The NHS - a cesspool of corruption

[Ed Jones]

The NHS is broken

The prospect of free basic healthcare for all may light a warm, glowing fire in even the most right-wing of individuals. But surely even the crooks on the wrong side of the political line cannot disagree with the simple statement emphasised above.

The system has gone from a beacon of hope to a cesspool of underpaid workers, lurking terror cells, fatcat politicians and unsanitary conditions for patients.

Lord knows how many billions are thrown into the black abyss that is the NHS annually. According to HM treasury, the cost of running the NHS is over 100billion a year that is funded from taxation. 100 billion of taxpayers money is being spent on the half-assed care we are receiving courtesy of our blessed government.

In 2004 there were around 5000 more administrators recruited than nurses. Bed losses are estimated at around 4000. When are the people of this country going to realise that the system just does not work anymore. Nurses are completely underpaid, doctors and administrators overpaid. Is it any wonder than many trained nurses are simply packing it in?

It is a fact, we would be better off if we privatise it and only paid for the care we need. There are people, particularly among the middle class that are being taxed to death by the NHS. For example, how much do YOU pay in tax a year?

Alas, it is pretty much political dynamite to scrap the NHS. Whoever the knight in shining armour would be, they would be hated in the short term, revered in the long term.

The NHS is broken. How do we fix it?

[Mitch]

One problem with the UK Health Care system, is what you already stated, underpaid nurses, overpaid doctors and administrators. If the PM and the Labor party smartens up, then you might get a better system.
How high are the taxes in the UK? In Canada, we are taxed like crazy, but have a great Universal Health Care System, the one thing completely untouchable by any Canadian government. If the Conservatives got rid of Universal HC, there would be one big ass riot.

[Horus]

Correct, I agree with the entire post Ed.

However, what would YOU do to solve the problem? I think the idea of a free national health initiative is something we need to keep on track, and avoid the capitalist vultures swooping down for the reparation of something quite simple as a broken leg. A lot of the public really can't afford to use the health service as much as they do if it were to become a more private-orientated system (such as pensioners, disabled people, etc).

[Ed Jones]

Well that's an interesting point Horus.

The main argument against the privatisation of the National Health Service is what would happen to those who cannot afford healthcare. However when you take into account how much of an individual's income is taken away as tax to finance the NHS, that adds to a sizable amount of money. That money could be used to cover a households medical bill instead. Because money is involved, it creates economic competition and so a more productive healthcare system and a healthier Britain.

Obviously i'm not talking about 'Pepsi Presents: The General Hospital'. I'm referring to a system similar to the American healthcare system and then progress from there.

[Mitch]

But here's the problem with that system Ed. A large chunk of the population CAN'T afford to pay for health care, and there are some who take much too much from the system because they have a ton of money to blow. The US health care system is HORRIBLE, the Cuban health care system is AWESOME. What's the problem there? US is a huge power in the world and Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the world.
hmm...

[Horus]

Hahaha, brilliant.

"Pepsi Presents: The General Hospital". I'm sure they're doing their bit to put people in hospital; time they gave something back! :D

I think the idea that you are proposing would depend on their situation (in all aspects). I'd be comfortable with that, actually. Something you raised also about the competition element; why aren't there more competing health services? The likes of BUPA are showing that you do not need to be government-backed to be a household institution in the healthcare industry. It's quite strange that they're the only other company I can think of.

[Cattraknoff]

While our healthcare system in Canada cannot currently be touched, there is a high probability that it will in the future. There are problems with lengthening wait-times, number of doctors, etc, that are making people question it. Privatization is portrayed as a "fix" to all problems in efficiency, output, etc. Frankly, our governments could solve these problems relatively easily, without privatization. In Canada, we have recently begun considering privatizing one of the few remaining state-run entities in Canada (our nuclear power). The conservative government will likely successfully privatize it, which will fix it, as the problems in it are either incompetence, or are intentional.

Corporations are gaining more control over our world, and it injures democracy. I am not for some form of communism, but a line has to be drawn. People do not need billions of dollars, they do not need wealth to the extent that it can also allow people to start buying entire political parties.

[Ed Jones]

BUPA healthcare is top quality healthcare. If there were 10 more initiatives like BUPA there would be a competitive market in place and people could afford proper healthcare.

Obviously i used the U.S system as an example of a privatised health system. Obviously every healthcare system has it's problems, but considering there are many procedures available in the United States that are not available in Britain i would regard it as a good system. This is a debate on healthcare, issues regarding social aspects should be kept to one side for the moment.

