NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think the idea for a nationalised healthcare system paid for by taxes, and largely free at point of purchase, such as we have in the UK is a good idea or a bad one?

No Daily Mail style remarks about how "the NHS is crap these days" please, just about the idea.

Uh-huh. Yep.

Yes please.

cheaper, more efficient, healthier, and not allowing rich bastards to extort money from the broken? what's the downside?

Do you think the idea for a nationalised healthcare system paid for by taxes, and largely free at point of purchase, such as we have in the UK is a good idea or a bad one?

No Daily Mail style remarks about how "the NHS is crap these days" please, just about the idea.

As much as I frown on socialistic measures, yes. I think it's a good idea.

It'll save me money. *nod*

no question

No, thanks.

I want to know how much people in say the US pay for health insurance. I find a stat in the library the other day, it said that the NHS costs £1,400 per man, woman, and child in the UK (about 1/15th of the average income in the UK). So yeah, comparisons please.

Good for most folks, bad for those who can already afford top notch care and don't care to chip in the extra taxes so others can get basic care.


Let's face it. NHS will never provide the same level of care as one could buy given enough money or good enough insurance, but it will provide care that would be too expensive for some to afford at all. It will also help ease the financial hardship that uninsured middle class families bear when one of them is sick or injured. It's a mixed bag, but I think it's good points outweigh the negative points.

I want to know how much people in say the US pay for health insurance. I find a stat in the library the other day, it said that the NHS costs £1,400 per man, woman, and child in the UK (about 1/15th of the average income in the UK). So yeah, comparisons please.
Theirs depends. But ours is, on the whole, for the vast majority of people, better.

Do you think the idea for a nationalised healthcare system paid for by taxes, and largely free at point of purchase, such as we have in the UK is a good idea or a bad one?

No Daily Mail style remarks about how "the NHS is crap these days" please, just about the idea.

yes very much so (if the belgian system is somewhat similar to the one from the UK). if it was possible they should expand it and make healthcare 'free', but only pay for the cheapest kind of drug with the same effect. they should also discourage the use of antibiotics when unneeded, and encourage the use of more price-friendly treatments (as long as they have the same effect without added problems for the patient of course)

I want to know how much people in say the US pay for health insurance. I find a stat in the library the other day, it said that the NHS costs £1,400 per man, woman, and child in the UK (about 1/15th of the average income in the UK). So yeah, comparisons please.The average person in the US pays $11,000/yr (24% of the average income) for healthcare insurance. My parents pay $26,000/yr. (21% 0f their income)

:eek:

Theirs depends. But ours is, on the whole, for the vast majority of people, better.I'm not really disputing that, I just wanted to get a rough comparison of cost effectiveness. If the prices were the same then I'd still go with the NHS as I know a few Americans who if they're ill avoid going to the doctors to avoid any unnecessary expense.

Any, you should all bow down and pay respect to the world's third largest employer. ~1.8 million people out 60 million people work for the NHS... No group or company on earth employs such a high percentage of a national economy.

The average person in the US pays $11,000/yr (24% of the average income) for healthcare insurance. My parents pay $26,000/yr. (21% 0f their income)

:eek:Jeebus :eek:

I'm surprised there are only 48 million Americans without health insurance, given the costs.

Yes. I strongly support universal healthcare. It's not perfect, and much could be done by politicians to make it a lot better, but you can say that about a lot of things.

The average person in the US pays $11,000/yr (24% of the average income) for healthcare insurance. My parents pay $26,000/yr. (21% 0f their income)

:eek:
$26,000 each? For the two of them? For the entire family?

$26,000 each? For the two of them? For the entire family?Entire family.

NHS is crippled by the fucking Government ( I work for the NHS). They decided that such a great service at 7% of one's wages is far too cheap... so they are crippling it with their aberrant targets that help no one, and with putting business people in charge of health, lite it's a fucking factory.

Guess what happens... due to the idiotic targets and money spent on shit- cutting into NHS dental plans but paying for boob jobs and other shit, firing nurses but hiring £50,000/year managers to be in charge of saving money.
wards are closed down from lack of money... to be bought in bulk by private healthcare providers who will rent their services to the NHS at thrice the cost.

The NHS is a good thing if it would have been left alone and if the fucking idiots in our government wouldn't have been after profits for their golf partners... why do you think the names of the top shareholders in private healthcare providers is undisclosed?

I will give you an example, ok?
I had breast cancer surgery in December at a private hospital. Why? Because the waiting list for NHS was 9 months- in my case the difference between life and death. Why? Because of the idiotic targets put on the UHL trust, which led to people being fired and closure of wards... therefore waiting lists.

Of course the moronic idea of allowing "health tourists" doesn't help. If there would be a rule that only UK resident can get free NHS treatment, it would help a lot.

