I only have limited experience with and knowledge of the NHS (I spent a semester at St. Andrews in college but other than a general check up never made use of NHS services), so I can't really give much in the way of detailed information, but I'd point to the US Healthcare industry which, franky I think is a disaster, (costs way more, and doesn't have much in the way of better outcomes for the population as a whole) and say that privatizing the healthcare system is a bad idea.

That being said, I understand there are a number of countries that have privately run but heavily regulated healthcare that works quite well.

Finally, what is meant by "privatize" the NHS? Does it mean privatizing the hospitals and healthcare providers while leaving the insurance aspects of things public (like say Canada)? Or does it mean the opposite, leaving hospitals and such public but privatizing the insurance? Or privatizing everything? Which one it is will presumably effect the direction the debate goes in and would probably lead to more cogent advice from people here.

Sorry I couldn't really be of more help but I live in the US and so only have so much knowledge of the specifics of the health care system over there in the UK.

The problem is that its up the the 1st proposition speaker to decide the definition, and the answer to your question, I'm the opposition.
I think it would be harder to argue against not privatizing the insurance but only the hospitals...
How would you argue against that?

Sadly, I'm staunchly against the NHS, so might not be much use to you in defending the damned thing.

Well you could argue that privatizing the hospitals will lead to runaway costs for the public insurance system if they're allowed to determine their own prices. You could also argue that the quality of care might decline as the private hospitals etc. look for ways to cut costs and increase profits rather than provide the best care.

This is not necessarily what would actually happen but it seems like the best way to argue against such a system.

nhs? do you mean obama's healthcare proposal?

If they go for a government paid system with private hospitals, point out that that removes the consumer's incentives to go for a reasonable cost care, meaning run away costs.

You could also go on about how postcode lotteries would result for those in more rural areas.

"nhs? do you mean obama's healthcare proposal?"

Unless that was satirical, no, he probably means NHS.

i live in england
i don't understand your point about lotteries, sorry, could you explain it?

Post-Code lottery:

If you have a rather less densely populated area, there will be only one hospital. That one hospital means that the private company can do whatever they like with the quality of care and just maximise profit, because they essentially have a captive market. It is pot luck whether you get a good or a bad hospital.

sorry GhostM., I have not an idea what NHS stands for... other than something relating to health?

great point TheGhostmaker (so your name is in bold), that had never crossed m mind.

National Health Service
Its a state run health service in England that gives everyone access to free health, completely paid for by taxes.
You have all health access whether you're rich or poor.
You cna choose to pay for private health as well

The NHS covers the whole UK, Dave, not just England.

my bad, you're right. This game has made me think its all England
(just joking)

I am in favour of the NHS whilst accepting there needs to be changes.

Firstly with regard to postcode lotteries, I think I have a different understanding of them to Ghost's understanding. My understanding is that Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) the local part of the NHS have some automomy in deciding which are the priorities for it's area. A PCT in kent may decide that sexual health needs targeting, a Glasgow PCT may decide that smoking prevention needs more money spent on it etc. What this means is that different areas have different resources and policies across the country. If we look at the consqences of this we see things like vast differences in fertility treatments between sometimes different sides of the same road. The odd house numbers being offered 3 courses of fertility treatment almost on demand, and the even house numbers being offered only 1 course if the woman is over 35. This results in what I understand to be the postcode lottery, ie you get different chances of receiving the same treatment based on your postcode.

This lottery is easily overcome by making health care decissions nationally, but this takes away the local decission making.

Whilst on the subject of fertility treatment, this highlights an area where the NHS fails, in my opinion. The NHS should be for health care and not elective treatment. Many people rightly object to their taxes been used to pay for somebody to have an elective treatment such as fertility treatment when other things like cancer drugs are rationed because of cost.

I don't fully understand the Ghost's point that the consumers don't have any incentives to drive down costs. Firstly they are not 'consumers' they are paitents whilst we can argue that thy 'consume' the service, by calling them consumers means you could miss the point that paitents care about quality, quality and quality whereas traditional consumers of say TVs care about quality and price. People do not put a price on good health care, when it come to treatment they want the best for themselves and their families and friends. Whoever heard of a surgeon offering a price list? "Well Sir we can restore you sight for £30,000.00 or get the cleaner to have a go in a dirty Hospital for £150.00, the chances are only 10% that you will see again but I'm sure you agree that satistically that is good value for money?"

On the matter of insurance it makes sense for us to collectively pay the budget for what we need in terms of health care and here is why. Insurance works because someone asseses how much the average person will spend on health care over their lifetime and then calculates a premium to cover these costs. But they (the insurers) need (a) to charge for the administration of this scheme and (b) need to make a profit. Both of these become an additional cost to the care provided and doesn't lead to any cost savings or effecencies. It is cheaper therefore just to pay for health care out of general taxation.

I mentioned earlier that I would change some aspects of the NHS, the first one would be withdrawing the right to elective treatments, (doctors will be decide what is and isn't elective not MPs) secondly I would exempt the NHS from ever being sued. I know this sounds radical, but think about it the billions spent in lawyers and compensation payouts is scandlelous. If the NHS couldn't be sued not only is that money saved but each error can be looked at properly and action taken to prevent a re-occurance rather than trying to cover up errors or fear of being sued.

Some other arguments for the NHS are (1) Training, the NHS spends a fortune of training and pays the course fees and bursaries to doctors, nurses, etc attending universities. Would they continue to do this if half of the students went into private practice? (2) care is provided on a needs basis not on the ability to pay. A society is judged on how compassionate it is towards the people who have difficulties, I am proud that my country looks after terminally ill children without ever asking their parents to pay 1 penny. I know tht thir are inefeciencies in any large organisation and the NHS could be improved, but the fact that people are cared for when they need it most is truly priceless and our NHS tradition is something we can be proud of.

Maniac - well argued. God how I wish I lived in a society that valued empathy and a conscience... its sad but here in the US, about half of the population actually thinks of 'selfishness' as a virtue... it really makes me ashamed of my countrymen sometimes.

I am a keen supporter of the NHS. It is a wonderful system. I think that our country's commitment to provide free healthcare to everyone is a marvellous statement of our values. I would be happy to see the state take control of a lot more essential services. The railways would be a good place to start, as well as the supply of electricity, gas and water. These are all services which are essential to many people (or pretty much everyone in the case of water) and where privatisation has neither impoved efficiency or reduced the price of the service.

Maniac- post code lotteries exist in the NHS too, I'm just saying that you can argue that the NHS protects to an extent against them.

"Its a state run health service in England that gives everyone access to free health"

No it ****ing doesn't! This is want I hate about this debate. It isn't free, since the start of this week, it has cost over £1 billion!

The NHS is actually split into NHS England, NHS Scotland and NHS Wales. Northern Ireland doesn't have an NHS I don't think.

@Ghost, my post was about postcode lotteries in the NHS, I agree they exist it is just our understandings of whet they are seems to differ slightly.

I agree with you that health care in the NHS is not free, it is very expensive, the point is it is free at the point of use and probably cheaper than most comparible countries for the level of treatment offered. However, I don't seek to defend the NHS solely on economic grounds, there is (in my opinion) a principle at stake and that is how we treat our sick and most vunerable. I think it is money well spent. Although I do conceed that money could be better spent and the NHS shouldn't be immune from change and modernisation.

"a principle at stake"

The principle is, I presume, specifically to remove pain from, protect and prolong the lives of those who are in our country who are in need of our support?

the principle is that health should be a universal right and should be received based on how much people need it rather than how much people can afford it.
In things as basic as health society should function such that the more successful help the less fortunate

Why specifically health though? What does healthcare do? Prolong, protect and make more comfortable the lives of the recipient. Are you picking on health as an exception to the rule or an example of it.

an example. but also suggesting that it is one of the most important an fundamental places in which the principle should be upheld

Healthcare supports and upholds the most basic of human rights. The right to live. That is why it is so important.

dave bishop, you aren't from Toronto are you?

no, London

whew, for a moment there I thought you were someone that stole my identity once. =P

you're called dave bishop?
oh, did a guy with my name steal your identity.
Would i tell you if it was me?
You'll never know for sure...

being a liberal socialist (of sorts) i think i agree with some things, health care should be provided to those who need it. However I would acutally require that they both need AND want it. There no need to prolong life and suffering when people are terminally ill and see death as a release from their suffering.

Now i don't know if that was what Ghostmaker was getting at, but the principle i agree with. Basically we all exist as part of a society. This society cares for and protects us, therefore we do the same for it. Is there talk about privatising the police forces? do you have the option of hiring a private investigator?

I am of the opinion that if any individual has nothing invested in society, once it becomes of no value to them, they would have no reason to care about protecting or promoting it.

if you want to live in a disaffected, uncaring society, where every man fights for themself, and sues at the first sign of infraction, please by all means move to america. Then you can even protect yourself from all the other disaffected individuals - who care only about themselves and promoting themselves - with a gun.