Keep our NHS public

[drew]

This shows a total misunderstanding of economics.

The question is what those returns are, and who they are for. Private companies are, by definition in a free market system, looking to make a profit. They will therefore (in exchange for participation in the free market) demand a share of the returns from the allocation of resources.

When you speak of "returns" it sounds like you are talking about the profits for the provider. But there is another side to the "returns". The product or service. The provider will make money, and they should. They earn that money by providing the service, so half of the "returns" of a free market system are in the form of the product or service provided to the consumer. This is in fact the main "return" that we should be concerned about. The provider only gets their "return" as a result of being attractive to the consumer, meaning they must be competitive on price and quality.

The way you seem to be looking at this is that somehow if someone makes a profit, that would take money out of the sector. So when government spends money on healthcare, does anyone profit? contracts are handed out, and the government pays for them. They tend to be quite expensive too.

The first fundamental question is to what degree that share of returns taken out of the system by the private company counteracts the benefits of a more efficient allocation of resources.

You also seem to think that the efficient allocation of resources is secondary to "returns" being "taken out of the system". Do you not see that the efficient allocation of resources is what will achieve the lowest cost and the best quality?

And that's without even considering the question of 'fairness' (which I suspect that you'd say shouldn't be considered).

Yes that's right, because I advocate a free market I do not care about people and have shares in a private medical company. The fairest thing for everyone would be to let people make their own economic decisions, and to let the market do what men with good intentions and grand ideas cannot do.

You can only make economic decisions if you have the funds available to do so. That was why the NHS was created in the first place.

As for being an advocate of a totally free market are you also against government regulation of that free market?

 

[dingodan]

You can only make economic decisions if you have the funds available to do so. That was why the NHS was created in the first place.

As for being an advocate of a totally free market are you also against government regulation of that free market?

The government takes funds from you, poorly directs those funds, and at the same push up the cost of medicine.

The free market is the strongest regulator.

 

[drew]

The government takes funds from you, poorly directs those funds, and at the same push up the cost of medicine.

The free market is the strongest regulator.

Where has there ever been a free unregulated market with the highest standards/quality at the lowest cost? In your unregulated healthcare market, anyone can call themselves a doctor and more worryingly, anyone can be surgeon. Who knows, they could even operate on member of your family before you found out.Still, in your world that's a small price to pay for a freemarket.

.

 

[dingodan]

In your unregulated healthcare market, anyone can call themselves a doctor and more worryingly, anyone can be surgeon. Who knows, they could even operate on member of your family before you found out.Still, in your world that's a small price to pay for a freemarket.

.

Yes, that is what a free market means.

You are an idiot.

 

[RexCathedra]

Baruch atah ha Shuk, ha dayan emet.

You can't refute a theology.

 

[drew]

Yes, that is what a free market means.

You are an idiot.

Very clever response! Back to the real world.

 

[beorhthelm]

The government takes funds from you, poorly directs those funds, and at the same push up the cost of medicine.

you seem to be holding a misconceived idea that health care services set the charges for medicine. if anything medicines are the one part of healthcare that is mostly free markets: there are a range of products and one can chose which to purchase to suit your needs and wallet. often they are very expensive due to the massive research and development costs that need to be recouped, just like the latest car or computer chip. but thats not the fault of the health care system, and i wonder why you confuse the two seperate issues.

still waiting for an example of a fully private equitable, affordable, good quality healthcare system for us to set the standard. just because you think it shoud exist, doesn't mean it can or could exist.

 

[dingodan]

you seem to be living with the misunderstanding that health care services set the charges for medicine. if anything medicines are the one part of healthcare that is mostly free markets: you have a range of products and can chose which to purchase to suit your needs and wallet. often they are very expensive due to the massive research and development costs that need to be recouped, just like the latest car or computer chip. but thats not the fault of the health care system, and i wonder why you confuse the two seperate issues.

Ever notice that the cost of cars and computer chips goes down over time, while the quality improves? < This is a good example of market forces at work.

Healthcare products and services are expensive, and the costs are increasing while the quality is falling < because the government throws huge and ever increasing sums of money at the health system, without dealing with the inherent problems that come with central planning and monopoly control.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ever notice that the cost of cars and computer chips goes down over time, while the quality improves? < This is a good example of market forces at work.

this happens with pharmacuticals too. these products are just as exposed to market forces as anything else, with competitors, decreasing cost bases over time and generic copies available. Public healthcare does not cause expensive drugs, m'kay. the problems you highlight in healthcare provision are due to increased demand, and many simply couldnt keep pace without socialised funding. even in private healthcare insurance the same principle is being applied, many pay in more than they take out.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

... too many managers ...

I'd be grateful if someone could explain how replacing a single Primary Care Trust with lots of small consortiums of General Practitioners will achieve anything other than diverting the attention of qualified doctors away from providing medical care and into that new profession called "contract management".

 

[Castello]

“Drop the Health Bill” - e-petitions

I had already signed it, but thanks

 

[fly high]

I'd be grateful if someone could explain how replacing a single Primary Care Trust with lots of small consortiums of General Practitioners will achieve anything other than diverting the attention of qualified doctors away from providing medical care and into that new profession called "contract management".

I wouldn't disagree with you. Will it work? How will it work? They claim pilot schemes have gone well but it's such a big change no one will know for sure, including the Government, if it's a good or bad thing until it's been up & running for a few years. This is not the first time the NHS has been 're-structured' & you can bet your life it won't be the last.

 

[drew]

Ever notice that the cost of cars and computer chips goes down over time, while the quality improves? < This is a good example of market forces at work.

Healthcare products and services are expensive, and the costs are increasing while the quality is falling < because the government throws huge and ever increasing sums of money at the health system, without dealing with the inherent problems that come with central planning and monopoly control.

So which healthcare products and services are of a lower quality? Surely there are far more treatments for far more conditions than there ever have been. There are better treatments for injuries and better outcomes than before for many things. So out of interest, what evidence are you using to support your argument that quality is falling?

I'd be grateful if someone could explain how replacing a single Primary Care Trust with lots of small consortiums of General Practitioners will achieve anything other than diverting the attention of qualified doctors away from providing medical care and into that new profession called "contract management".

Because the people currently working at the PCT doing commissioning will probably be employed by the GPs to do the same job for them. The bill headlines that it is going to reduce layers of management but it is also going to introduce other layers!!!!