I don't live in the UK you idiot...stupid Britocentric people... But it woul be a good idea...

I don't live in the UK you idiot...stupid Britocentric people... But it woul be a good idea...Well that was random...

Oh, and the word you're looking for is Anglocentric.

It is a good idea.

Hmm, a poll would be good. Then you wouldn't have so many posts just saying "aye" and "bugrit".

As much as I frown on socialistic measures, yes. I think it's a good idea.

It'll save me money. *nod*

Yes it will :eek:

Anyways, an NHS would be good for everyone, rich and poor alike. Health insurance only hurts the poor.

Do you think the idea for a nationalised healthcare system paid for by taxes, and largely free at point of purchase, such as we have in the UK is a good idea or a bad one?

No Daily Mail style remarks about how "the NHS is crap these days" please, just about the idea.

Bad idea. Taxes are high enough as it is.

I'm surprised there are only 48 million Americans without health insurance, given the costs.

isn't that amazing?

isn't that amazing?Makes me wonder how the ones that do, are actually doing it. I mean, 24% of your income? Holy shit, that's a crazy amount when you throw in a mortgage, home insurance, a car payment, car insurance, flood insurance, life insurance, electricity, water, heat, children expenses, internet, phone, cell, cable, lawn care, taxes... wow I have a headache.

Bad idea. Taxes are high enough as it is.Well think of it this way. You now pay 10pp more in tax, but you've freed up 25% of your income previously spent on health insurance.

Well think of it this way. You now pay 10pp more in tax, but you've freed up 25% of your income previously spent on health insurance.My mom's new job has a great health plan so soon enough we'll be saving loads of money. So that's awesome. Having an extra $26,000/yr of disposable income will be quite a change.

I think the economic advantages of private healthcare (in comparison to NHS) are to good to turn down. However, I think a minimum level of universal access is important.

As such I believer the healthcare system should be fully privatised, and the the government simply subsidises the less-privelidged and un-insured with free public health insurance. It is cheaper than actually running hospitals of their own.

Do you think the idea for a nationalised healthcare system paid for by taxes, and largely free at point of purchase, such as we have in the UK is a good idea or a bad one?

No Daily Mail style remarks about how "the NHS is crap these days" please, just about the idea.

It's a brilliant idea but, sadly, one that's not very well implemented. The Government is pressuring it from above to do more for less, which is impossible, while it's pressured from below by the media and thus, through the power of the press, the public, to do more no matter what it takes.
With all that, is it any wonder the NHS is a shambles? It's a brilliant system but it's being strangled from all directions; one would think that a party which labels itself as socialist would do their utmost to support it, but evidently Labour lies about its non-existent socialist tendencies.

Does that count as a Daily Mail style remark? If so then I apologise.

Ilaer

Each to their own but I’m a libertarian so I see the tax taken from my family for such services as punishment for being successful. We could be buying a yacht or something. ;)

Does that count as a Daily Mail style remark? If so then I apologise.
No dear; blaming immigration, non-hetereosexuals, and Catholics for the collapse of the NHS via sentences which must employ the words "spongers", "wierdos", and "heathens" would be a Daily Mail comment. :rolleyes:

^ That was an "Independent" or maybe even "Guardian" comment. ;)

Well think of it this way. You now pay 10pp more in tax, but you've freed up 25% of your income previously spent on health insurance.

I pay enough taxes to the government. Why would I support an increase in taxes that would force me to cut back on supporting the economy?

I pay enough taxes to the government. Why would I support an increase in taxes that would force me to cut back on supporting the economy?Seriously. My dad's income is taxed 56% after federal, state, local, and property taxes are accounted for. That's ridiculous, then add on the health insurance costs and... jeez.

I don't think he'd appreciate a tax hike. :p

Seriously. My dad's income is taxed 56% after federal, state, local, and property taxes are accounted for. That's ridiculous, then add on the health insurance costs and... jeez.

I don't think he'd appreciate a tax hike. :p

Neither would most people.

I know I wouldn't. I'm already earning $2,100 less a month then I spend, I don't need no stinkin' tax hike, they take enough given my dismal income.

I know I wouldn't. I'm already earning $2,100 less a month then I spend, I don't need no stinkin' tax hike, they take enough given my dismal income.

Hear Hear

Debt FTL

:mad:

I think the economic advantages of private healthcare (in comparison to NHS) are to good to turn down.

name one

I pay enough taxes to the government. Why would I support an increase in taxes that would force me to cut back on supporting the economy?

because it would be cheaper to do so for you

name one
*sigh* And so the pathetically annoying tactic of wearing down your opposition by making them endlessly search for sources begins. :rolleyes:

I would support better tax options for people who buy insurance (like a tax credit, or a better deduction) and I wouldn't mind the government better subsidizing health care for the indigent (like my state already does) but as far as a national health care system like they have in other areas? I don't support that.

