Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
If a state-controlled system can treat 6 out of 10 terminal cancer patients for a given amount of money, and a private system can treat 9 out of 10, with the same money, but then also financially reward the people who made that efficiency possible, under which system are more people going without treatment?
|
State controlled of course.
I'm not sure how this applies to the real world. I've never heard of a health service that only treats terminal cancer patients. The NHS has fantastic efficacy compared to private healthcare providers. The USA spends about $2tn on health insurance per year whereas the uk spends about £120bn on the NHS. Calculating exchange rate and adjusting for population the Americans spend over twice the amount per person and don't get nearly as much coverage as we do here in the UK.
£4£ you can have profit, or treatment, not both. Sorry.
---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
I'd rather have spending accountable to those who are paying, and an independent non-political body such as, hmm, an Office of Budgetary Responsibility say, to ensure that unrealistic amounts aren't being spend as bribes at the ballot box to the detriment of both public finances and efficiency of healthcare provision.
Not that this ever happens of course 
I disagree that profit and healthcare are completely incompatible. At the front line I would agree that it's a precarious relationship and healthcare will never be super profitable however profit and quality are not always on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Certainly there is profit to be made from support services. Doing things well reduces their cost to provide, splitting the difference on that saving between the health service and the provider of support means government saves and profit is made.
The ideal is, of course, that the NHS can handle everything itself as well or better than if it were reduced in size via segmentation or private companies involved. This is also not the case, the bigger the NHS gets in terms of staff and spending the less and less value it provides for that money. |
If the NHS can find a way to have everyone treated for anything they need without there being a waiting time AND the need for investment in new equipment becomes redundant, I'll think it's time for profit to be made from healthcare. But then, surely it would just be better to either reduce taxation or lower spending.
---------- Post added at 13:34 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
Actually i think the opposite is true.Healthcare is a money spinner ,from the drug companies ,insurance companies,suppliers of machinery,everything a hospital needs to operate is a cashcow for those involved .A private hospital will always make a healthy profit ,it's the NHS hospitals that lose out because they operate within a tight budget whilst having to cope with price rises from their suppliers
|
A private hospital makes a profit because it doesn't have to provide for those who can't pay to anywhere near the extent that NHS hospitals do.