Poll: Should Fertility Treatments Be on The NHS
Poll: Poll: Should Fertility Treatments Be on The NHS
Total Members Polled: 185
Discussion
Just a small point on the statistics view point. This is a survey on PH. PH is a website for car enthusiasts. Car enthusiasts are mostly (not 100% but mostly) young men. Young men who are into cars are mostly (not 100% but mostly) more concerned with spending money on cars than starting a family at this point in their lives. I would therefore expect a bias towards "No" in these results.
Two other surveys to which the outcome would be bias would be:
i) Asking on a parently/mother+baby website whether "Should Fertility Treatments Be on The NHS"?
ii) Asking on PH whether performance cars should be taxed more.
Each survey is being answered by what's called a "self selecting group" i.e. those people who happen to use the website on which the survey is published. These people in the self selected group tend to have things about them which made them go onto a particular website which also give them a general per-disposiiton to vote one way or another on particular topics.
Therefore I already know that that the result of this survey on this website will be "No" and I expect it to win by a large margin. However the result must be viewed in the context that it is a VERY long way from being representative of the views of the Taxpayer (which includes people who have not chosen to use the PH forums).
Two other surveys to which the outcome would be bias would be:
i) Asking on a parently/mother+baby website whether "Should Fertility Treatments Be on The NHS"?
ii) Asking on PH whether performance cars should be taxed more.
Each survey is being answered by what's called a "self selecting group" i.e. those people who happen to use the website on which the survey is published. These people in the self selected group tend to have things about them which made them go onto a particular website which also give them a general per-disposiiton to vote one way or another on particular topics.
Therefore I already know that that the result of this survey on this website will be "No" and I expect it to win by a large margin. However the result must be viewed in the context that it is a VERY long way from being representative of the views of the Taxpayer (which includes people who have not chosen to use the PH forums).
Of course this can only be a measure of Phers views.
It's entirely possible you would get a different distribution of answers on a forum called Woman and Home but the results here will still be interesting.
This doesn't validate or enforce any opinion as being the "right" one. It merely gauges the thoughts of an interesting demographic.
It's entirely possible you would get a different distribution of answers on a forum called Woman and Home but the results here will still be interesting.
This doesn't validate or enforce any opinion as being the "right" one. It merely gauges the thoughts of an interesting demographic.
Don said:
Of course this can only be a measure of Phers views.
It's entirely possible you would get a different distribution of answers on a forum called Woman and Home but the results here will still be interesting.
This doesn't validate or enforce any opinion as being the "right" one. It merely gauges the thoughts of an interesting demographic.
Ok. Cool stuff.It's entirely possible you would get a different distribution of answers on a forum called Woman and Home but the results here will still be interesting.
This doesn't validate or enforce any opinion as being the "right" one. It merely gauges the thoughts of an interesting demographic.
mrmr96 said:
Therefore I already know that that the result of this survey on this website will be "No" and I expect it to win by a large margin.
Well I don't know the answer. The discussion thread had a range of views. In some ways PH may be a better forum to ask this question on than you think. This is because being a petrolhead is compltely and utterly independent and totally unrelated to having a view on Fertility treatments.If we get a really overwhelming answer in one direction or another that would suggest that there was some correlation but
mrmr96 said:
However the result must be viewed in the context that it is a VERY long way from being representative of the views of the Taxpayer (which includes people who have not chosen to use the PH forums).
Again that's a supposition not a fact. It may or may not be representative of the opinion of the whole country.Asking the question on Parents-To-Be forum, for example, certainly would be a self-selecting group that would, quite possibly, have a strong bias.
Asking on a forum about gardening ought to be independent - as, one might argue, should a motoring interests site.
personally, there are so many unwanted children in this country in homes it seems wrong to me to spend so much money on trying to get someone pregnant who obviously struggles.
I know its an emotive issue, but IMHO making adoption easier and encoraging parents who cannot concieve to consider that course would be a much better way of doing things.
I know its an emotive issue, but IMHO making adoption easier and encoraging parents who cannot concieve to consider that course would be a much better way of doing things.
well, thats because mrmr78 got the idea of the forum makeup wrong...
i'd say a significant portion of the forum are middle-aged, married men with children... and generally children is an emotive issue dictated by which side of the fence you are on. Just look at the "wife wants kids, i dont, should i grow up" thread.
i'd say a significant portion of the forum are middle-aged, married men with children... and generally children is an emotive issue dictated by which side of the fence you are on. Just look at the "wife wants kids, i dont, should i grow up" thread.
Its worth remembering that this debate is an artefact of the confusion regarding the underlying reasons the NHS was set up for.
A different health system would obviate the debate entirely. If we all had to purchase health insurance then many, if not all, of those contemplating having a family would opt for cover which included IVF. Unless said cover was prohibitively expensive. However there is no reason to suppose that would be true. The entire point of insurance is to spread the risk, and so few people require IVF that the additional cost of IVF cover would be spread amongst millions of people who would never claim on it. So it would be a cheap option to include it.
So if the NHS is viewed as a form of health insurance, with our payments camouflaged within the tax system, it seems automatic that IVF would be part of the package. The market demands it.
If finite resources are the problem (yes!) then look to what is expensive to treat but affects a large percentage of the population. IVF doesnt fall into this category.
A different health system would obviate the debate entirely. If we all had to purchase health insurance then many, if not all, of those contemplating having a family would opt for cover which included IVF. Unless said cover was prohibitively expensive. However there is no reason to suppose that would be true. The entire point of insurance is to spread the risk, and so few people require IVF that the additional cost of IVF cover would be spread amongst millions of people who would never claim on it. So it would be a cheap option to include it.