*sigh* And so the pathetically annoying tactic of wearing down your opposition by making them endlessly search for sources begins. :rolleyes:
if you make a point you have to be able to back it up. such is the nature of debate. if you don't like that you really shouldn't be giving your input.

Each to their own but I’m a libertarian so I see the tax taken from my family for such services as punishment for being successful. We could be buying a yacht or something. ;)
QFT.

because it would be cheaper to do so for you

And take food off of my table and harms my ability to assist the economy. No thanks FS. I much rather have money to spend to keep the economy going than having my money taken for a system that will be abused and broken in short order.

because it would be cheaper to do so for you
I'll be spending my money how I like, be it 10p or £1 000 000, thank you very much.

And take food off of my table and harms my ability to assist the economy. No thanks FS. I much rather have money to spend to keep the economy going than having my money taken for a system that will be abused and broken in short order.

did you even read the post that started this? a small rise in taxes, eprhaps accounting for a couple of thousand dollars, frees up an average of $11,000(!) worth of disposable income, which you no longer need to use for health insurance, for you to support your precious economy.

And take food off of my table and harms my ability to assist the economy. No thanks FS. I much rather have money to spend to keep the economy going than having my money taken for a system that will be abused and broken in short order.

right, which is exactly why you ought to support a rational system of healthcare, rather than anything even remotely like the USian thieves and bandits clusterfuck

I'll be spending my money how I like, be it 10p or £1 000 000, thank you very much.

well fine. but homo economicus is required by sheer force of economic rationality to opt for a system of universal healthcare.

It's a good thing, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The American health system seems really stupid, though, since they pay more for poorer healthcare. I don't see any reason not to create universal healthcare in the USA.

*sigh* And so the pathetically annoying tactic of wearing down your opposition by making them endlessly search for sources begins. :rolleyes:

pobrecito

It's a good thing, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The American health system seems really stupid, though, since they pay more for poorer healthcare. I don't see any reason not to create universal healthcare in the USA.

hey, we can't go around showing the world that we aren't a bunch of arrogant ignorant lunatics. we still have our pride, you know.

did you even read the post that started this? a small rise in taxes, eprhaps accounting for a couple of thousand dollars, frees up an average of $11,000(!) worth of disposable income, which you no longer need to use for health insurance, for you to support your precious economy.

I do not support tax hikes. I pay to much in taxes as it is. A couple of thousand dollars will go along way to help me start building a life for me and my gf. I do not want my taxes to be raised. It hurts the economy when taxes are raised. People will spend less money because of the tax hike.

It's a good thing, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The American health system seems really stupid, though, since they pay more for poorer healthcare. I don't see any reason not to create universal healthcare in the USA.

can you expand on how our health care is "really stupid" ?

can you expand on how our health care is "really stupid" ?
What I said there. Americans pay a lot more for health care and the standard of healthcare is poorer than, say, in Europe.

can you expand on how our health care is "really stupid" ?

we pay way more per person than any other industrialized country for near-the-bottom results. i mean, if we're going to have the shitty health indicators we do, the least we could do is cut our cost down to romania's level

right, which is exactly why you ought to support a rational system of healthcare, rather than anything even remotely like the USian thieves and bandits clusterfuck

I will not support any tax hike unless it was 100% absolutely essential. A tax hike for this is not 100% essential. It'll be a drain on resources and the only way to afford it is to hack many programs that no one wants to cut. You have to think on how it is going to be paid. A tax hike will not pay for this.

Keinen Dank.

You can keep it, I'll have none of this "national health service" bunk.

I will not support any tax hike unless it was 100% absolutely essential. A tax hike for this is not 100% essential. It'll be a drain on resources and the only way to afford it is to hack many programs that no one wants to cut. You have to think on how it is going to be paid. A tax hike will not pay for this.

corny, i know this is difficult for you, but pay attention, i'll go through it slowly.

it. will. cost. you. personally. less. money. to. have. u-n-i-v-e-r-s-a-l h-e-a-l-t-h-c-a-r-e. than. it. does. for. you. to. be. insured. right. now.

What I said there. Americans pay a lot more for health care and the standard of healthcare is poorer than, say, in Europe.

The argument generally revolves around the charge that the system has the negatives of both the private and public style systems, as our healthcare providers are so horrendously overregulated by the government. The contradiction needs to be resolved, but neither side in the American debate is willing to give an inch. We've got a compromise that gives us the worst of both worlds.

The US has some of the best medical services anywhere IF you can afford it.

I don't think universal health care will ever get going in the US as HMO are way too powerful and way too well connected.

