5 ms·

I'm pretty sure a fully privatised, insurance-based healthcare system is exactly what the Tories want. The assault on NHS funding at all levels is clearly an a

by ionised 11y ago

I'm pretty sure a fully privatised, insurance-based healthcare system is exactly what the Tories want. The assault on NHS funding at all levels is clearly an attempt to gradually have it sold off. I'm always deeply depressed and even angry at how many people genuinely believe the free market will solve all of our problems.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jedrek 11y ago
One thing I found funny was that when Obama was pushing through the Affordable Care Act in the US, the GOP was scaring their voters with visions of nationalized hospitals. Around the same time, here in Poland, the right-wing-ish PiS party was scaring its voters with visions of privatized health care.
PlzSnow 11y ago
Don't be depressed and angry. The NHS isn't going to be sold off. No-one thinks that, outside a few extremists on the fringes of the political spectrum.
- pjc50 11y ago
  'Extremists' like the BMJ? http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2996.full http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2996.full
  - anonymous854 11y ago
    I hope the irony of such an article being published in a pay-walled journal wasn't lost on its authors.
- arethuza 11y ago
  I wouldn't describe the IEA as being on the fringes - they apparently have had a fair bit of influence over the years: http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/how-to-abolish-the-nhs http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/how-to-abolish-the-nhs Edit: I should point out that I don't agree with them - just pointing out that there are established well funded entities who oppose the NHS - presumably on purely ideological reasons.
  - ionised 11y ago
    Haha, I like this bit from the article; But radical regulatory reform is necessary if a dynamic private health sector offering low-cost, high quality and innovative treatment is to emerge. A private healthcare sector offering low-cost treatment. That never happens in reality.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - anonymous854 11y ago
      >A private healthcare sector offering low-cost treatment. That never happens in reality. Did you actually bother to read their recommendations? I can't speak to the NHS, but the second one alone would save a fortune if implemented in the US when you consider how many doctor appointments are scheduled just to obtain prescriptions or to renew them: > Perhaps most importantly, the compulsory licensing of medical professionals should be abolished. Anyone should be at liberty to practice as a doctor or nurse, with patients relying on brand names or competing voluntary associations to ensure quality. Ending current restrictive practices is essential to enable private firms to increase productivity in the sector. > Restrictions on the types of treatment available ‘over the counter’ should be lifted to enable patients to obtain medication without recourse to registered doctors and regulated pharmacies. > Burdensome drug licensing regulations should be rescinded. Instead, the testing of new drugs should be left to private firms and free markets. Reputable companies would have strong economic incentives to ensure the safety of their products, while there would also be far more freedom for experimentation and innovation by new market entrants, with huge potential benefits for patients. > Prohibited recreational drugs, such as cannabis and opiates, should be legalised to allow the sick to benefit from their numerous medical applications. > Some form of tax rebate could be introduced for patients choosing to opt out of NHS treatment (see, for example, this study from the Adam Smith Institute). > Private firms should be free to bring in low-cost medical professionals from abroad and at liberty to determine rates of pay and working conditions through private contract. > Legal reforms could enable patients to waive their right to clinical negligence claims. > Planning controls and building regulations should be liberalised to enable the rapid development of new private healthcare facilities.
ctlby 11y ago
They don't believe it will solve "our" problems. They dispute the very premise that they're "ours" to begin with--your healthcare is your problem, no one else's.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ionised 11y ago
  And this is a disgusting attitude to have. A free, universal healthcare system should be a primary goal of any civilised society. The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent.
  - PlzSnow 11y ago
    The UK still has a free, universal healthcare system. Where are you getting your facts from?
    - ionised 11y ago
      I didn't say it didn't. Just that our system is being eroded and is clearly intended to be consigned to the dustbin of history if the Tories have their way.
  - ctlby 11y ago
    > A free, universal healthcare system should be a primary goal of any civilised society. What premises lead you to conclude that our highest duty is to guarantee our fellow citizens the unlimited attentions of doctors, surgeons, nurses, chemists, biotechnologists, etc? Keeping in mind, of course, that fellow citizens = collection of complete strangers circumscribed by some invisible line in the dirt. > The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent. Surely that's not the only thing standing between society and your goals for it. I might start with the fact that voters have resisted paying for the things you'd like them to pay for.

by ionised 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jedrek 11y ago

One thing I found funny was that when Obama was pushing through the Affordable Care Act in the US, the GOP was scaring their voters with visions of nationalized hospitals. Around the same time, here in Poland, the right-wing-ish PiS party was scaring its voters with visions of privatized health care.

