Tag Archive: privatisation


The Social Market Foundation claims that forcing patients to pay for appointments would help the NHS to cope in times of financial hardship. Both the government and doctors are against such a move, one doctor says: “All patients have a right to free healthcare that is based on their clinical needs, not the size of their bank balance.”

The Social Market Foundation base their argument on the fact that while funding is guaranteed until 2011, many are expecting the budget to be frozen or cut after that. They state that the only way for the NHS to cope was to raise taxes to put more money into the system, limit demand or work more effectively. Those who support this idea say that charging people would make them think twice about whether their visit was essential, they argue that the move is not about making money but a small charge like this could help reduce appointments by about 5%. They also say that children and those receiving tax credits should not be charged and said the think-tank was opposed to fees being levied on any form of emergency care.

Those who oppose the scheme claim that charging for appointments would undermine the doctor patient relationship and may put some people who need the care from coming to the surgery. They also argue that it is against the founding principles of the NHS, which is free healthcare for all. However there is a flaw in this argument as the NHS already charges for prescriptions and dental treatment.

If the movement to charge patients is introduced are we not simply privatising healthcare? In many other countries there is no free healthcare, but there is help for those on low wages so it could work. It seems to me that we are merely shifting the financial burden to the public. It also means that those who have to see the doctor on a regular basis as a result of an existing conditions such as diabetes would end up spending a fortune

Health care in the United States is provided by several separate legal entities it is estimated that the U.S. spends more on health care than any other nation in the world. In 2007, the U.S. spent a projected $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person. In the U.K that would equate to approximately £3,700 per person. This is due to the sheer size of the U.S.A and the fact that it is divided into many states therefore a system such as the NHS would be impractical.

According to the Institute of Medicine, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. Around 84.7% of U.S citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer, purchased individually or provided by government programs. There are a few publicly-funded health care programs to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor. There is a federal law in place that basically states that the public are entitled to emergency treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

As with any system the U.S healthcare system is not without problems. For example it is estimated that 47 million U.S citizens, 8.7 million of which are children, are without any health insurance with this figure rapidly increasing as employers are shifting the cost to employees who are unable to meet the cost of the premiums. The costs of healthcare are rising at 5 times the rate of inflation. As a result of employers shifting the cost to employees there are strikes taking place all over the U.S such as the Southern California grocery workers’ strike and lockout in which nearly 60,000 workers saved health care benefits and beat back employer demands to freeze pension funds after holding strong on the picket line for five months. Under grocery management’s original proposals, a worker making slightly less than $20,000 a year would have had to pay nearly $5,000 to maintain the same level of benefits they had in the previous contract. Other cost increases hitting workers include larger hikes in the cost of family coverage, less access to needed prescription drugs through stricter HMO formularies and higher prices for more comprehensive coverage. According to the statistics consumers are using more prescriptions, at younger ages and for more conditions, and substituting newer, more expensive medications for established products.

In the U.K on the other hand healthcare is provided by the central government and is mostly free but there a few areas where costs apply; although there are private practices within the healthcare sector. Forming the basis of healthcare in the United Kingdom, each system—National Health Service, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales and the Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland—operates independently, and is politically accountable to the relevant devolved government of Scotland (Scottish Government), Wales (Welsh Assembly Government) and Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland Executive), and to the UK government for England.

The NHS is divided into two sectors the primary sector which includes the following:

  • NHS Direct
  • NHS walk in centres
  • GP practices
  • Dentists
  • Opticians
  • Pharmacists

The secondary sector includes the following:

  • Emergency and urgent care
  • Ambulance Trusts
  • NHS Trusts
  • Mental Health Trusts
  • Care Trusts

The NHS is also not without problems for a start the NHS is over budget in several areas by as much as £105 billion. It is also understaffed. As a result waiting times are at an all time high, although some argue that it is due to the credit crunch and the growing immigration to the U.K. As previously mentioned in the article “The privatization of the NHS” the government’s idea to resolve some of the problems with the NHS is to privatise healthcare; the question is will this actually help or is just a social construction created to justify increasing taxes to make more money for the government?

Everyone unless you are really lucky has had the “pleasure” of an encounter with an arrogant doctor; the type that don’t listen to a word that comes out of your mouth. According to the General Medical Council doctors should face up to the fact that patients now “call the shots”.There are still some doctors who dislike what they perceive as their authority being questioned, they claim that they (the doctors) resent the assertive patients and goes on to say we have to end the state of affairs whereby a minority of patients have to put up with – or worse, be put at risk by – professional practices that are considered by any rational person to be dangerous, offensive or otherwise unacceptable. A classic example of an arrogant doctor is Harold Shipman who actually killed people as a result of his arrogance.

We frequently see articles in the media of “arrogant doctor” involved in some kind of scandal, such as the scandal where doctors in one hospital were removing the organs of children without their parents knowledge or consent; this is affecting people’s perspective of doctors in general; so much so that many people tend to suffer in silence rather than go to the doctors. If the majority of people have this view point then surely privatisation will make it worse as people will take the view that they don’t give a damn and are only there for the money. With negative views like this is it any wonder that the NHS is having problems.

We’ve all seen the media items on this topic but what exactly does it all mean?
According to some articles the UK’s Department of Health (DoH) is seeking urgent help to create a failure regime in the National Health Service, this is because the NHS is apparently over budget in several areas but this can’t be resolved through shifting the managerial responsibility in other words you are simply shifting the problem rather than solving it. Politics of today states that there is a noticeable commitment to the virtues of private enterprise and competition in the free market. However, there is no need for the government to relinquish control of the NHS. General health care for all is a widely accepted as a right in this country. If the government wants to improve the NHS they should raise taxes in order for the public to raise the standard of a national health care service for all. People have always paid for public services through taxation“ this is not a new radical solution. However in the current situation people will resent an increase in taxes as the prices are increasing as a result of the “credit crunch”. The nature of private businesses creates an environment of competition, as a result resources and facilities as companies compete for “business” and consequently facilities and services improve. These “funds” are essential to the NHS system can only raise the standard of treatment patients will receive.

On the other hand the privatisation of the NHS will result in an emphasis on efficiency and profit; the vulnerable and the poorest in society will suffer from such a scenario. The question of prioritising health care and rationing will always favour the rich, since targeting vulnerable groups will be an inefficient use of resources so it will result in the poorer people within society suffering as they will be unable to afford adequate healthcare this will create a vicious circle because the poor will perish then the next “level of in income” will become the poor and so in until eventually you end up in the same situation that you started with. So ultimately “you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t” because you need the funds to resolve some of the issues within the NHS but then a large percentage of society suffers if you privatise so either way you can’t win.