Everytime an election draws near they drag this stuff out again like the carrot in front of the donkey.

Universal health care would be better for everyone but I doubt it will ever happen here.

:(

I do not support tax hikes. I pay to much in taxes as it is. A couple of thousand dollars will go along way to help me start building a life for me and my gf. I do not want my taxes to be raised. It hurts the economy when taxes are raised. People will spend less money because of the tax hike.

for someone who has such a concern for the economy you're pretty crap at maths. i'll spell it out: ~$2000pa tax hike to pay for NHS; ~$11,000 saving from not having to pay health insurance; net saving is ~$9,000 for you and your girlfriend to start building a life in the security of knowing that there will be guaranteed healthcare available for both of you, plus any children you happen to bring into the world, anywhere in the country, and perhaps abroad aswell if your country makes agreements with other neighbours to pay for healthcare you may need when you go abroad.

name one
Competitive free market of healthcare provides a greater variety of better, more efficient services, which one can always turn down for a competing rival if one is disappointed (Thus, in effect guaranteeiung what the people get is based upon what they demand, and not politically expedient vote-buying policies of corrupt small-time politicians).

For one.

im an insurance broker by trade, so i see the effects of government intervention in healthcare daily. with that in mind, i can safely say that it is far and away much, much easier for me to secure your millions, set up your pension plan or make sure your kids' college is paid for than it is for me to deal with your medicare benefits.

i have one client right now who has been months without her medication because the government is dragging their feet and refusing to call us back. i had to open up a congressional inquiry on her behalf and we're still not getting anywhere. she, of course, didn't have any problems until the feds interfered but now that they have, they've fixed a relationship between my client and themselves where she is left without any alternatives.

i swear to whatever god you worship, it's better to promote industry and let the companies worry about outdoing each other.

The argument generally revolves around the charge that the system has the negatives of both the private and public style systems, as our healthcare providers are so horrendously overregulated by the government. The contradiction needs to be resolved, but neither side in the American debate is willing to give an inch. We've got a compromise that gives us the worst of both worlds.

I hate being on the end of the page when I want my idea to be heard.

im an insurance broker by trade, so i see the effects of government intervention in healthcare daily. with that in mind, i can safely say that it is far and away much, much easier for me to secure your millions, set up your pension plan or make sure your kids' college is paid for than it is for me to deal with your medicare benefits.

i have one client right now who has been months without her medication because the government is dragging their feet and refusing to call us back. i had to open up a congressional inquiry on her behalf and we're still not getting anywhere. she, of course, didn't have any problems until the feds interfered but now that they have, they've fixed a relationship between my client and themselves where she is left without any alternatives.

i swear to whatever god you worship, it's better to promote industry and let the companies worry about outdoing each other.
Right. This is why I think it'd be better just to privatise the lot, and have the government subsidise access to basic insurance for those who can't afford it.

Competitive free market of healthcare provides a greater variety of better, more efficient services, which one can always turn down for a competing rival if one is disappointed (Thus, in effect guaranteeiung what the people get is based upon what they demand, and not politically expedient vote-buying policies of corrupt small-time politicians).

For one.

this is objectively untrue

Right. This is why I think it'd be better just to privatise the lot, and have the government subsidise access to basic insurance for those who can't afford it.

as long as it's the state government who does it, i can live with this :)

this is objectively untrue
And this is an assertion, not an arguement.

I personally don’t care about “everyone”, I don’t care about how this would benefit the wellbeing of the majority because this oh so miraculous cheaper per head system requires that the State take a proportion of money from the rich in order to function. These people are the least likely to use an NHS but yet fall victim to having their money stolen (it is undeniably theft and suggesting they didn’t “earn” it is the politics of envy).

The girlfriend and boyfriend starting life (which I believe was cited earlier but I was glancing) are having an easier beginning based on money they did not work for, on an immorality that they willingly ignore so please tell me why they deserve an easy life if they didn’t earn it?

The entire premise of the State confiscating money for such things is that it knows how to judge better than the people do which is sickening to me. I’ll do what I wish with my money because it’s my property.

I enjoy voluntary work, any money I can afford to give I award to those charities so if our NHS ceased to exist I’d have more tax money to give to local or national causes to help the people I wish too, my property going to ensure the health of people I want it to voluntarily. I’d much prefer a system reliant on charity and option as opposed to this collectivist approach.

Now I’m slightly affect by a wee bit of gin at the moment but I do dearly hope you can garner at least something semi-coherent from that. Good luck. :)

*snip*
I agree 100%. I like you. :D

corny, i know this is difficult for you, but pay attention, i'll go through it slowly.

it. will. cost. you. personally. less. money. to. have. u-n-i-v-e-r-s-a-l h-e-a-l-t-h-c-a-r-e. than. it. does. for. you. to. be. insured. right. now.