[Cattraknoff]

BUPA healthcare is top quality healthcare. If there were 10 more initiatives like BUPA there would be a competitive market in place and people could afford proper healthcare.

Obviously i used the U.S system as an example of a privatised health system. Obviously every healthcare system has it's problems, but considering there are many procedures available in the United States that are not available in Britain i would regard it as a good system. This is a debate on healthcare, issues regarding social aspects should be kept to one side for the moment.

Canada had top quality healthcare for a very long time. But the quality has decreased largely because of a combination of insufficient funding and also misspent funding. This isn't because it is state-controlled, but simply because it is allowed to be this way. Privatization looks better only because it is meant to. Problems have been manufactured or allowed to happen in order to make the people accept a change over to privatization.

[Horus]

I suppose it is relative though. There are a lot more measures in place for the US because they have ten times our population and a more territory-based geographical situation. It's much harder to centralise everything, I imagine.

[Cattraknoff]

I suppose it is relative though. There are a lot more measures in place for the US because they have ten times our population and a more territory-based geographical situation. It's much harder to centralise everything, I imagine.

A universal system simply has problems in such an almost-completely uncontrolled capitalist system. The UK and Canada have changed over to similar systems, and so our healthcare systems are seeing problems emerge.

[Mitch]

I suppose it is relative though. There are a lot more measures in place for the US because they have ten times our population and a more territory-based geographical situation. It's much harder to centralise everything, I imagine.
Canada is much more spread out than the US and we do just fine, distance doesn't matter anymore.
Of course you can't get some procedures in a public system, Canada decided not to bother as most people just go to the states if they need it so badly and it doesn't really change much in our economy, etc.

[Horus]

I imagine there are far more logistical problems in Canada too (case and point accentuated by the likes of Baffin Island).

I will say this, and make my point known; healthcare with a capitalist goal will never work out well. We know that this will lead to greed, and perhaps make light of the other conspiracies (Bird Flu, SARS, etc) that some diseases are developed artificially for profit.

[Cattraknoff]

I imagine there are far more logistical problems in Canada too (case and point accentuated by the likes of Baffin Island).

I will say this, and make my point known; healthcare with a capitalist goal will never work out well. We know that this will lead to greed, and perhaps make light of the other conspiracies (Bird Flu, SARS, etc) that some diseases are developed artificially for profit.

To be fair, our governments are limited in the funding that they can provide to health care, but this is quite frankly caused by other problems which are a result of rampant capitalism. Completely unchecked capitalism is not going to bode well for society as a whole; except for the extremely rich, of course.

[Horus]

I would say that the capitalists would benefit even more than the rich; in many cases, the two aren't the same (lottery winners, heirs and inheritors) and using that viewpoint, the rich would probably be hit harder than the general public (more money to steal!).

I know what you mean though; money money money in a capitalist's world.

[Cattraknoff]

I would say that the capitalists would benefit even more than the rich; in many cases, the two aren't the same (lottery winners, heirs and inheritors) and using that viewpoint, the rich would probably be hit harder than the general public (more money to steal!).

I know what you mean though; money money money in a capitalist's world.

I don't count lottery winners and the like among the extremely rich. It isn't money itself that causes the problems, but simply the problem that many like to gain at the expense of others, and have been doing so for so long that they have acquired massive amounts of power over everyone else, including the government. But really, what can those with $20 million from a lottery winning allow them to do? Sure they could retire, live carefree for a while, but they can't cause too much harm. There's no problems with this really, but I don't think it makes them happier, not really. Lottery winners will be affected as well when an economic crisis occurs (and it will). Those who benefit are the ones who would actually manufacture such a crisis, and thus have moved their assets to safe and secure areas (Overseas banks, for instance) ahead of time. I speak mainly against the ultra-rich, the ruling class. Be they the monarchies of old, corporate leaders, bankers, etc.

[Ed Jones]

Ladies, ladies please. We could take about 'what if' situations all year, could we get back to the issue at hand?

EDIT: Someone remind me what the issue is

[Horus]

I speak mainly against the ultra-rich, the ruling class. Be they the monarchies of old, corporate leaders, bankers, etc.
Okay, I understand. Makes far more sense. Besides, say you won a million dollars in the Lottery; how long could you retire for with that? The cost of life is ridiculous, to the point where you need far more than that to live comfortably. It doesn't help if you have health problems either, because that money would be swallowed up in practically no time.

Ed, I consider this side-issue completely relevant to the subject at hand. If none of us worked, there would be no money, and therefore there would be no capitalist system as there would be nobody to capitalise on.

