3 ms·

Sure, but time is a limited resource. The less free time you get, the more you want to charge for loss of that free time as it has become more valuable. At one

Sure, but time is a limited resource. The less free time you get, the more you want to charge for loss of that free time as it has become more valuable. At one point that extra session is too expensive for the NHS but not for private companies. Then there is extra capacity in the system. That’s just economics. You could get rid of private care by funding the NHS more than any private company, then doctors wouldn’t want to work for them (excluding all the other reasons people don’t want to work for the NHS). On other reasons to not work for the NHS: culture plays a big part. The NHS is very bureaucratic and slow to change. Private companies have the potential to offer a more positive work culture, flexible hours, etc etc all the normal things that ‘good’ companies to work at do to help offset lower wages that the NHS often doesn’t. Similarly, due to different funding models, private healthcare can give drugs/perform procedures which don’t have a good cost/benefit analysis but the customer doesn’t mind paying for. That’s just more money into the system and one fewer person in the queue waiting for treatment for everyone else. An analogy is helicopter vs train. The free train run by the government is full. Rich guy buys a helicopter ticket. Queue for the train is one person shorter. The government would never fund a helicopter journey as too expensive. So its not even a consideration for the government. You can try push the everything must be NHS or nothing, but we start moving away from a free market economy, and that that’s a whole different argument, and has much bigger impacts than just the NHS.

DanBC 4y ago
> Similarly, due to different funding models, private healthcare can give drugs/perform procedures which don’t have a good cost/benefit analysis but the customer doesn’t mind paying for. Private healthcare causing harm by over-testing, over-diagnosing, and over-treating is not an advantage.
- Engineering-MD 4y ago
  We can completely agree about the dangers of overtesting/diagnosing/testing (which occurs in all health settings), but it’s disingenuous to say that all private health care does. There are plenty of treatments and investigations that are too expensive so NHS doesn’t fund, or wants a trial of a objectively worse but cheaper alternative first to see if works because it’s cheaper and for no other reason. In those cases, they person harmed is the customers wallet, and that is their choice. I’m pro free treatment, but having private healthcare alongside a strong NHS is to my mind a benefit. I would be against private healthcare in situations where they influence the NHS, or NHS trust outsource whole departments to private (which is happening), but private healthcare isn’t always evil.
neilwilson 4y ago
"An analogy is helicopter vs train." That again requires additional capital allocated to rich people. The government can easily ban use of helicopters and force them to accept the same price as a train. Which is what you do if you want to avoid rich people jumping the queue. We're back to the Alton Towers example. "Private companies have the potential to offer a more positive work culture" All NHS GPs are private companies. Always have been. So why not become a full time GP on the NHS? Private medicine uses up scarce resources that can be redployed to the NHS - for the benefit of all. There is no free market economy in healthcare as I said initially. It is supply side limited by the nature of the work. And when a system is supply side limited the 'free market' just means rich people can jump the queue. Their extra money doesn't fundamentally increase supply.

DanBC 4y ago

> Similarly, due to different funding models, private healthcare can give drugs/perform procedures which don’t have a good cost/benefit analysis but the customer doesn’t mind paying for. Private healthcare causing harm by over-testing, over-diagnosing, and over-treating is not an advantage.

Engineering-MD 4y ago
We can completely agree about the dangers of overtesting/diagnosing/testing (which occurs in all health settings), but it’s disingenuous to say that all private health care does. There are plenty of treatments and investigations that are too expensive so NHS doesn’t fund, or wants a trial of a objectively worse but cheaper alternative first to see if works because it’s cheaper and for no other reason. In those cases, they person harmed is the customers wallet, and that is their choice. I’m pro free treatment, but having private healthcare alongside a strong NHS is to my mind a benefit. I would be against private healthcare in situations where they influence the NHS, or NHS trust outsource whole departments to private (which is happening), but private healthcare isn’t always evil.

neilwilson 4y ago

"An analogy is helicopter vs train." That again requires additional capital allocated to rich people. The government can easily ban use of helicopters and force them to accept the same price as a train. Which is what you do if you want to avoid rich people jumping the queue. We're back to the Alton Towers example. "Private companies have the potential to offer a more positive work culture" All NHS GPs are private companies. Always have been. So why not become a full time GP on the NHS? Private medicine uses up scarce resources that can be redployed to the NHS - for the benefit of all. There is no free market economy in healthcare as I said initially. It is supply side limited by the nature of the work. And when a system is supply side limited the 'free market' just means rich people can jump the queue. Their extra money doesn't fundamentally increase supply.