No it won't for I will be paying higher taxes to support it.

I agree 100%. I like you. :D

Awww, well aren’t you a sweetheart? :D I like you too dear and *points at your sig* every single detail matches me more of less exactly in those lil links so lovely to meet you. :)

Also, Congratulations on deciphering that nonsense to figure out you agree with it, have a gin.;)

No it won't for I will be paying higher taxes to support it....

very simple logic try follow it if you can...

I pay about 2,000 per year through my taxes for health coverage, the average american will pay $5,000+ for private insurance so I save a $3,000 per year paying with taxes...what unique math system are you using that can convert a minimum $3000 saving into higher taxes?....

I pay about 2,000 per year through my taxes for health coverage, the average american will pay $5,000+ for private insurance so I save a $3,000 per year paying with taxes...what unique math system are you using that can convert a minimum $3000 saving into higher taxes?....

You are of course presuming that he wouldn’t continue to use private healthcare (e.g BUPA in the UK) in a system with that taxation.

For my family the only effect of the NHS has is increased taxes because we don’t use the services it provides, we pay for private treatment so I’m worse off than if universal healthcare didn’t exist.

Tell me, why should I be obligated to pay for a service I don’t use and don't want?

Tell me, why should I be obligated to pay for a service I don’t use and don't want?

hi and welcome to 'society'

And this is an assertion, not an arguement.

sure it is, but the basic facts are indisputable, so there ain't much point in providing a full argument from the factual premise "your claim is untrue" to the conclusion "thus your claim cannot be a benefit"

You are of course presuming that he wouldn’t continue to use private healthcare (e.g BUPA in the UK) in a system with that taxation.

For my family the only effect of the NHS has is increased taxes because we don’t use the services it provides, we pay for private treatment so I’m worse off than if universal healthcare didn’t exist.



I can't comment on what your system offers you or why you choose not to use it, seems silly to me to turn it down...I have all the public insurance I could want, cradle to grave coverage...I also pay $208 per year for my entire for private insurance to cover the extra frills my public insurance doesn't cover...

Tell me, why should I be obligated to pay for a service I don’t use and don't want?

why should I pay for my countries military which I don't use or want? why should I pay for and education system which I don't use or want? ...because I'm part of the society which I live...:D

Corny, it's not that hard to understand. If you have an NHS, you don't need to keep paying for insurance, correct? That means all of the money you spent on insurance is now yours. Meanwhile, you spend a small fraction of the money you once spent on insurance on the tax hike for the NHS. You still have a large net gain. Why do you seem to not understand how this works?

*sigh*

There are many benefits to a universal healthcare system.

The first off is that comparitively it appears to be more efficient. It seems that government clerks are willing to work for less than insurance clerks.

It would end the farce that is medicare as you no longer have to source payment before an operation begins. All that is required is that you hand your 'National Insurance number' to the hospital and they collect payment in bulk from the government later.

The money that you pay in taxes is still in the economy. The bulk of NHS funds are wages, and these people need to eat and sleep just like the rest of us and hence spend their wages, thus keeping the money moving in the economy.

Finally, a universal healthcare system benefits the economy in that all workers and any dependents they have can access healthcare for free. A better provision of healthcare means that workers are less likely to take tiem off due to illness since many ailments can be treated before they become a problem and require workers to take time off work.

If you have a problem with universal healthcare then perhaps you would like to elaborate why you have a problem with state funded schools as well.

The first off is that comparitively it appears to be more efficient. It seems that government clerks are willing to work for less than insurance clerks.

i don't know about that. but it is lacking quite so large a class of bandits and thieves enriching themselves off of other people's suffering.

You are of course presuming that he wouldn’t continue to use private healthcare (e.g BUPA in the UK) in a system with that taxation.

For my family the only effect of the NHS has is increased taxes because we don’t use the services it provides, we pay for private treatment so I’m worse off than if universal healthcare didn’t exist.

Tell me, why should I be obligated to pay for a service I don’t use and don't want?
Should an educated immigrant without kids not expect to pay taxes to fund education? Should people like me who take our rubbish to the local recycling centre not expect to pay council tax to fund rubbish collection?

Should an educated immigrant without kids not expect to pay taxes to fund education? Should people like me who take our rubbish to the local recycling centre not expect to pay council tax to fund rubbish collection?

yes - but that's not what he'll say

You are of course presuming that he wouldn’t continue to use private healthcare (e.g BUPA in the UK) in a system with that taxation.

For my family the only effect of the NHS has is increased taxes because we don’t use the services it provides, we pay for private treatment so I’m worse off than if universal healthcare didn’t exist.

Tell me, why should I be obligated to pay for a service I don’t use and don't want?

Are you sure you don't use any NHS services?
How much did your last prescription cost? Dentist? GP appointment?