So if the NHS is viewed as a form of health insurance, with our payments camouflaged within the tax system, it seems automatic that IVF would be part of the package. The market demands it.
If finite resources are the problem (yes!) then look to what is expensive to treat but affects a large percentage of the population. IVF doesnt fall into this category.
Edited by s2art on Friday 28th August 17:39
s2art said:
Its worth remembering that this debate is an artefact of the confusion regarding the underlying reasons the NHS was set up for.
A different health system would obviate the debate entirely. If we all had to purchase health insurance then many, if not all, of those contemplating having a family would opt for cover which included IVF. Unless said cover was prohibitively expensive. However there is no reason to suppose that would be true. The entire point of insurance is to spread the risk, and so few people require IVF that the additional cost of IVF cover would be spread amongst millions of people who would never claim on it. So it would be a cheap option to include it.
So if the NHS is viewed as a form of health insurance, with our payments camouflaged within the tax system, it seems automatic that IVF would be part of the package. The market demands it.
If finite resources are the problem (yes!) then look to what is expensive to treat but affects a large percentage of the population. IVF doesnt fall into this category.
But would the risk be spread? Couples would try to conceive, if nothing has happened after a period you would move to an insurance policy with IVF cover. By the same token a couple who have conceived would select a cheaper policy without IVF cover.A different health system would obviate the debate entirely. If we all had to purchase health insurance then many, if not all, of those contemplating having a family would opt for cover which included IVF. Unless said cover was prohibitively expensive. However there is no reason to suppose that would be true. The entire point of insurance is to spread the risk, and so few people require IVF that the additional cost of IVF cover would be spread amongst millions of people who would never claim on it. So it would be a cheap option to include it.
So if the NHS is viewed as a form of health insurance, with our payments camouflaged within the tax system, it seems automatic that IVF would be part of the package. The market demands it.
If finite resources are the problem (yes!) then look to what is expensive to treat but affects a large percentage of the population. IVF doesnt fall into this category.
Edited by s2art on Friday 28th August 17:39
Not sure how the insurance companies could guard against that.
Fittster said:
s2art said:
Its worth remembering that this debate is an artefact of the confusion regarding the underlying reasons the NHS was set up for.
A different health system would obviate the debate entirely. If we all had to purchase health insurance then many, if not all, of those contemplating having a family would opt for cover which included IVF. Unless said cover was prohibitively expensive. However there is no reason to suppose that would be true. The entire point of insurance is to spread the risk, and so few people require IVF that the additional cost of IVF cover would be spread amongst millions of people who would never claim on it. So it would be a cheap option to include it.
So if the NHS is viewed as a form of health insurance, with our payments camouflaged within the tax system, it seems automatic that IVF would be part of the package. The market demands it.
If finite resources are the problem (yes!) then look to what is expensive to treat but affects a large percentage of the population. IVF doesnt fall into this category.
But would the risk be spread? Couples would try to conceive, if nothing has happened after a period you would move to an insurance policy with IVF cover. By the same token a couple who have conceived would select a cheaper policy without IVF cover.A different health system would obviate the debate entirely. If we all had to purchase health insurance then many, if not all, of those contemplating having a family would opt for cover which included IVF. Unless said cover was prohibitively expensive. However there is no reason to suppose that would be true. The entire point of insurance is to spread the risk, and so few people require IVF that the additional cost of IVF cover would be spread amongst millions of people who would never claim on it. So it would be a cheap option to include it.
So if the NHS is viewed as a form of health insurance, with our payments camouflaged within the tax system, it seems automatic that IVF would be part of the package. The market demands it.
If finite resources are the problem (yes!) then look to what is expensive to treat but affects a large percentage of the population. IVF doesnt fall into this category.
Edited by s2art on Friday 28th August 17:39
Not sure how the insurance companies could guard against that.
s2art said:
Fittster said:
s2art said:
Its worth remembering that this debate is an artefact of the confusion regarding the underlying reasons the NHS was set up for.
A different health system would obviate the debate entirely. If we all had to purchase health insurance then many, if not all, of those contemplating having a family would opt for cover which included IVF. Unless said cover was prohibitively expensive. However there is no reason to suppose that would be true. The entire point of insurance is to spread the risk, and so few people require IVF that the additional cost of IVF cover would be spread amongst millions of people who would never claim on it. So it would be a cheap option to include it.
So if the NHS is viewed as a form of health insurance, with our payments camouflaged within the tax system, it seems automatic that IVF would be part of the package. The market demands it.
If finite resources are the problem (yes!) then look to what is expensive to treat but affects a large percentage of the population. IVF doesnt fall into this category.
But would the risk be spread? Couples would try to conceive, if nothing has happened after a period you would move to an insurance policy with IVF cover. By the same token a couple who have conceived would select a cheaper policy without IVF cover.A different health system would obviate the debate entirely. If we all had to purchase health insurance then many, if not all, of those contemplating having a family would opt for cover which included IVF. Unless said cover was prohibitively expensive. However there is no reason to suppose that would be true. The entire point of insurance is to spread the risk, and so few people require IVF that the additional cost of IVF cover would be spread amongst millions of people who would never claim on it. So it would be a cheap option to include it.
So if the NHS is viewed as a form of health insurance, with our payments camouflaged within the tax system, it seems automatic that IVF would be part of the package. The market demands it.
If finite resources are the problem (yes!) then look to what is expensive to treat but affects a large percentage of the population. IVF doesnt fall into this category.
Edited by s2art on Friday 28th August 17:39
Not sure how the insurance companies could guard against that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff