First and Stagecoach took over the whole country when it comes to Buses and Trains post-privatisation but this cannot be stopped really. Small independent companies and franchies are given the chance however and they've been largely successful, it's just they have difficulty getting started.

dbgtz
18-11-2010, 10:29 PM
It is vital and is good, but it needs sorting so that those on millions still don't get free healthcare, because they are so rich. Obviously it should not be millions, but the higher the wage the less you get. IE if you make 60K a year, you're not entitled to free prescriptions such as painkillers. And say when you reach 150k, you get no free healthcare for anything less than 20k etc etc. It has to stay so that those who really cannot afford it get a chance for health. It is one of the things that makes britain unique and good.

MrPinkPanther
18-11-2010, 10:49 PM
Wait. What? You think Privatisation will save the Government money? No no no, it will cost them money. European states see healthcare as a civil right which means the government would always be expected to fund those who can't afford healthcare right? Well can you afford over 7500 a year for healthcare? I certainly can't. Currently the UK spends just under 8% of GDP on healthcare whereas in America where they have a far inferior system that many people don't even have they spend over 16% of GDP on healthcare. The fact is that a nationalised industry like healthcare can be much more efficient than a private business because it can buy things en masse and it doesn't attempt to turn a profit. Obviously nationalised industries aren't always a good thing but for things like healthcare which every citizen should have access to they most certainly are.

-:Undertaker:-
28-11-2010, 12:36 AM
Wait. What? You think Privatisation will save the Government money? No no no, it will cost them money.

Yes it would do so as the state would not be footing the bill, and the state cannot run much at all because as we can see with the NHS itself it is a massive bungling bureaucracy with more managers than doctors/nurses from what I am led to believe. Thus, state waste would be eliminated from the system.


European states see healthcare as a civil right which means the government would always be expected to fund those who can't afford healthcare right? Well can you afford over 7500 a year for healthcare? I certainly can't.

Which is going to come to an end as the population ages across Europe which will spell complete disaster for a group of already bankrupt economies. The second point - you can't now because government taxes us all extreme amounts which are needed to fund the welfare state along with the NHS, the difference being that it costs more now due to government waste, a monopoly on healthcare and the fact that you cannot choose what to spend your own money on.


Currently the UK spends just under 8% of GDP on healthcare whereas in America where they have a far inferior system that many people don't even have they spend over 16% of GDP on healthcare. The fact is that a nationalised industry like healthcare can be much more efficient than a private business because it can buy things en masse and it doesn't attempt to turn a profit. Obviously nationalised industries aren't always a good thing but for things like healthcare which every citizen should have access to they most certainly are.

The reason why the United States spends so much on healthcare is because of the fact that government is now creeping into the healthcare sector, in a real private economy (what we used to have and what the U.S. used to have) healthcare spending would be 0% of GDP. To call the NHS efficent is laughable, the breakup of the NHS would make the system far more efficent - of course it would mean many bureaucrat job losses which I guess is the reason why no government will touch is, jobs for the boys afterall.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!