Universal health care is a wonderful idea and works well (for the most part) in practice. The only problem is is to try and keep it out of political wrangling, which is nigh-on impossible. If they could do that, then the system would be brilliant (as opposed to just good).

The problem I see with not having universal health care system is that it simply ignores those who can not afford to have the needed treatment, and attempting to rely on charity seems a particularly generous assumption on humanity, which I do not think is the case.

The problem I see with not having universal health care system is that it simply ignores those who can not afford to have the needed treatment, and attempting to rely on charity seems a particularly generous assumption on humanity, which I do not think is the case.
Well, that's not entirely true. The USA does have Medicaid and all hospitals do have to provide free emergency treatment (I think) but nevertheless, the problem of having people who do not have good access to healthcare remains.

So, remind me, how does the US system work and what are chances of a un9versal state-funded US system being creating under either a Democrat/ Republican Congress/ Executive?

I think Japan's unique approach to health care suits Japan well, and do not wish to see a European-style single-payer system (as exists in Taiwan) here.

cheaper, more efficient, healthier, and not allowing rich bastards to extort money from the broken? what's the downside?

Poor quality control. Also when the patient isn't the one who pays, the doc don't view him as his buyer and don't try to provide the best service possible, since he get paid and get the same amount of work anyway.

Still the idea is good, and could work with some modifications that give the pation more control and posibillity to chose their therapist

Each to their own but I’m a libertarian so I see the tax taken from my family for such services as punishment for being successful. We could be buying a yacht or something.

And they say society is going to the dogs.

Bad idea. Taxes are high enough as it is.
It's weird how people would rather pay more money out of pocket in total than pay less but with a greater percentage of the total being taxes.

Makes me wonder how the ones that do, are actually doing it. I mean, 24% of your income? Holy shit, that's a crazy amount when you throw in a mortgage, home insurance, a car payment, car insurance, flood insurance, life insurance, electricity, water, heat, children expenses, internet, phone, cell, cable, lawn care, taxes... wow I have a headache.
Yeah, 24% is more than the tax rate where I live but apparently it's not how much things cost you that matters, only how much taxes cost you. If as it turns out paying 5 cents more on taxes a week saves you 26,000 dollars a year, that's a bad idea because taxes are high enough as it is.

I do not support tax hikes. I pay to much in taxes as it is. A couple of thousand dollars will go along way to help me start building a life for me and my gf. I do not want my taxes to be raised. It hurts the economy when taxes are raised. People will spend less money because of the tax hike.
Of course, because money that is or might be taken for taxes is much better for building a life than money that is or might be taken for health insurance/health care....no one knows why since it's all money and so ought to be all of the same value when it comes to life starting, but that's just another of life's great mysteries. And it's definately true that when one's outgoings in the form of taxes rise by a couple of thousand dollars and at the same time their outgoings in the form of health care insurance/costs drops by many thousand more dollars, resulting in one having thousands of dollars more than they previously did, they immediately spend less and the economy is hurt. Again no one knows why people spend less when they have more disposal income, nor why this only occurs when the lowered outgoings include increased taxes, it goes against everything economists would teach us....yet another of life's great mysteries.

You are of course presuming that he wouldn’t continue to use private healthcare (e.g BUPA in the UK) in a system with that taxation.

For my family the only effect of the NHS has is increased taxes because we don’t use the services it provides, we pay for private treatment so I’m worse off than if universal healthcare didn’t exist.

Tell me, why should I be obligated to pay for a service I don’t use and don't want?
However you get your money, the health and consequent productivity of those who cannot afford private health insurance is a factor in your income being high enough that you can choose to spurn the public system in favour of the private system. Without health care people are less productive and the productivity of others is the only reason why you can earn as much as you do, some of those others cannot afford health care in the absence of a NHS. To put it bluntly it is in your financial interests to do your bit to maintain the productivity that is essential to your earning-power.

I think Japan's unique approach to health care suits Japan well, and do not wish to see a European-style single-payer system (as exists in Taiwan) here.
Most European nations don't use single payer, except Sweden, as far as I know.

hi and welcome to 'society'
I know it gets old but, well, it's worth saying again:
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society there are individual men and women, and there are families...people must look to themselves first."

why should I pay for my countries military which I don't use or want? why should I pay for and education system which I don't use or want? ...because I'm part of the society which I live...

You are of course talking to an individual who doesn't believe in taxation except for defence and law and order. While you may not want a military you inevitably use it because your personal safety relies on your nation's ability to protect you.

On the other hand; using State education and using State healthcare are completely optional (options I don't take) so I shouldn't have to pay for them. It's quite simple and using the status quo as justification for that theft is ridiculous.

