Classical Liberalism 101: Take 1 -- Healthcare in the UK

in business •  7 years ago  (edited)

Today, I am trying something new, though I have been cooking up the whole grand scheme for a few weeks or months, so I hope you like it :)

So far, I have mainly posted my photographs and a few lyrics and poems, but I am also an editor (and a damn good one at that!!!). Thus, I have decided to post articles that my translation team or I have translated and that I have edited. Taking a Libertarian slant, most of the articles in this series will deal with economic, political, and social issues. All sources and contributors will be mentioned explicitly below ...
This article was written and translated by @nikolayfilibev -- one of my former students and currently a 3rd-year student of Financial Economics at the University of Dundee, Scotland -- and has been published previously by ЕКИП (ECEP, Expert Club of Economics and Politics) in Sofia, Bulgaria. https://ekipbg.com/nhs-failure/

_doctor-1149149_1920.jpg


The Failure of the Centralised Healthcare System in the United Kingdom

The National Health Service in the UK was created after the end of WWII as the crown jewel of Labour. Although among the most developed countries, UK has its fair share of problems with regards to healthcare. They are far bigger than what the politicians are willing to debate over or act upon. Lately their actions have worsened the system, and their proposal to lift the pay cap would only enlarge the black hole that is the NHS. It is suffering from chronic problems which are typical of a centralised and ineffective system.
Free Service at a Steep Price
Although, at first glance, it appears almost completely free at the point of use — except for NHS Scotland where even prescriptions are free of charge — reports show that the health service is taking a heavy toll on the taxpayer. In 2016/17, the budget for the entire system is a staggering £122.6 billion, and while that sum might seem like a lot, it is highly insufficient in its current state. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, NHS’s budget must be increased by 4% above inflation every year to help it cope with population increases, patient demand, and medical advances. This increase will inevitably be covered by a surge in National Insurance rates, which even now consume about 8% of the mean income in the UK.
Social Scotland Approaching Labour’s Dream
NHS Scotland totally covers the expenses for healthcare users’ needs and partly those for other services. Due to the structure of NHS funding in the UK, the Scottish NHS receives £1200 per capita above the national average. Even so, this system is far from the utopia it is dreamed to be. As far as GPs are concerned, the service is poor, even in comparison with the poorest EU member state (which also happens to be my home) — Bulgaria. After scheduling an appointment, the wait usually takes between 1 and 2 weeks. The alternative is to call early in the morning on the same day, often unsuccessfully. Furthermore, patients are frequently limited by their GPs to discuss only 1-2 of their medicals problems at a time, leaving other complaints for another visit.
Failed Digital Reform
The attempt to create a digital patient record system came to a crashing end 4 years ago. The total amount wasted was nearly £10 billion, which was several times more expensive than expected. This failure is one of the biggest and most expensive ones in the history of public procurement spending. The mistakes of the ruling class are that they 1) tried to create a unified centralised system and 2) vastly underestimated the considerable amount of funding it would take to create and maintain such an overextended system. Digitalisation of the healthcare system would have been much easier and cheaper had private companies been allowed to create their own decentralised systems, which would have worked much more efficiently.
Price Negligence
One of the main reasons that taxpayers are willing to pay such high prices is that they have no idea how much of their taxes the government uses to pay for certain goods and services. For example, it costs the NHS a staggering 20 times more to get a pack of ibuprofen than at high street shops. The NHS spends £3.83 per pack of prescribed ibuprofen. In comparison, in most shops, ibuprofen can be found for 20-40p. In England in 2016, the NHS prescribed 22,900,000 packs of ibuprofen, resulting in a £87,600,000 cost to the system. This example is but one of many, but it is indicative of pretty much everything within the system and clearly supports the argument for decentralisation. A centralised healthcare system is more expensive than a private one because, when someone else is financing such a system directly (government, NHS, etc.), it becomes very difficult to estimate how much it would cost the user — and the taxpayers themselves rarely have the stimulus to do so. However, when the user is faced with the end price, it is in his best interest to search for alternatives (hospitals, clinics, medication, etc.) and to weigh out the price/quality ratio according to his preferences. This mechanism by itself will force the private companies to rearrange their business models to the liking of their customers or face the risk of losing money. After all, the client has the final say in a completely market based system.
My opinion about the NHS in the UK is that it is like a religion with overzealous followers.
That religion is statism. It prevents most people from seeing the facts because they cannot or simply do not wish to see the system’s problems, which obviously obstruct its effectiveness and fail to reduce preventable deaths. At the end of the day, it is a matter of human lives vs. statism, and the bureaucrats’ negligence stands in the way of effective healthcare.
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Really thoughtful approach to dealing with the flaws on this implementation of socialized medicine. This continues to be a raging debate here in the states and looking at it in other places is rarely brought up in public debate. The usual argument for it is that if you aren't for it, you are supporting or at least complicit in the suffering of others. What you point out expressed the valuable point that these systems, while appearing to help people and are no cost when you go to use it, do incur significant financial burden and do not offer care that people would otherwise be satisfied receiving if they were voluntarily paying for it and knew exactly how is going to the NHS. I lack the experience of living with it, but Ben Shapiro phrased it really well. He said that socialized medicine can be cheap, universal, or quality. You can only pick 2. For those who live in a country with government healthcare, are your experiences in line with that?

