What Are the Arguments In Favour Of Private Health Care?
Privatisation is a word which is commonly used to describe the
practice of medical patients 'going private' and paying for the
services of GPs, hospital doctors or hospital provision, rather than
using the NHS. Privatisation can also be used to describe the charge
imposed for such health care services such as drugs, appliances,
dentures and spectacles.
There are many arguments which are in favour of private health care in
Britain, such as that private treatment is not the luxury that most
people seem to think it is. Most people believe it is a treatment that
only rich people can afford. This however, is simply not true as
patients in the independent sector now represent a cross section
through group insurance schemes.
Another positive side to private health care is that a lot of pressure
is taken away from the NHS when people turn to private medicine. The
NHS receives much needed additional income from private patients who
use their 'pay beds'. Also, a number of hospitals offer courses in
basic nurse training and post qualification specialist training. This
can also benefit the NHS as these nurses can leave the private sector
at any time to work for the NHS if they wish.
Private practices enable hospital consultants to receive enough
earnings similar to those they could gain from working the same job
abroad. This helps prevent the so-called 'brain drain' of our much
needed hospital consultants. Additionally private hospitals and
private insurance companies have, in the past, donated pieces of
equipment to the to the NHS hospitals, to be used by both the public
and private patients.
Another factor that supports the argument of private heal...
... middle of paper ...
...tates that PFI is a vital part
of its plans to expand and modernise the public sector and that using
the private sector can mean better value for money. PFI has now become
Labour's favourite way of paying for new schools and hospitals and
they are soon to expand it to cover projects such as roads and
bridges. The government have promised that under PFI, the extra cash
the government is pouring into the NHS and other public services, will
not be wasted and they will also make it possible to buy back
buildings when PFI contracts expire and return them to public control.
As you can see, there are many advantages to private health care and
PFI, despite the number of people who continually criticise the
system. As with all projects, there are disadvantages and flaws,
however the government are continually working on ways in which to
improve the organization.
While most countries around the world have some form of universal national health care system, the United States, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, does not. There are much more benefits to the U.S. adopting a dorm of national health care system than to keep its current system, which has proved to be unnecessarily expensive, complicated, and overall inefficient.
The original ethos behind the NHS was the belief that, through the provision of universal and complete health care, free at the point of provision, the NHS would eliminate significant disease and thereby work itself out of a job. Clearly a naive view by today's standards, this ethic remains one of the problems of the NHS today: the electorate still believes that there is intrinsic value in a universal and complete NHS, although no-one can agree on exactly what constitutes 'complete' health care, and none can say what the actual benefit of attempting to provide this (rather than rationed care)...
Being a Canadian citizen, it is hard for me to think of life without any health insurance. I have had public health insurance all my life growing up and have been free to go to any hospital at any time and get some form of health care. Residing in the United States off and for the last 7 years I have experienced health care from both sides. I feel that private health care has huge advantages over public health care. In the following essay I will explain in three points why I feel strongly about private health care as opposed to public. What is better is always subjective, and I will not try to argue the point of health for all, but instead for the individual who is seeking the best health care possible, and is willing to put the resources into obtaining that. I will be addressing efficiency and quality, not inclusion of everyone (free health care), I will be addressing the root of this and not just that one argument, which would detract from my focus. I will not be getting into the political debate of socialism vs. capitalism, as that is a separate argument in itself, and this country is currently running under capitalism. Again coming from living in both a socialist and then a capitalist society, I feel I can do so in an unbiased manner.
With increasing concerns of debts and deficits, Canada’s publicly funded health care system has recently become the target of fiscal attack. Efforts to reform and restructure the system have produced few results. Currently, some governments throughout the country are looking towards a more radical approach. An approach that would see not only the reform and restructuring of the method of operation of the current system, but that would change the system entirely. The proposed idea? In Alberta, it is to increase the role of the private sector in the current system.
2008, p. 144); in other words, the privatisation is a policy run and controlled by the government, this privatisation movement was based on human rights, control of prices and the regulations of the health services and social care in order to promote better outcomes and better standards of care.
Preventative medicine comes with the potential for making our lives both better and worse. Today the world in which we live in has faced steady medicalization of daily existence. Many factors have contributed to the rise of medicalization. For instance the loss in religion, the increase of faith in science, rationality, progress, increased prestige and the power of the medical profession. The medical profession and the expansion of medical jurisdiction were prime movers for medicalization. Medicalization has also occurred through social movements. Doctors are not the only ones involved in medicalization now, patients are active collaborators in the medicalization of their problem. Critics try to argue for or against the idea that this leads to a favorable versus a non -favorable outcome. This increased establishment and development of medicine, including technoscience, has resulted in a major threat to health. The medicalization of normal conditions, risks the creation of medical diagnoses that are widely inclusive and that hold the potential for further expansion. Many biologically normal conditions, like shortness, menopause, and infertility, are currently considered medical problems. These naturally occurring states are now regarded as undesirable and deviant. This process is referred to as medicalization. Although they are considered deviant, however, the process of medicalization also removes culpability: a person’s problems can be ascribed to a chemical imbalance rather than seen as reflecting his or her character or accomplishments. Some of the articles I will be looking into are Dumit’s “Drugs for life” as well as Healy’s “Pharmageddon” and Cassel’s “Selling Sickness” to explore if this process of overmedicalization has le...
The public health care system in Canada is still flawed, proven through the wait times that many patients have to go through. Canadians may wait up to six to nine months for “non-urgent” MRIs . The waiting list is dreary for Canadians, unlike Americans who can get their services immediately through paying out-of-pocket, the long public sector in Alberta waits up to a year for services, the wait for cataract surgery was six weeks ; these waits for some patients put the public health care system to shame, and helps push the idea of the privatized health care system a bettering option for the future of the nation. Additionally, 41 percent of adult Canadians said they experienced a difficulty in accessing hospital and physician care on weekday nights and weekends . Furthermore, it is still evident that Canadians in fact pay a higher income tax compared to Americans, due to the fact that they are paying the fund the health care system through their taxes; however, it is still significantly less to pay for a public health care system than it is privatized . Privatization is further proved as a superior choice with regards to the discharge situation many Canadians face. In Canada, it is common to see patients discharged earlier than recommended due the rising amount of patients using the free-of-charge public health care system, patients are released “quicker and sicker” because of this . Additionally, when discharged, the public health care system does not cover home care and private nurse care ; further proving the notion that there is still some forms of privatization already in the health care system in
Privatizing healthcare will impact those who can afford full coverage, and those who can only afford minimal coverage. It will also affect small businesses who won’t be forced to provide healthcare to their employees, a huge expense that would save money, and allow for the hiring of new staff. Overall, better treatment will be provided if the government is removed from the equation. By allowing healthcare businesses to compete with each other, limits will be pushed to accommodate patients. Providers will work to find new cures and new methods of treatment, in order to draw more customers to them. The private healthcare system will compensate doctors and medical professionals for their skill and abilities, and the better they treat their patients, the
One of many solutions to help families to be able to afford health care is public option. This is an alternative solution to affordable healthcare for all. This works by having a government-run healthcare program which are exclusively available to two groups that lack employer provided health insurance. This program is also available to low income families or individuals. This program is sold just like how private companies sell their insurance in a New Health Insurance Exchange. The system is designed so that private companies are not able to take advantage of customers and opening a wider range of choices to choose from. Keeping costs down and premiums low helps avoid the problem of losing customers.
Universal health care is an on going debate that we still cannot decide whether or not to be for or against. In the article for universal healthcare states that we should use it because it is a constitutional right because citizens are granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the argument against universal healthcare states that it can increase our countries debt. In conclusion if we were to have universal healthcare it could either help our country immensely or not help at all.
“For the wealthiest country in the world… to not have figured out access to basic healthcare as a fundamental right for individuals, I think is a little bit of a national embarrassment.” (John Jay Shannon, MD, CEO of Cook County Health & Hospitals System (Chicago). Although the United States spends the most money on healthcare, as of 2016 they ranked 37th according to the World Health Organization which puts us behind 36th other countries. This proves that the United States healthcare system compared to other countries in not a very good system.
Health care reform was a major part of President Obama’s campaign when he was first running back in 2008. The primary objectives of the reform are to provide healthcare coverage for all uninsured Americans and decrease the costs of healthcare services and coverage.
Should the United States have universal healthcare? Universal healthcare means that everyone has access to the health services they need without financial hardship when paying for them. “The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide health care to all its citizens” (Institute of Medicine). The United States is one nation and every citizen should have access to affordable healthcare. Under universal healthcare it should help reduce spending on healthcare, improve the public health, and increase in economic productivity. There will also be a brief overview on the opposing viewpoint of why universal healthcare is a bad idea for America following the details in the sentence above.
This essay will examine the following statement in relation to reforms proposed in the Health and Social Care Bill 2011 “Funding and delivering high quality health and social care services is problematic to all governments irrespective of political persuasions” I will provide an overview of the bill and investigate through critical analysis recommendations in the Bill for clinically-led commissioning. This will enable me to illustrate the problems in delivering a high quality care service that is needed by the changing society and the challenges this causes policy makers who uphold the ideology of the NHS.
...staff would not be required to put in the overtime to compensate for the lack of workers. Patients would no longer have to suffer the neglect of the staff because he or she was too busy. Making sure the patient gets the best quality care reduces the time spent for recovery. Reducing the time spent for recovery increases the organization’s finances. Providing a safe facility also reduces the expenses on the private hospital’s budget. Ensuring a patient is safe can reduce potential use of ongoing treatment and services. Hiring the appropriate nursing staff needed can save the organization money. Instead of cutting back on staff, more staff needs to be hired to fulfil the needs of the patient. In the economy today, private hospitals need to focus on the overall long term effects of each action opposed to quick reactions resulting in financial strain for the facility.