Big fear in NZ, however unfounded, is that TPPA will somehow try and reduce us to the health care standard in the US :(
The NHS isn't perfect, but the US system is a nightmare that must be defended against.
The assault on NHS funding at all levels is clearly an attempt to gradually have it sold off.
I'm always deeply depressed and even angry at how many people genuinely believe the free market will solve all of our problems.
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/how-to-abolish-the-nhs
Edit: I should point out that I don't agree with them - just pointing out that there are established well funded entities who oppose the NHS - presumably on purely ideological reasons.
But radical regulatory reform is necessary if a dynamic private health sector offering low-cost, high quality and innovative treatment is to emerge.
A private healthcare sector offering low-cost treatment. That never happens in reality.
Did you actually bother to read their recommendations? I can't speak to the NHS, but the second one alone would save a fortune if implemented in the US when you consider how many doctor appointments are scheduled just to obtain prescriptions or to renew them:
> Perhaps most importantly, the compulsory licensing of medical professionals should be abolished. Anyone should be at liberty to practice as a doctor or nurse, with patients relying on brand names or competing voluntary associations to ensure quality. Ending current restrictive practices is essential to enable private firms to increase productivity in the sector.
> Restrictions on the types of treatment available ‘over the counter’ should be lifted to enable patients to obtain medication without recourse to registered doctors and regulated pharmacies.
> Burdensome drug licensing regulations should be rescinded. Instead, the testing of new drugs should be left to private firms and free markets. Reputable companies would have strong economic incentives to ensure the safety of their products, while there would also be far more freedom for experimentation and innovation by new market entrants, with huge potential benefits for patients.
> Prohibited recreational drugs, such as cannabis and opiates, should be legalised to allow the sick to benefit from their numerous medical applications.
> Some form of tax rebate could be introduced for patients choosing to opt out of NHS treatment (see, for example, this study from the Adam Smith Institute).
> Private firms should be free to bring in low-cost medical professionals from abroad and at liberty to determine rates of pay and working conditions through private contract.
> Legal reforms could enable patients to waive their right to clinical negligence claims.
> Planning controls and building regulations should be liberalised to enable the rapid development of new private healthcare facilities.
Most of those recommendations operate under the assumption that private firms can be trusted when unregulated and left to their own devices.
Believing this is to repeat past mistakes.
Private = for profit. Quality of service and public safety are never high on the list of priorities for such firms.
> Legal reforms could enable patients to waive their right to clinical negligence claims
So you can have cheap healthcare, but the quality hasn't been vetted and you can't sue for negligence? That's more or less directly taking us back to the "barbers with dirty hands" era of medicine.
Laser eye surgery is reasonably priced. People usually pay for it directly so there's a functioning market, unlike most of the rest of the health care industry.
A friend had it done, but I've no idea how much he paid.
A free, universal healthcare system should be a primary goal of any civilised society.
The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent.
Just that our system is being eroded and is clearly intended to be consigned to the dustbin of history if the Tories have their way.
What premises lead you to conclude that our highest duty is to guarantee our fellow citizens the unlimited attentions of doctors, surgeons, nurses, chemists, biotechnologists, etc? Keeping in mind, of course, that fellow citizens = collection of complete strangers circumscribed by some invisible line in the dirt.
> The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent.
Surely that's not the only thing standing between society and your goals for it. I might start with the fact that voters have resisted paying for the things you'd like them to pay for.
Our status as a social species that works better when it works together and looks out for other members of the group.
Refusing to contribute to a country's social programs and welfare is basically giving the middle finger to everybody who is less fortunate than yourself. Fuck you, got mine.
How charitable and humanitarian.
We have a much healthier and more productive society when we aren't entirely focused on material self-interest and and irrational fear of strangers or 'welfare scroungers'.
Fair. But why define the relevant group as your countrymen? If you do not believe in positive obligations towards strangers, that definition is overly expansive. If you do believe in such obligations, it's overly restrictive-- third world residents are much poorer and are surely more deserving of your help than anyone inside the UK.
> We have a much healthier and more productive society when we aren't entirely focused on material self-interest and and irrational fear of strangers or 'welfare scroungers'.
There's a large space of actions between fearing strangers and showering them with handouts.
This is the important part of your sentence.
The NHS is government assistance, paid for by everybody's taxes, for the benefit of everybody.
I am absolutely in favour of this, as well as government-provided food and housing.
Without free, universal healthcare those poor people than cannot afford outrageous prices under a US-style insurance system for example are, to put it midly, fucked.
(Spoken as one who is watching the quality health insurance plans disappear from the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) for the coming year.)
What I have seen is Insurance companies just finding loopholes, and doing what "for profit" insurance companies do; make money.
I don't know how the Affordable Care Act is making things worse.
The insurance companies were greedy, selfish bastards before the act? I don't think health care would have magically gotten better with time?
As to Obamacare. No it's not what he originally wanted. Politically, he needed to amend his original bill. At the time the Rebublicans pressure was palatable. He knew it was this, or nothing. An election was comming up, and he knew he wouldn't be able to get anything through next congress.
I'm not a fan of Obamacare, but we were cornered. It was this, or nothing.
I do believe we need to document our complaints about individual Insurance companies, but that will probally never happen. Why--because it's one of those subjects we don't like to think about.
I don't have an answer to the problem of horrid insurance companies, and medical institutions/individuals that overcharge us. I would be the first one pulling the cord on Obamacare if someone could get a better alternative through congress. I don't see that day comming soon.
(To the Doctors/Institutions that don't abuse their power; you have my highest regard. To the ones that accept a medi-cal patient every blue moon; you have my highest regard. To the ones who are just in it for the money, or blame everything on the Insurance companies; some of us see right through the lie.)
This suggests that the providers of medical care are actually the biggest culprits for our out of control healthcare spending and lack of access to affordable care, not the insurance companies, yet your post only passingly blames the former.
Private insurers need to make a profit for distributing risk, and due to there being a lot of them, those risk distributions are much smaller than they could be. Adding a public, non profit "cost + x percent" type plan, say Medicare part E for everyone, would very significantly improve this, particularly if it were allowed to bargain for bulk pricing.
(that we don't allow Medicare to do this is just nuts!)
Private entities also need to make a profit, and there is no meaningful check on this at present. A similar, public non-profit type delivery entity would reduce prices on most common treatments and maintenance activities.
Those wanting to profit on primary care could add value, such as home service, etc... and do it that way, rather than mark up common, mass delivered treatments. Secondly, niche specialization could remain high profit, high value add and more people would be able to afford those services.
Doing something like this would carve a big hole into much of the profit inherent in the US system, which would bring our national costs closer to those found in the rest of the world, while leaving high profit, high value on the table.
Some of us would not be able to afford those high value offerings, but would definitely benefit from much improved access to preventative and or more common, well proven health care.
This is all a compromise. The US could make much better choices and improve both access and outcomes.
More expensive recurring costs per plan, then larger out of pocket cost for the consumer after they visit the doctor, which they are economically discouraged to do. Then, when they absolutely have to go to the doctor, they are bankrupted.
I thought the ACA was supposed to help us away from this shitty system? Seems to have made it much worse... we should have pushed harder for universal healthcare.