[Ed Jones]

Assuming that you're more likely to get murdered than win the lottery i believe we can leave that on the bench for now. Unless someone would like to point out the health inequalities in dead people of course.

Again, assuming that the NHS has been disolved, privatised and sold off to various companies and there is a state of perfect competition in the market, people would shop around for the best "deal" so to speak. Therefore, everyone would have access to the best quality healthcare at the lowest possible price.

There will always be the defecit between rich and poor. There will always be people who are smarter, fitter, stronger and more ambitious. So without the complete disintegration of society as we know it (which isn't likely) or joining a hippie commune (infinitely more useless), we're all just going to have to get used to it aren't we?

[Cattraknoff]

Assuming that you're more likely to get murdered than win the lottery i believe we can leave that on the bench for now. Unless someone would like to point out the health inequalities in dead people of course.

Again, assuming that the NHS has been disolved, privatised and sold off to various companies and there is a state of perfect competition in the market, people would shop around for the best "deal" so to speak. Therefore, everyone would have access to the best quality healthcare at the lowest possible price.

There will always be the defecit between rich and poor. There will always be people who are smarter, fitter, stronger and more ambitious. So without the complete disintegration of society as we know it (which isn't likely) or joining a hippie commune (infinitely more useless), we're all just going to have to get used to it aren't we?

Those who do better in such a system will inadvertently absorb those who are less successful. The inevitable result is another monopoly, but this one is free of any government control, and run by those who enjoy making money above anything else, caring little for anything else. Perfect competition is impossible, it will end eventually. It's the exact same reason our societies have turned into dictatorships in essence, whilst still using the "democratic" system.

[Horus]

There will always be the defecit between rich and poor. There will always be people who are smarter, fitter, stronger and more ambitious. So without the complete disintegration of society as we know it (which isn't likely) or joining a hippie commune (infinitely more useless), we're all just going to have to get used to it aren't we?
If we all decided to agree to disagree, that would kill the thread wouldn't it? :)

[Ed Jones]

Those who do better in such a system will inadvertently absorb those who are less successful. The inevitable result is another monopoly, but this one is free of any government control, and run by those who enjoy making money above anything else, caring little for anything else.

How do you figure? Why would the Monopoly Regulation and Competition Policy not come into effect?

[Cattraknoff]

How do you figure? Why would the Monopoly Regulation and Competition Policy not come into effect?

There are ways around it. Alliances of several groups, for instance.

Regardless, private companies work first and foremost for profit, often at the expense of ethical behavior. Capitalism is not the only system that can promote competition, and it has several very negative aspects to it. Consider that fairly recently, prescription drug use has grown quite rapidly. We have treatments for everything. Painkiller use increases, we often give extremely addictive ones out for relatively minor problems. Consider the fact that we ban marijuana outright, because of its "criminal" aspect. This is a substance that is not physically addictive at all, and has been proven to be an effective painkiller, with relatively few side-effects compared to other drugs. Then, at the same time, we hand out drugs that are nearly identical to heroin, a drug that is proven to be both highly physically and mentally addictive, and I have seen the effects this has on many people. It destroys lives completely, and changes the person. Marijuana has had no such effect on anyone I have seen take it. Yet we favor highly addictive substances that are nearly impossible for a person to quit without an incredible amount of willpower that most people cannot summon.

We prescribe drugs for a slew of mental problems, occurrences of which have increased in recent years. We prescribe drugs to cover up depression, which leads to both physical and mental dependence. These drugs cover up a problem, not fix it. Depression can be ended by finding its cause, the affected person themselves finding it, and working to fix it. Instead we all are taught that the "easy" solution is better, that we should give ourselves up to a drug. Our society loves this, because it's all about instant gratification; We can get immediate results, with minimal effort on our part.

This is all of course highly profitable to the drug companies. They use all these addictive substances because they would like to continue profiting from us, and also because it weakens us. Depression, or sadness rather, happens for a reason, often it is caused directly or indirectly by other problems in society; Meaning there are more cases of it in such a society. The problems also worsen as a result of people giving into this. These drugs make us "happier", but it is a false happiness, it is simply blinding us to the problem, it is an ignorance of sorts. Our societies as a whole have become addicted to this ignorance. We've become addicted to questioning nothing, because the answers do cause a form of sadness. But this sadness is for a reason, we see something wrong with our lives, with society. Perhaps not consciously, but we know the problem exists on some level. But rather than confronting this problem, the vast majority of us would rather glue ourselves to a TV set, plunge ourselves into another world (in a video game perhaps), or go on a drug-inspired adventure to a world where they no longer have to care, where they can at last live in happiness. But this feeling does quickly subside, for we always need more of our escape, the problem does not disappear. What we in general have been taught to do, equates to trying to patch a hole in a container by pouring sand into it. It appears to be filled for a while, but eventually the problem does resurface; Often more apparent. And thus you need yet more of your addiction.