Should an educated immigrant without kids not expect to pay taxes to fund education? Should people like me who take our rubbish to the local recycling centre not expect to pay council tax to fund rubbish collection?

In the case of both you shouldn’t, you should pay for the services you use. If it improves your community by having an advanced rubbish collection system then you could simply donate money to that cause willingly.

yes - but that's not what he'll say
For future reference dear it's "she". I'm just cold-hearted.

Are you sure you don't use any NHS services?
How much did your last prescription cost? Dentist? GP appointment?

I’m fairly sure I never have or never will but if I have used NHS services at some point then I can assure it would not have been optional, it would have been as a result of the State making it impossible to completely opt out of the system.

And they say society is going to the dogs.
Again, I don’t believe in the same concept of “society” as you do. I believe in individual sovereignty and inviolable freedoms. I don’t judge your concept of society, if you wish to participate in some kind of collectivist system then by all means do it, just don’t force me to as well. :)

However you get your money, the health and consequent productivity of those who cannot afford private health insurance is a factor in your income being high enough that you can choose to spurn the public system in favour of the private system. Without health care people are less productive and the productivity of others is the only reason why you can earn as much as you do, some of those others cannot afford health care in the absence of a NHS. To put it bluntly it is in your financial interests to do your bit to maintain the productivity that is essential to your earning-power.

I do apologise that I’m going to attempt to counter this with such a short argument given that you wrote so much but I don’t think removing money from me to increase the aggregate wealth of all is justification for this. It is still undeniably my money and if it is of benefit to me economically for others to be healthy and productive then I should voluntarily be able to donate money to causes of my choosing in the name of rational self-interest but no other should have the ability to make that choice.

To remove that choice on the grounds that I don’t know what’s best is an inexcusable presumption to make. I noted this earlier but if I had the money stolen through taxation I’d be able to donate it to the charities I work with to help people because I do see that the health of others matters, I just do not believe that forcing me is correct.

In the case of both you shouldn’t, you should pay for the services you use. If it improves your community by having an advanced rubbish collection system then you could simply donate money to that cause willingly.
We do. We willingly elect county councillors who we know will tax us.

We do. We willingly elect county councillors who we know will tax us.

Then that’s perfectly acceptable as long as it’s willing, if you’re forming a community by pooling your money that’s your choice but what about the people who vote for the opposition on the grounds they don’t want to pay tax for services? Do they get to opt out?

(Naturally the services they don’t pay for are withdrawn and they shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from those who willingly pool their money)

*I sense a trap that I'm springing here*:D

Well, that's not entirely true. The USA does have Medicaid and all hospitals do have to provide free emergency treatment (I think) but nevertheless, the problem of having people who do not have good access to healthcare remains.

You are indeed right about emergency treatment. They are obligated to render full assistance to save your life.

Then that’s perfectly acceptable as long as it’s willing, if you’re forming a community by pooling your money that’s your choice but what about the people who vote for the opposition on the grounds they don’t want to pay tax for services? Do they get to opt out?
No. They still have to pay, in this case, council tax, at the rate set by that county.

(Naturally the services they don’t pay for are withdrawn and they shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from those who willingly pool their money)

*I sense a trap that I'm springing here*:D
Nope, their services aren't withdrawn. They might have to to to jail, or pay a hefty fine, but those services funded by tax would still be available.

Poor quality control. Also when the patient isn't the one who pays, the doc don't view him as his buyer and don't try to provide the best service possible, since he get paid and get the same amount of work anyway.

It doesn't look like you have all that much faith in doctors...they are professionally responsible for helping the patient. Indeed, I believe it is understood that, as the "doc don't view him as his buyer", medical practitioners don't feel the need to do irrelevant tests (such as MRI scans) in order to get paid more.

You are indeed right about emergency treatment. They are obligated to render full assistance to save your life.
Out of interest, how is this funded? Is it by the hospital, the State or by insurers?

I know it gets old but, well, it's worth saying again:
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society there are individual men and women, and there are families...people must look to themselves first."
What a stupid statement, of course there is such a thing as society, just as there is such a thing as forests, yes, even though there are also individual trees and vegetation....

You are of course talking to an individual who doesn't believe in taxation except for defence and law and order. While you may not want a military you inevitably use it because your personal safety relies on your nation's ability to protect you.
While you may not want a health care system you inevitably use it for your personal health and financial security because it protects against the spread of diseases that you would otherwise be exposed to and secures the productivity on which your financial well-being relies.

On the other hand; using State education and using State healthcare are completely optional (options I don't take) so I shouldn't have to pay for them. It's quite simple and using the status quo as justification for that theft is ridiculous.
On the other hand you are wrong. Whether or not you wish it to be, your health is protected by the health care others receive as is your financial well-being. The same is true of education in regards to you benefiting from the education of others. The current prosperity enjoyed in the Western world relies on wide-spread literacy, specifically the kind of literacy levels you only get where children are educated even if their parents cannot foot the bill. You are benefitting as inevitably from the things you dont want to be forced to pay for, as others are from the things you seem quite fine with forcing them to pay for.

