private-healthcareWe’ve discussed the issue of healthcare several times already on Debating Europe. We’ve asked you what European healthcare should look like in general; whether new technologies might make healthcare cheaper and, if not, whether Europe can still afford its current healthcare model (or models). During these debates, we had the following comment sent in by Peter:

By privatizing the healthcare delivery systems as much as possible, one will foster innovation and competition. Privatized healthcare systems are preferable to government run systems because they allow more experimentation, and because they can adapt more easily to any challenges the future may bring… We should take into account the special nature of health care, which is partly a moral necessity and partly an ordinary consumer good. The element that is like other consumer goods is vulnerable to overuse when provided free.

Could privatising Europe’s healthcare systems really make them both more innovative and more competitive, as Peter argues? At a recent Friends of Europe event on healthcare in Brussels, we approached some of the partipicants to get their reactions to Peter’s argument.

First up, we spoke to Roberto Bertollini, Chief Scientist and World Health Organisation (WHO) Representative to the EU. See the video below to find out why Mr Bertollini strongly disagreed with Peter’s argument:

Roberto Bertollini argued that the data does not support Peter’s argument:

If you look at the United States of America, for instance, where there is a much larger private system, and you look at the indicators in terms of mortality, life-expectency, childhood mortality, infant mortality, you have figures which are really outrageous. I mean, you have infant mortality in some areas in Washington D.C. which are comparable with some developing countries.

Next, we put the same comment to Mark Pearson, Head of the Health Division at the Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs of the OECD. He also disagreed with Peter, but suggested that a balance could be found between basic, universal healthcare and additional services provided by the private sector.

Alojz Peterle, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) with the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), was slightly more supportive of Peter’s comment. He agreed that greater private sector involvement, particularly from SMEs, could help encourage innovation – but he also pointed out that innovation was not the only indicator of success within the healthcare system.

Finally, we spoke to  Professor Marc Van Ranst, Chairman at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Leuven. He was also more supportive of Peter’s argument, adding that “If we want the muscle of industry to be behind healthcare innovation, then we should invest in it and allow that investment.

Professor Van Ranst also suggested that greater private sector involvement could be introduced in areas that governments typically neglect, such as prevention.

Nowadays, only 3% of the budget is dedicated to prevention. If we want more attention to be focused on prevention, then we need to make prevention a bit more profitable, well beyond the threshold of being cost-effective… [Instead,] we think that prevention is for NGOs, volunteers and philanthropists, and it should not be that way. We should profit from the innovation that industry can bring in order to improve healthcare for all.

What do YOU think? Could privatising healthcare delivery systems in Europe make them both more competitive and more innovative? Or would that only make them more expensive and unequal? Should the private sector be encouraged to get involved in areas of healthcare that governments typically neglect, such as prevention? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their response.

64 comments Post a commentcomment

  1. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    Eeeeerrrrmmmmm….. No. I disagree.. Health must be free and available for all. Health and education are the only two things that I believe they should not be privatized. Private companies may do a good job but they charge a whole lot of money. Why should better health be the priviledge of the rich only?

  2. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    It is the state that must invest in health and education. That is why we are paying all those taxes, aren’t we? Let them privatise everything else but provide their citizens with good health and education. Those two are an investment. If you have a healthy and educated population that is the best investment you could make as a statesman or woman. Good health means less social welfare for the sick and good education means a capable workforce that can attract investments. Yes??

  3. avatar
    José Castro

    Well… it’s been done before and it doesn’t work, does it? It makes it more expensive and in the end of the day the poor get excluded from healthcare and the difficult cases are sent to public hospitals. That’s what’s happening nowadays in Portugal. Plus, private healthcare is being heavily subsidised by the government at the same time we have cuts in public healthcare. If you want innovation, the government must invest in public education and health. It’s a biased question to say the least.

  4. avatar

    Privatising healthcare is the worst idea possible. The US is a prime example of this, people who have pre-existing medical conditions are treated like second class citizens and denied healthcare coverage. The mere fact that anyone in a society should find themselves unable to receive healthcare on the grounds of wealth is despicable and says everything you need to know about what private healthcare can do for us.