But none of these people, not even the drug addicts are without hope. Amongst the many people I have seen who have fallen into this sad state, there are those who rise up from it. There are those who actually do fix the problem; Granted sometimes they do need help, but drugs and the like are no solution. We can not solve any problems in our own lives, or the world in general, if we continue to ignore them for most of our existence. By ignoring them, we enslave ourselves to them. Even of those who are still seemingly trapped, I have seen a faint glimmer of something else, a strength that lay beneath the years they have been destroying their very self, as society teaches them to. Amongst all but the very worst, there is hope, and even the worst could change things if they would but seriously attempt to.

Change can be brought about if only people would actually face their problems, if people would question why they were actually happening, and work to fix them. It isn't an easy task, but it is far better than the alternatives.

I am opposed to privatization because it is a part of the freely capitalist system, to which I am wholly opposed. It promotes selfishness, greed, and a general disregard for problems of others (so long as you can go about ignoring them). Other systems can and often do have this same corruption (Our attempts at implementing communism, for instance). But we must always strive to decrease, not encourage, these lesser parts of human nature. Capitalism goes about encouraging it, whilst we have all these distractions, and false answers, sometimes theories taught as absolute truth, to keep us from finding a real solution, simply because the current ruling class would rather keep humanity on its current path; A path that will end in an absolute enslavement of humanity.

[Mitch]

WOW! You should get a prize for longest post ever!
I didn't read it all :p but I agree with your last paragraph. There are way to many people in our countries that can't live without privatization, and therefore Universal Health Care should only be changed by improvement, not complete abolishment.
I would like communism if it were the theoretical Marx had envisioned, but to no avail thus far.

[Cattraknoff]

WOW! You should get a prize for longest post ever!
I didn't read it all :p but I agree with your last paragraph. There are way to many people in our countries that can't live without privatization, and therefore Universal Health Care should only be changed by improvement, not complete abolishment.
I would like communism if it were the theoretical Marx had envisioned, but to no avail thus far.

In such systems are found minor flaws, and western societies thrive on finding ways to exploit such flaws, and so utterly change the system from the way it was intended, that it will eventually become capitalist (or worse) anyway. In countries we control, we create flaws in the systems ourselves, or simply don't act to correct them whilst they are minor.

What adds to the problem is that those who implemented communism, introduced corruption from the start. Also it envisions a completely equal society, where in fact people are not completely equal. It is great for a 19th century, or early 20th century society, but simply doesn't work in the 21st century. That isn't to say that there aren't many great things that we could take from communism, as well as fascism, democracy (either liberal or conservative) to come up with a far better system than what we have. Each of those systems had many positive aspects, with several negative ones (we simply under-state the negative aspects of democracy and capitalism using our education systems, media, etc, leading to people trusting it far more than they should).

We focus only on the positive, and not negative aspects of privatization; of rampant capitalism in general. Seldom, if ever, are the negative aspects brought up by the media, government, etc. How then are we ever to correct these problems? Especially when we as a people are taught that living in a gentle ignorance, rather than facing a harsh truth, and working to fix it, is better. In other words, we're taught that we should accept things as they are because it's the "best we have". Sure it is, because we haven't tried to change anything since it was introduced. We found our salvation in democracy, in capitalism, and haven't questioned it since, even as the effects of the flaws become far more substantial.

[Horus]

I thought to myself that if I referred one person that I knew (whether it were from the internet or my personal life) I would refer Catt. I stick by it as an especially good decision of mine, because it has not just increased activity, it has increased the activity of informed and intelligent discussion activity.

Regardless, private companies work first and foremost for profit, often at the expense of ethical behavior. Capitalism is not the only system that can promote competition, and it has several very negative aspects to it.
Yes, this is the main point. I'm sure the perceived idea of it is to promote shopping around for the best medical care for the best price, but making a living based on illness is one step too far. I stick by my prediction that when a cancer cure is found, we will soon after look at the bigger picture and realise that the cure is completely in the hands of a corporation that charges a high price for it; it's just the way we live. The perfect business plan is marketing a product that some lives depend on buying; the product would fly off the shelves.

