Private Healthcare


Should we ban the use of private health insurance/private healthcare?

Some people may argue that private health insurance/private healthcare highlights everything wrong with our society, rich people are getting (arguably) better, with better options, and (definitely) faster treatment.

However, the flip side of the argument is that with more people on private healthcare there is less of a strain on our public services. There is an argument that public healthcare should only be there for those that really need it/can’t afford private.

What are your thoughts on this?


How far will this healthcare and public services go? Those on private are receiving “faster treatment” and “better options”. Will those on public healthcare receive the same treatments?


To make public healthcare affordable for the government, and to keep costs down, there are set treatments. In the NHS we have the NICE which overseas what treatments are provided, and little choices are given. According to The Undercover Economist it is NICE policy that, if both eyes are going blind/whatever they treat one eye, and allow the other to go blind - not sure if that policy is still in place. If one were to go private, one would get both eyes should they so choose to pay for it.


Well, considering practically everyone will need some sort of healthcare in their life, and even if not everybody uses it, healthcare has extremely inelastic demand and is something that is rather important. I would say universal healthcare is worth it, and if you want to mitigate some of the costs, a universal multi-payer system with rate setting should work fine.


Hopefully not. That’s a poor policy.

What would be the difference if the policy changed? How much of a strain it would it actually be on the government?


Difficult to say, unfortunately I don’t know.


You haven’t answered the question. Should we ban private healthcare?



However, I should say. Think of the costs involved in having specialised doctors on hand for rare treatments, the cost of setting up this infrastructure, combined with the increase costs in healthcare.


Aye. Well if it wasn’t that much more of a burden, I think the policy and treatments should go further. I don’t think it’s right for people to have their issues partially treated and the more affluent have them in full, just because they have the resources to do so. More should be done.


I don’t think we should ban private institutions entirely. There should be some private options along with a public system.


“let’s remove alternatives to public healthcare and increase the burden without increasing revenue streams”

no thanks


Still better then US policy tho where they just let you go blind altogether.

Generally speaking when a nation adopts universal healthcare its assumed it has the responsbility to act on health in other ways, for example banning overly sugary foods. Which actually is a major reason why europeans pay less in healthcare aside from universal being cheaper. They simply have less health issues.


False dichotomy. There are not two systems of healthcare in the world.

Are you sure? I thought the costs of US healthcare were mostly down to receiving treatments that they didn’t need, and the overbearing after care. For example a full body scan to see if you had testicular cancer, instead of just a scan in one area.


Yes but in the context of the post its still sound.

Those are definite factors but things that cause health issues to begin with are less prevelant in europe, meaning less doctor and hospital visits, which results in lower costs, the obesity rate in europe is far far lower as well, and thats a chief case of poor health in the USA today. [quote=“John, post:13, topic:112115”]
For example a full body scan to see if you had testicular cancer, instead of just a scan in one area.

Lol fucking capitalists, to understand your balls we need to see the whole body


if you have the money you should be allowed to pay for sure, and of course this eases the burden on the socialised medicine system