    Private firms are only interested in one thing, money. They shouldn’t even be allowed to exist amongst a public healthcare system in my opinion as they’re all too often happy to head-hunt the easy cases and ignore the difficult one’s and post the bill to the public healthcare system in the post.

    As for promoting innovation, well just watch Sicko. There will always be a market for private companies to come up with new treatments and developments. Let them stick to that and leave the real business of keeping our people healthy to the public healthcare systems like the NHS.

  5. avatar
    Francisco Melo

    Honestly, after so may years of welfare and healthcare systems in Europe, I thinks that the main point is not if it would become more innovative… but if it works!

  6. avatar
    Michael Tsikalakis

    Public Sector Hospitals are too expensive for the State, while Private Sector Hospitals are too expensive for the citizens of the State. The solution is the same with the rest of the economy problems of our society today ie privatization with public (State) intervention. Capitalistic models in the free Economies have been proven wrong if there are no State interventions. Socially sensitive rules have to be followed by the private sector Hospitals together with corresponding public funding so that no citizen can be left out of the Health Care System regardless of his economic background.

    • avatar
      Jose Castro

      Privatization with public moneys involved is an even worse solution. People with money go to private hospitals, because they feel safer, leaving the public health system financially unbalanced. Private hospitals have the good clients that pay and when things go rough (no more money – or disease to difficult to treat), they send them out on an ambulance to the public hospital who has to deal with them as an emergency. Has I said elsewhere in the comments, the state is subsidising the private sector, and at the same time making harsh cuts in the public sector, leaving people out to die on their own by the hundreds because they don’t have 20 euro to pay the emergency fee. This is happening the moment I write these lines.

  7. avatar
    Georgi Hrisstof

    Significant differences in quality and price for the same services within the European Union are a fact of today. Before you know exactly the condition of the base and hospital sites and analysis of their correct positions. Some sectors, about 15% are possible pilot to ensure that such privatization models, so tax revenues are utilized, the first of grades, regular and centralized in the new structures of the European Union …

  8. avatar
    Matteo De Chaira

    Private Healthcare should always have a public and free ( or as near to the free access as possible) alternative health system. Health is a right, not a present.

  9. avatar
    Pedro Garcia

    Private interests do not represent public interests. It’s obvious and it is also an evidence confirmed everyday by the reality that we are living… The answer is no!

  10. avatar
    Pedro Garcia

    I highly recommend this book: Paul Barker (1996) Living as Equals, Oxford University Press. And this chapter in particular: Dorothy Wedderburn (‘The Superiority of Collective Action: The Case of the NHS’). Edited by Paul Barker with contributions by: A. B. Atkinson, Ronald Dworkin, Albert O. Hirschman, E. J. Hobsbawm, Amartya Sen and Dorothy Wedderburn.

  11. avatar
    catherine benning

    Health insurance is a disaster. And cannot be contemplated by a union or federation that believes in the equality of status open to all its citizens, regardless of their financial status.

    This method can only practice on a two or three tier practice. The elderly, they being most in need, left to suffer unmercifully at the hands of private insurers. They will not cover them as they always have pre existing conditions. It’s worse than pet insurance.

    As another poster already added, all you have to do is look at the US model. A horrendous system not worth the time to contemplate.

    And, yes, Europe will be just as taken by these health care moguls as the Americans.

  12. avatar
    Yiannis Klean

    Europe should not exchange public for innovative. a pensioner or an unemployed youth would do fine with slow evolutionary medical science than just laying dead in the streets because he cannot afford to pay for innovation.

  13. avatar
    Tobias Soechtig

    No! If you ask for a reason look at the countries that privatised most of their healthcare sectors…

  14. avatar

    no, health is basic human right that everybody should be able to have access, no to the privatization of health!

  15. avatar

    Yes, all healthcare should be privatised. Those who can’t afford healthcare will be no loss to the economy.

    Just kidding :-)

    State healthcare is very important for all sorts of reasons, but it needs to be realistic and clearly defined in terms of eligibility and treatments. Otherwise you end up with an unsustainable situation like the NHS in Britain. A wonderful idea ruined by massive overcommitment from stupid politicians making impossible promises for political reasons.

