> It sounds like you are disputing empirical evidence as well as standard economic theory regarding monopsonies.
When there are multiple sellers of generic drugs, you're correct. When there is one seller of a non-generic, life saving drug with no alternative, the NHS is going to pay whatever the one seller, which by definition is a monopoly, is going to charge. [1]
> What is even the point of that sentence?
That we cannot keep increasing NHS funding exponentially. Some people seem to find that fact hard to grasp - there's an upper limit. Another commenter talks about the UK raising debt to fund the NHS. Thank goodness there's a set of rules for government borrowing in the capital markets.
> A) If it is a majority of years it's a fairly slim majority and B) they werent there when it was set up.
Both parties campaigned for the NHS in the 1940s. Labour won. Blair, in power for over a decade promised to "fix the NHS" whatever that meant, but he didn't do it. Thatcher/Cameron/Johnson, all in charge for 2 decades or so, still haven't "sold it off".
> Somebody who knew that they could start charging either customers or government through the nose and make it fantastically profitable.
Except it will never happen. The government would not introduce a commensurate tax cut since they're no longer funding the NHS, so your cost of living would go up, and even in the UK, I think people would get rather upset.
> Branson is one example (Virgin Healthcare sucked £2 billion out of NHS coffers, yay for crony capitalism).
Did he really? Evidence? 2 billion of private money paid by companies into Virgin Healthcare, sure. But did he take £2bn from the NHS?
> They are not so aware of the corruption going on underneath with taxpayer money.
What corruption? Surely the police should be involved if there's true corruption?
I won't defend the NHS. I'll defend the staff that treated my father, but the organization itself needs fixing.
>When there are multiple sellers of generic drugs, you're correct. When there is one seller of a non-generic, life saving drug with no alternative, the NHS is going to pay whatever the one seller, which by definition is a monopoly, is going to charge.
This is incorrect. If the price is too high they refuse, depriving the company of all income. This has been done for certain cancer drugs.
Even if they dont refuse their pricing power lets them beat down prices.
>That we cannot keep increasing NHS funding exponentially
It's barely even increasing in line with inflation.
>Some people seem to find that fact hard
They really dont.
>Both parties campaigned for the NHS in the 1940s.
This is provably false. The tories wanted an insurance based system rather than the system we have modeled on the soviet union.
I think Im gonna leave this discussion here. We clearly dont live in the same plane of reality.
It sounds like you are disputing empirical evidence as well as standard economic theory regarding monopsonies.
>The UK public might "adore" the NHS, but they have a pretty poor understanding of how it is funded.
Not really. It's mostly funded with taxation.
They are not so aware of the corruption going on underneath with taxpayer money.
>If the government kept funding the NHS by an extra X percent
"X" percent? Is this a serious point? That "X" is demanded by the public and X is also too costly? Where "X" is undefined?
What is even the point of that sentence?
>The ruling party, being the Tories, that have been "in charge" of the NHS for the majority of its 70 or so years?
A) If it is a majority of years it's a fairly slim majority and B) they werent there when it was set up.
>And who on earth would buy a loss making healthcare system
Somebody who knew that they could start charging either customers or government through the nose and make it fantastically profitable.
Richard Branson is one example (Virgin Healthcare sucked £2 billion out of NHS coffers, yay for crony capitalism).