PlzSnow 11y ago

Don't be depressed and angry. The NHS isn't going to be sold off. No-one thinks that, outside a few extremists on the fringes of the political spectrum.

pjc50 11y ago
'Extremists' like the BMJ? http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2996.full http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2996.full
- anonymous854 11y ago
  I hope the irony of such an article being published in a pay-walled journal wasn't lost on its authors.
arethuza 11y ago
I wouldn't describe the IEA as being on the fringes - they apparently have had a fair bit of influence over the years: http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/how-to-abolish-the-nhs http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/how-to-abolish-the-nhs Edit: I should point out that I don't agree with them - just pointing out that there are established well funded entities who oppose the NHS - presumably on purely ideological reasons.
- ionised 11y ago
  Haha, I like this bit from the article; But radical regulatory reform is necessary if a dynamic private health sector offering low-cost, high quality and innovative treatment is to emerge. A private healthcare sector offering low-cost treatment. That never happens in reality.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - anonymous854 11y ago
    >A private healthcare sector offering low-cost treatment. That never happens in reality. Did you actually bother to read their recommendations? I can't speak to the NHS, but the second one alone would save a fortune if implemented in the US when you consider how many doctor appointments are scheduled just to obtain prescriptions or to renew them: > Perhaps most importantly, the compulsory licensing of medical professionals should be abolished. Anyone should be at liberty to practice as a doctor or nurse, with patients relying on brand names or competing voluntary associations to ensure quality. Ending current restrictive practices is essential to enable private firms to increase productivity in the sector. > Restrictions on the types of treatment available ‘over the counter’ should be lifted to enable patients to obtain medication without recourse to registered doctors and regulated pharmacies. > Burdensome drug licensing regulations should be rescinded. Instead, the testing of new drugs should be left to private firms and free markets. Reputable companies would have strong economic incentives to ensure the safety of their products, while there would also be far more freedom for experimentation and innovation by new market entrants, with huge potential benefits for patients. > Prohibited recreational drugs, such as cannabis and opiates, should be legalised to allow the sick to benefit from their numerous medical applications. > Some form of tax rebate could be introduced for patients choosing to opt out of NHS treatment (see, for example, this study from the Adam Smith Institute). > Private firms should be free to bring in low-cost medical professionals from abroad and at liberty to determine rates of pay and working conditions through private contract. > Legal reforms could enable patients to waive their right to clinical negligence claims. > Planning controls and building regulations should be liberalised to enable the rapid development of new private healthcare facilities.

ctlby 11y ago

They don't believe it will solve "our" problems. They dispute the very premise that they're "ours" to begin with--your healthcare is your problem, no one else's.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ionised 11y ago
And this is a disgusting attitude to have. A free, universal healthcare system should be a primary goal of any civilised society. The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent.
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  The UK still has a free, universal healthcare system. Where are you getting your facts from?
  - ionised 11y ago
    I didn't say it didn't. Just that our system is being eroded and is clearly intended to be consigned to the dustbin of history if the Tories have their way.
- ctlby 11y ago
  > A free, universal healthcare system should be a primary goal of any civilised society. What premises lead you to conclude that our highest duty is to guarantee our fellow citizens the unlimited attentions of doctors, surgeons, nurses, chemists, biotechnologists, etc? Keeping in mind, of course, that fellow citizens = collection of complete strangers circumscribed by some invisible line in the dirt. > The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent. Surely that's not the only thing standing between society and your goals for it. I might start with the fact that voters have resisted paying for the things you'd like them to pay for.