  16. avatar
    Panos Mentesidis

    when the us system which is private failed so dramaticaly? this debate is pointless health care in europe must remain public as well as education. somethings are meant to be for all the people otherwise you create unfairness and a tonne of social problems.

  17. avatar
    Gianuario Cioffi

    No – U.S.A. have one of the worst healthcare systems, with too few excellences , while France and Italy have the two better one in the world just because they have public health

  18. avatar
    Cristina Pittarello

    No, I do not agree with this, I hope, unlikely plan for the future EU health systems. For me, there is no need to privatize the health system to increase investment in scientific research: health is a right that the state has the duty to defend. Rather, I would suggest maybe some lower spending in State budgets (some item that does not bring innovation, which weighs in an indirect way) and would invest more in research and innovation that makes more competitive a single country and, then, all the EU member States, if not privatized the health system.

  19. avatar
    Juan Vázquez García

    Yes, it would improve the quality and make it less costly as long as governments and big corporations can be kept out of the picture.

  20. avatar
    Juan Vázquez García

    Understand please that what drives healthcare prices up is government favoritism towards big corporations, not capitalism. If we truly had a free healthcare market, medicines and healthcare services would go down in cost. Socialism runs out of funds in the long run because it drives the costs up by creating a government monopoly. You have the Soviet Union as an example. The state is bound to go bankrupt at some point as it’s already happening in Europe. Too much government intervention.

    • avatar

      Fiscal irresponsibility by banks (those who supposedly knew finance best!) was the main reason for the crash. Without every bank on the planet suddenly ‘running out’ of money and refusing to lend to one another because they suddenly realised they couldn’t trust anything they or their fellow banks had sold over the last ten years governments wouldn’t have needed to prop up private banks and businesses.

      Because of irresponsible lending to people who couldn’t afford it at the micro and macro level rich governments had to bail out their banks. If countries like Greece were living beyond their means then it was up to the banks to realise that and act accordingly, just like any responsible bank manager would do.

      So no, governments did not run out of money, they’re guaranteed to make money through tax. What happened was they had to spend that money on saving a broken banking system, broken by private interests, because the repercussions would of hurt us all.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Not at all entirely true.

      What we suffer is predetermined by the take over of finance and politics by Corporations.

      The banks and the governments go along with it. The ‘new world order’ demands it.

      They didn’t do it in Iceland, and guess what, they are on the way to recovery.

      And the Corporate takeover. Which is happening here throughout Europe is as hard and as fast as it is in the US.

      Not only but also

      Prof. Wolf.

      In the UK American business is taking over our NHS healthcare provision, our schools and our prisons. And much more, but, we are not told of it until the dye has been cast. They are referred to as free schools. Which couldn’t be further from the truth

      We are losing our democracy as those we vote for are not running our country. the corporations are. They are buying our politicians for a song.

  21. avatar
    Hasan Özdemir

    We never had truly a free healthcare market and will never be have in capitalism. ?t is a dream and so on. Capitalism is only a device like socialism but they have to run by people how good or bad. Therefore the regulations and the negotiations are necessary and only option. Because we can not know any human exactly, moreover the human being is a variable always.

  22. avatar
    Chantelle Mifsud

    What’s with this obsession – privatize everything. No I disagree .We ‘re gonna end up being governed by private institutions , they weren’t elected by the people however they’re the one”s making the rules. we have to adapt to their system . And after all – when they fail economically they will ask for help from our government .. therefore from our taxes. No way. Healthcare should not be privatized.

  23. avatar
    Ecce Homo

    Why not privatize air ? 1 Euro for evry breath !

  24. avatar
    eusebio manuel vestias pecurto

    O estado é que deve invistir na saude e na educação e com qualidade os estados membros da UE são estados de direitos a saude é um direito básico não faz sentido nelhum os governos da UE privatizarem a saude publica a cidadania alimemnta-se de direitos

  25. avatar

    Historically, public healthcare has proven itself. Europeans live long and healthy lives.

    Today we have new opportunities and new problems in healthcare, that might involve some restructuring in how we deliver it.

    1) demography & surging older population, with ever more chronic health problems
    2) soaring drug costs
    3) rising operating costs (payroll, buildings…)
    4) resource limitations – despite the above, we cannot allow public spending to grow as fast as it has grown. Indeed, we probably have to cut public spending on healthcare, if we want to maintain a competitive economy which invests and creates productive jobs for young people (and frankly, that matters more for human welfare). There are limits on the size of the state, and the proportion devoted to healthcare within that.

    1) new communications technologies – so much potential for more reassurance, better decisions, better coordination across providers, more efficient resource allocations and lower costs.

    2) preventative health – we aren’t doing nearly enough. But life expectancy would be improved if we were to ration public drug budgets (cutting them in half, say, and letting many people go without expensive stuff with only marginal benefit), and instead invested the difference in cycle paths in every EU city, marketing to promote healthy behaviours (no smoking, frequent exercise), etc.

    3) cost disparities & capacity disparities across regions & countries – diagnostic tests or operations can be performed at much lower cost in Spain viz-a-viz Ireland, or the Czech Republic viz-a-viz Germany. We would be richer and healthier (limited budgets would strech further) if we exploited such opportunities.


    With this mix of problems and opportunities, what is clear is that existing healthcare systems are not really fit for purpose. They will have to change rapidly over coming years and decades. While public healthcare has proved best historically, and will continue to play a dominant role in future systems, public healthcare must be adapted to be more flexible and market-like in its delivery of innovation, chasing of opportunities and adaptation to a changing world.

    13/04/2017 Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, Science & Innovation, has responded to this comment.

    • avatar

      Watched the first 60 minutes – he hasn’t said anything yet. It’s just a very simplistic, repetitive & incomplete account of America’s fiscal position so far.

      I imagine, given that you’ve sited this, that Wolff will get on to attacking America’s present health system (cost, structure & inequities). And righly so.

      The superiority of public sector healthcare over America’s model today, does not mean that Europe’s present system is adequate. We have serious problems as outlined above (and others) and opportunities that our present systems are not exploiting.

      We certainly shouldn’t rush towards private insurance models.

      But for example, perhaps we can move to open information models (you own your personal cloud based health record). Perhaps we can move to a system where you can develop your medical record with personal data (e.g. with dietary infomormation, or by taking diagnositic tests). And on that basis it is up to government whether to pay for interventions which would improve your health (targeting only that which is best value for taxpayer resources).

      Perhaps payment should be portable across providers in different countries (i.e. the government pays for procedure, data or outcomes, but does not directly employ people); that has the potential benefit of exploiting price arbitrage between countries, and overcoming the many supply shortages & waiting lists in some countries.

      There are many potential reforms – and we do need to change. The fact that present systems are far superior to America’s is not in itself adequate – and we must not settle for it.

  26. avatar
    Thomas Sheehan

    I dont think so, should there be private healthcare, yes but most people cannot afford private healthcare and whats available now is not always great healthcare especially in IReland, I think it would widen the social devides even further than they are. I dont think this will be a direction our Union will take. In Ireland there is a medical card, the standard of treatment that allows you is not on par with allot of other member states healthcare service, yet it is allowes! There should be a pan Eu standard when it comes to healthcare, a more political and economical union would allow for this and a whole revamp of the healthcare service. I also have a European (travelling) medi-card, but again compared to life outside the Eu we have it well, but thete are still massive differancrs inside the Union due to bad decisions made on National levels, Ireland being a prime example.

  27. avatar
    Iliana Stoicheva

    Do not forget that access to health is a social right and one of the leading EU value is prtection of Human Rights without any discrimination, including those based on social status. The result of privatisation of healthcare will be people who can not afford healthcare.

  28. avatar
    catherine benning

    Innovative healthcare was the British solution which was the best and most effective way to keep a nation healthy. It has been polluted and demoralised by greed and backward thinking politicians who want to make money out of privatisation of the kind they have in the USA.

    Tony Blair’s wife is setting up with the Republican Sarah Palin’s friends to bring a system to the UK that will make them a fortune by introducing health care you pay for in our supermarket grocery stores. The plan is to make the Blair’s and their right wing friends a great deal of money from the British push, by the Tories, to privatise our wonderful system by intentionally reducing it to an ineffective service and forcing the poor out of healthcare completely.–s-setting-Right-wing-friend-Sarah-Palin.html

    Don’t fall for this American money making scheme as the outcome will mean we will be in the same horrendous situation as the ordinary people of that country who have no healthcare at all.

    • avatar

      Anybody who sites the Daily Mail is a lost cause. They have a rule: at least 5 factual inaccuracies in every article, whether it’s celibrity gossip, the EU, a criminal suspect case, immigrants or government policy. The focus is purely sensationalist, with no attempt at being informative.

      If you have an ounce of intelligence, use other sources (preferably online, preferably international – much of our UK press is almost as bad as the Daily Hate).


      On the delivery of healthcare in supermarkets, Labour’s motivation was entirely about improving the quality of healthcare (they were happily increasing costs & expenditure at the time). They successfully allowed supermarkets to run pharmacies selling prescription drugs, and allowed supermarkets to “sell” other NHS prescription products (gluton free food, wigs, etc). This unquestionably has improved quality of life and access to care for many people with chronic conditions.

      The entirity of Labour’s reform proposals actually looked quite nice – they wanted to move NHS sexual health clinics into supermarkets, where people could access them discretely and routinely. They wanted smoking cessation services to be available in the same place people go to buy cigarettes. Etc

      All sensible stuff, right? In no way would the Labour party (or the Conservative party, for that matter) do much to reduce access to quality healthcare for all (poorest included). In the UK, we value universal healthcare free at the point of need – and all politicians know it.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Oh, dear, feel you are losing the point here do you?

      After all the, Daily Mail, won the best news award of the year recently, didn’t it? Or did you miss that one?

      You really must try harder at the insults. I don’t own the Daily Mail, one of our British Lords does that.

      And if, as you say, you deny this is an accurate story, show us where you get that idea from. How would you know otherwise? Friends of the Blair’s are we? And we all know how truthful they are. Especially when it comes to war and reasons for killing.

      Insult makers who have nothing to back them up always come a cropper in a debate. So pull your finger out Shaun and pull up your research.

    • avatar

      The criticism I make is not really aimed at you – it is the Daily Mail (and similar papers – none quite so awful). Our desire to stay away from petty insults and remain within the realm of serious pragmatic debate is precisely why we should not site rags like the Daily Mail.

      If you dispute any of that, just head to the Daily Mail’s front page – I don’t know what sensationalist and upsetting nonsense will be there when you look, but right now it’s: “Inside Britain’s FAT ward: Where clinically obese patients weighing as much as 47-stone are treated with reinforced wheelchairs and industrial weighing scales”. (With some grotesque images.)

      I don’t have much compassion for the horrible people that put this stuff together – thriving off the exploitation of individuals (objectifications or vilifications) to incite emotional responses in readers. The Daily Mail is not about keeping people informed – it is about sensation (that always involves deliberate misrepresentation of almost everything being discussed; real life isn’t as unreasonable, disgusting or emotional as they seek to portray it).

      The Daily Mail has pedigree in this regard – it didn’t just lobby for appeasement positively (and a reasonable, constructive, positive case for appeasement could have been made at the time). Rather, it printed frequent lines like “Czechs were of no concern to Englishmen” (along with plenty of anti-semmitism in print; again, sensationalism & villification wins readers).

      The article you site is a case in point.
      – How does it start: with inane gossip and attack on individuals (“preparations for one’s annual summer holiday…”, “retinue of staff”, “sojourn to Spain”, “mummy porn”…). How is any of this relevant to a policy discussion (or the business in question)?

      People are irrelevant, but the Daily Hate caries this stuff because jealousy, envy & moral superiority are among the sensations that sell. After tons more tittle on private earnings and “big beasts”, the article makes an unfounded accusation (only against the company rather than a person, so as to avoid risk of a retraction request under libel) that Mee Healthcare is “overplaying its services”. There is a clear distinction between fraudulent misleading of customers (which is what is strongly implied by this statement and the account of the telephone call) and the business mission statement & business model (as promoted to investors – the ambition as to what Mee Healthcare wants to become).