Consider that fairly recently, prescription drug use has grown quite rapidly. We have treatments for everything. Painkiller use increases, we often give extremely addictive ones out for relatively minor problems.
I'd ask you a question about the seemingly lowering acceptance of pain by the general public, which may or may not be a cause for a quick-fix to every small ailment on Earth. However, I'm sure that's for another thread. A nation of hypochondriacs who rush to the doctors when their nose begins running would surely become gridlocked if they developed a cough, too! :rolleyes:

Consider the fact that we ban marijuana outright, because of its "criminal" aspect. This is a substance that is not physically addictive at all, and has been proven to be an effective painkiller, with relatively few side-effects compared to other drugs. Then, at the same time, we hand out drugs that are nearly identical to heroin, a drug that is proven to be both highly physically and mentally addictive, and I have seen the effects this has on many people. It destroys lives completely, and changes the person. Marijuana has had no such effect on anyone I have seen take it. Yet we favor highly addictive substances that are nearly impossible for a person to quit without an incredible amount of willpower that most people cannot summon.
Failing to understand this point (and subsequent conclusion) is out of the question. Many of these companies have a step-by-step program whereby they allow you access to the likes of heroin, which does the job in essence but has all the additional effects to turn you into a snivelling wreck. They then progressively wean you off of it and on to weaker drugs, before you end up clean and healthy. Who's to agree with me that the progressive steps of drugs are all developed by the same corporation as well as the heroin itself?

[Ed Jones]

I am opposed to privatization because it is a part of the freely capitalist system, to which I am wholly opposed. It promotes selfishness, greed, and a general disregard for problems of others (so long as you can go about ignoring them). Other systems can and often do have this same corruption (Our attempts at implementing communism, for instance). But we must always strive to decrease, not encourage, these lesser parts of human nature. Capitalism goes about encouraging it, whilst we have all these distractions, and false answers, sometimes theories taught as absolute truth, to keep us from finding a real solution, simply because the current ruling class would rather keep humanity on its current path; A path that will end in an absolute enslavement of humanity.

I do not believe that corruption is a valid excuse to reject privatisation of the health service. As you stated in the same paragraph: "Other systems can and often do have this same corruption "

We can find corruption anywhere. At the heart of every system there is a human being, and as humans we have a primal instinct to do what is best for ourselves - we are a selfish species. Regardless of whatever critics say, there is one primary advantage of privatised healthcare.

A better quality of care available to everyone

[Cattraknoff]

I do not believe that corruption is a valid excuse to reject privatisation of the health service. As you stated in the same paragraph: "Other systems can and often do have this same corruption "

We can find corruption anywhere. At the heart of every system there is a human being, and as humans we have a primal instinct to do what is best for ourselves - we are a selfish species. Regardless of whatever critics say, there is one primary advantage of privatised healthcare.

A better quality of care available to everyone

Rampant capitalism promotes corruption. And just because every current system has some corruption, it doesn't mean there isn't a better one that could be found. Trying to fix one broken system by replacing it with another broken system is counter-productive.

Just because selfishness is in our nature does not mean we should not try to defy it. Especially when it gets to the point where we cripple others just so we can feel as if we're better than them. The west has been doing this for centuries; We work against progress in Africa, the middle east, etc.

There have been some societies in which selfishness was quite minimized. They are not mentioned very often however, so we can go on believing that it's perfectly normal, acceptable, etc, to be selfish. It's far easier to believe that you can't fix a problem than to actually put some effort into a solution.

Privatization does not make a "better quality of healthcare available to everyone". Every day in the United States, people are turned away with gunshot wounds because of a lack of insurance coverage. I believe the numbers are something like ~30 million (Not including illegal immigrants) people without health coverage.

Many of these people do work, but their employers simply won't give them any form of health plan, and so they are told that they get to die.

[Ed Jones]

Problems in the U.S are necessarily relative to problems with privatisation as a whole.

I never said there wouldn't be teething problems with the system as with any major change of legislation. However what i stated was correct. A better quality of care IS available to everyone. Likewise can be said about health insurance. It is not the governments problem if people fail to utilise it.

[Cattraknoff]

Problems in the U.S are necessarily relative to problems with privatisation as a whole.

I never said there wouldn't be teething problems with the system as with any major change of legislation. However what i stated was correct. A better quality of care IS available to everyone. Likewise can be said about health insurance. It is not the governments problem if people fail to utilise it.


Our governments could simply stop throwing money at useless crap and increase funding to healthcare. Also how about less tax cuts for corporations who need to stop complaining that their profits dropped from 8.5 to 8.4 billion dollars this quarter?... But of course only their problems matter, because they're the ones funding election campaigns.

Not everyone has access to health insurance, it isn't about people not wanting to utilize it, they simply can't.

[Locke]

Problems in the U.S are necessarily relative to problems with privatisation as a whole.

I never said there wouldn't be teething problems with the system as with any major change of legislation. However what i stated was correct. A better quality of care IS available to everyone. Likewise can be said about health insurance. It is not the governments problem if people fail to utilise it.
As has been stated many times in this thread, the fault with healthcare privatisation is that an excessively capitalist system encourages disparities between the top percentiles of the population and the rest. Rampant capitalism would be conducive to such a shift from public systems and therefore many who beforehand did have acceptable care are suddenly without any at all.
So, a better quality of care at the expense of quantity and availability.

Another issue, going back to an earlier fork in the discussion, is the fact that a privatized healthcare system will stake out only the best markets, as their very nature is profit, and not giving accessible care. Distant or poor communities (such as canadian native reserves) would have restricted access to healthcare out of a lack of market interest; a profit is not to be had in those types of areas, and those will have to go without medical care.

[Cattraknoff]

As has been stated many times in this thread, the fault with healthcare privatisation is that an excessively capitalist system encourages disparities between the top percentiles of the population and the rest. Rampant capitalism would be conducive to such a shift from public systems and therefore many who beforehand did have acceptable care are suddenly without any at all.
So, a better quality of care at the expense of quantity and availability.

Another issue, going back to an earlier fork in the discussion, is the fact that a privatized healthcare system will stake out only the best markets, as their very nature is profit, and not giving accessible care. Distant or poor communities (such as canadian native reserves) would have restricted access to healthcare out of a lack of market interest; a profit is not to be had in those types of areas, and those will have to go without medical care.

Also, there is a greater chance of them acting immoral in the name of profit. For example, hemophilia is a genetic disorder which causes people to bleed for longer periods of time than normal. It's caused by an inability to produce certain clotting factors; treatment is generally based around replacing these either regularly or as it is needed. Throughout the 80's and 90's many people being treated for this disorder became infected with HIV and many other viruses. This was caused by a lack of any screening, when the technology was readily available. The privatized corporations simply thought it was more cost-effective to deal with lawsuits that resulted (and they didn't lose anywhere near enough), than to actually do what they're supposed to do and prevent people from dying. We've begun putting price tags on peoples' lives, according to how much they might be able to get from us in the off chance we get caught.

[Ed Jones]

So, a better quality of care at the expense of quantity and availability.
So instead of giving people a better quality of care, you want to load them into overcrowded hospitals, with not enough staff to take care of them, not enough beds so they can recover in and most of all, have them infected with MRSA due to the unsanitory conditions they are supposed to be recovering in? Fantastic plan.

the fact that a privatized healthcare system will stake out only the best markets, as their very nature is profit, and not giving accessible care.
Not necessarily. As has already been mentioned in this thread, BUPA healthcare provides the best quality healthcare, i for one, have ever seen. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to provide a good quality and still be a private hospital.

Also, there is a greater chance of them acting immoral in the name of profit.
I don't believe this is relative. Keep in mind that the term privatisation does necessarily mean multi-national conglomerates running the healthcare system :p It means private hospitals running independently to provide the best possible healthcare to their patients.

[Locke]

I don't believe this is relative. Keep in mind that the term privatisation does necessarily mean multi-national conglomerates running the healthcare system It means private hospitals running independently to provide the best possible healthcare to their patients.
Large drug multinationals and a private system would, and are to an extent, inextricably linked.
Not necessarily. As has already been mentioned in this thread, BUPA healthcare provides the best quality healthcare, i for one, have ever seen. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to provide a good quality and still be a private hospital.
You sorta missed the point. The fact is that rural areas would not benefit from privatisation. With comparatively low population density, these areas would be shunned for urban regions as there is not enough profit incentive for hospitals to operate in rural areas.

[Locke]

So instead of giving people a better quality of care, you want to load them into overcrowded hospitals, with not enough staff to take care of them, not enough beds so they can recover in and most of all, have them infected with MRSA due to the unsanitory conditions they are supposed to be recovering in? Fantastic plan.
I assume you are speaking directly of the NHS - or perhaps your views have been influenced by its ineffectiveness. As you said yourself, it is a cesspool of corruption. A non-corrupt system would not suffer these same problems.