You made several good points here, particularly about only being able to pick two out of the three possibilities mentioned. And that idea that we are complicit in the suffering of others is simply ludicrous -- voluntary assistance is just that ... voluntary. There is no virtue in a moral vacuum.

thanks man. On a bit of a tangent there is a quote from Penn Jillette that sums up my view of "compulsory compassion" very well:

"It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

This quote deserves to be better known than it already is! It also reminds me of good old Ben Franklin: "I am for doing good to the poor, but ... I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

I mean the old "teach a man to fish" adage is as old as it is accurate. Shame that people in the name of doing good, end up enacting policies that actively make the problems worse.

If they could only appreciate the irony, but it seems the Cognitive Dissonance is too strong with them ;)

2017 tier double think man. Its reached new levels

Funny, I was going to say "double-think" ;) !!!

People are unique individuals, each with their own needs and preferences. They make decisions and face the consequences of those decisions, however unethical it may sound. Regarding the tendency nowadays to declare certain things as rights (e.g. internet, healthcare, education, etc.) they simply are not. No person has a right to another's labour. All of these are services. The easiest way to help the poor is to remove policies and regulations designed to help them, but in the end hurting them the most. For example, minimum wage, deemed one of the "essential services".

A huge bravo to Brent for his fantastic editing work on my article :)

Thanks, Nikolay, for the article and for commenting. I wonder if it might not be useful to just say a few words about why such policies as the minimum wage do more harm than good. Do you want to try to tackle that here?

Minimum wage is one of those “tools” that the proud workers’ unions claim to have won for the benefit of the many, not the few. But as is most evident in statistics about youth unemployment across the whole world and especially in places with the tendency for a hike in minimum wage (such as the UK, where there is a yearly increase in min. wage). First and foremost, the wage for which you rent/sell your labour shouldn’t be a subject of governmental or regulatory interference. As people are different, so are their skills, knowledge and preferences. All of this would form a valid wage, demanded by the employee, but most importantly it is something to be negotiated by themselves. If I wish so, I might go ahead and work for free. That is my choice and as such should be respected. There is no such as exploitation, for as long as it is voluntary labour rental. Thus when there is a minimum wage in place, it is generally set above the market clearing price, or the real price of low skilled labour. As such fewer people would be hired. Furthermore this artificial rise of the barrier to labour market entry prevents many of those “vulnerable” individuals from acquiring the necessary skills to progress further in their career. Everyone has to start from somewhere and when you are prevented to do so, by a bureaucrat on the other end of your country it honestly sucks and makes no sense. Most young people need to attain valuable skills and experience. Employers know this, but due to their low efficiency it wouldn’t be cost effective to hire them at the wage for an experienced person. Hence, they would be more than willing to hire the former if the wage would be lower, even perhaps being unpaid. I would gladly have a 1-3 months internship in a big company such as an Investment Bank without being paid, as those are highly competitive positions. Therefore, even though I’ve not been paid, the skills I’d gain and the experience would be more than making up for the lack of financial reward. After all it is all about progression in career so we can all afford a higher standard in a foreseeable future.

Thanks for an interesting article! Hope the South African planned National Health System take note!

It's my pleasure :) Let's hope leaders pay attention worldwide, not just in South Africa ;)