      And on it goes, with more unnecessary personal attacks… (frankly, I can’t see why that would interest anyone, or how this could serve any social purpose. Why the inane gossip?)

      As I see it, the only cogent or meaningful point made in the whole article is an account of the Caymen-Delaware tax structure employed and an attack on this as socially irresponsible. Well, yeah. But the article uses this as part of a personal attack, where people frankly have nothing to do with it. Obviously, the tax law is wrong here and needs reformed (e.g. eliminate corporation tax & shift the burden to VAT which big companies can’t escape).

      It is shameful that the Daily Mail doesn’t take a constructive position – it is overwhelmingly negative and moralistic when the whole affair is completely impersonal (it isn’t as though Cherie Blair would have defined the corporate structure – accountants would have done that professionally in a tax efficient way) and there really are no moral questions at stake here. But there is a useful & socially necessary case to be made for tax reform – we need a tax system that is more equitable and actually works. You won’t find that discussion in the Daily Mail, but you will find it in online blogs, and in some periphery media (e.g. a few writers for the Financial Times, occasionally in European Voice, etc). For this to get mainstream attention, it will probably have to rise through social media rather than papers.


      On a personal level, I neither like nor dislike Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg or Boris Johnson. I happen to have plenty of respect for all these people – they are all very intelligent, astute, extremely hard working and generally competent (they are all better people than you or me). More broadly though, I am not intimately aware of their personal life goals, ambitions or character flaws – and nor, frankly, do I have any interest.

      It is the quality of policy decisions and the carry-through/ implementation that matters.


      On policy:
      I would happen to agree with you in that this particular Mee Healthcare venture seems badly designed. While it identifies some real needs/ desires (people want more integrated care, more flexibility in times & locations of access, etc), I disagree with some strategic decisions (e.g. selling “premium” private healthcare in supermarkets).

      This type of experimentation should certainly be allowed however. I wish all venture capitalists involved the best of fun licking their wounds – and better luck next time. (In cases where private healthcare models actually work well, the NHS will quickly adopt them too – which is surely good for all of us.)


      I really would welcome any discussion of how we might be able to increase healthcare productivity, expand healthcare access, improve allocation of resources between activities, etc. Or broader systemic questions.

      But please (please!) never buy a Daily Mail paper or visit their site (add revenue) – surely you can see that what these guys do is socially damaging.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      The Daily Mail is a Conservative newspaper run by a member of the UK peerage and used as a propaganda machine by our government. As is the BBC.

      They are a source of research. Or the catalyst for a story.

      And you are too narrow to understand that I use all the outlets on a story that I can muster. The Daily Mail is one of them. The Guardian, the FT, Spectator, NY Times and so on. I you see follow up. I am not mired in the prjudice of the chattering class. Which you appear to be.

      And which newspaper I buy and how many is none of your business. You have no debate, simply idiotic come backs without substance.

      Want to put your argument about the issue at hand, do so and then you can be put in the picture with a reply.

      Obviously you are stuck in the source of a matter rather than using your lateral thinking to learn from the original observation.

      Silly boy.

  29. avatar
    Juan Vázquez García

    You’re wrong. It’s already a merchandise. Do you think it’s free? Someone has to pay for it. If the government does it like you suggest, then there’s a huge lack of incentive and innovation is clearly non-existent, which doesn’t help further develop medicine and bring about breakthroughs in the healthcare industry. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. It bankrupts the state because prices keep going up as more people adopt the easy solution of opting for government run healthcare programs, so you end up having to pay extra for it one way or the other, since goverment money is ultimately people’s money. That’s why the US has the most innovative healthcare system in the world. Europe has a backward kind of mentality toward healthcare. if only government regulations and corporativism could be removed from the healthcare industry, then we’d not only have the most innovative healthcare system in the world, but also the most affordable one.

    • avatar

      Very well said Juan.

  30. avatar
    Hasan Özdemir

    Actually you’re wrong.You are similar to the detective of hannibal film.Honest, brave but unemployment like me.But Guido Raimondi ranks steadily, despite of a lawyer of ?LO.You want to believe a secular religion. Unfortunately the reverends of Capitalism is a professional liar and fraudulent . You should read some nihilism in my opinion.For example Marquis de Sade or Nietche or Turgenyev or Freud or at least Schpenhauer or Baudrillard. Even Apple uses old technologies which in the Silicon Valley in 1960s were developed and money of Apple was stuffed in Cayman ?slands, new technologies without developed. ?t chases only patent rights any more, moreover now with the rival of it who Microsoft acts the patent rights of Kodak. Oil industry is like inside 1900s yet.You should watch “there will be blood” film. Competitiveness is the pseudo of Capitalism. Every big capitalist wants to ruin every sort of competitive in the market of oneself and if she/he is big enoughly, she/he can realise easily, despite of regulations. Because Politicians and Judges are thieves usually and they want to be rich without work far too.

  31. avatar
    Juan Vázquez García

    Now I understand why Europe has so many problems. You’re not going anywhere if you think like that. The US sure has its problems but not as big as Europeans’. What do all these things you mention have to do with healthcare? Seriously, my man. You think capitalism is the problem, when it’s the opposite. Europe got in trouble because it has too much government, and if the US has any problems it’s because of the same exact reason: too much government meddling in the free market. Capitalism works because it believes in innovation. What doesn’t work is crony capitalism or corporatism. But that’s closer to socialism than it is to capitalism.

  32. avatar
    Hasan Özdemir

    ? think our thieves are much more talented than the thieves of EU, therefore we should go to there. Once Adorno had said for Germany of Hitler that : the organizednation for a ruin. Perhaps an another nation might organized for theft. Besides everything altough Europe is still the most intellectual community in our planet and if EU can challenge crony capitalism or theft, an avantgarde will be for World like enlightenment era. US has not any knowledge. They leans only to buy and patent rights. The last explanation : it is not important whether does the production system of World run as a capitalism or as a socialism, if you are a nihilist.The most important thing is to redress to needs. China or Russia can realise that in future.

  33. avatar
    Juan Vázquez García

    Yeah, well good luck realizing your needs when you don’t live in the real world, pal. You’ll be eaten by wolves. Keep your system, we’ll keep ours and let’s see who’s still standing 20 years from now.

  34. avatar
    Suru Mihaela

    Absolut No, do not follow an already scrwed system like the US, it is too expensive…..Is an ironie US is trying to implement a social healthcare system and Europe is thinking of a private one…My opinion, US can handel it’s private system cause it was built that way and the society is already adjusted to it…but Europeans work by a different mechanism, a private healthcare system will kill them..

  35. avatar
    Juan Vázquez García

    On second look though, there’s no reason to believe the crooks and liars in power will privatize medicine to offer solutions, so “no”, it won’t work, but for very different reasons than any of the ones given above.

  36. avatar
    Lesley Christensen

    Privitized health care will specialize in any task that gives the highest profit. The focus will end up on botox and wellness. Research on actual disease will only take place when funded by some person who has lost a loved one to such disease.

  37. avatar
    Wolf Besche

    Die wohlfeilen Preise ihrer Waren sind die schwere Artillerie, mit der sie alle chinesischen Mauern in den Grund schiet…

  38. avatar
    Chris Carr

    Definitely No. The healthcare system would end up like America. Firemen, national heroes when the twin towers were struck, have now been forgotten, left to rot. You get cancer and you’ll have to sell your house. Never mind shareholder sitting on their fat arses doing nothing, go and get a job and make a real contribution to your country. 40 years I’ve paid for my NHS, so rich people (who always want something for nothing) get your fat, grubby, greedy hand of it. And politicians stand up for the populace for a change and stop cowering to bullies in suits.

  39. avatar
    Chris Carr

    The Daily Mail has a reading age of a twelve year old. It’s Tory tosh and supports the suited and booted, those who always want something for nothing. The shareholder breed, who would feel a lot better if the actually had a proper job.

  40. avatar
    Joe Welsh

    Health care must remain free. Private companies are only interested in one thing-profit before people. Just look at the USA the land of the free where people are left to die if they cannot pay. Some things are worth fighting for and OUR NHS is one of them. Think of your children. For God sake people fight back before it’s too late.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.