In the case of both you shouldn’t, you should pay for the services you use. If it improves your community by having an advanced rubbish collection system then you could simply donate money to that cause willingly.
Except things dont work out like that. Plently of people will see the benefit but figure 'someone' will pay up so they dont have to. Plenty of others will fail to see the benefit at all no matter how obvious and undeniable it may be. Regular exercise is known to be beneficial, eating lots of junk is known to be harmful, yet plenty of people dont get regular exercise and plenty of people eat loads of junk-food. If your solution or alternative to the status quo relies on people willingly doing what they know to be good and to their own benefit, then we can rationally conclude it's not even a starter.


I’m fairly sure I never have or never will but if I have used NHS services at some point then I can assure it would not have been optional, it would have been as a result of the State making it impossible to completely opt out of the system.
Much like the State making non-use of or non-benefit from the military impossible. For some reason this in your mind justifies forcing everyone to pay for what you want (the military) but makes forcing you to pay for what everyone else wants some of kind of crime against you.

Again, I don’t believe in the same concept of “society” as you do. I believe in individual sovereignty and inviolable freedoms. I don’t judge your concept of society, if you wish to participate in some kind of collectivist system then by all means do it, just don’t force me to as well. :)
You are welcome to go start your own society anytime you like, or alternatively to move somewhere non-'collectivist'.....just dont expect the same high standard of living to which you are currently accustomed since it's the kind of society you complain about that makes it possible.

I do apologise that I’m going to attempt to counter this with such a short argument given that you wrote so much but I don’t think removing money from me to increase the aggregate wealth of all is justification for this.
Which might be relevent had I suggested any such thing, but since I didnt it's a strawman, have fun beating it.

It is still undeniably my money
Is it? Who prints it? Who validates it? Who would accept it as payment for anything if not for the societal structures and resources that stand behind it and make it worth even so much as the paper it's printed on?

and if it is of benefit to me economically for others to be healthy and productive then I should voluntarily be able to donate money to causes of my choosing in the name of rational self-interest but no other should have the ability to make that choice.
Nonesense. There are nearly endless real-world counter-examples to this silly line of reasoning. If what you said were reasonable we wouldnt have people eating their way to diabetes, we wouldnt have people taking up with and refusing to leave abusive spouses, no one would take harmful narcotics just to 'get high', and every child would always complete their homework with the greatest enthusiasm.

To remove that choice on the grounds that I don’t know what’s best is an inexcusable presumption to make.
No such assumption need be made. We need only establish that left to their own devices a sufficient number of people will not do either what is best for them personally, or what is best for their wider group (be it family, community or society). As it happens there is ample evidence that this is the case.

I noted this earlier but if I had the money stolen through taxation I’d be able to donate it to the charities I work with to help people because I do see that the health of others matters, I just do not believe that forcing me is correct.
Yeah, we've had and tried this system, it failed.

The fact is you have completely ignored the point I did make in order to go off bashing strawmen and to have a general rant that reiterates what we could already have ascertained from your earlier comments. We know that large numbers of people will not see to their own well-being, much less that of others, and that charitable donations (aside from not being rationally targetted towards need but rather towards the preferences of the donators and whatever is fashionable in the world of philanthropy this week) fall short of what is required to achieve the huge benefits that you currently enjoy.

You enjoy the benefits of the taxes that go to provide healthcare to those that cannot afford it, according to you enjoying the benefits of the military is good enough reason to pay up even if you dont want or like the military. You enjoy the benefits of State subsidised healthcare whether you like it or not and whether you want it or not, according to your own reasoning, that's good enough justification, or does that only apply to things you like?

I know it gets old but, well, it's worth saying again:
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society there are individual men and women, and there are families...people must look to themselves first."

How do families exist when society don't?

You are of course talking to an individual who doesn't believe in taxation except for defence and law and order. While you may not want a military you inevitably use it because your personal safety relies on your nation's ability to protect you.

Why are taxes on defense and law and order legitatmate? A person may use a safe environment but that doesn't mean they consented to it. At least be consistent in your thought and become an anarcho-capitalist.

I strongly support Universal Healthcare and it should be one of the top priorities of the goverment. Business should stay out of it or we will end up with what you have in USA. UH is much more important than stupid tax cuts that will benefit the rich.

i don't know about that. but it is lacking quite so large a class of bandits and thieves enriching themselves off of other people's suffering.It's just an assertation based on the fact that the the USA spends much more per capita on healthcare than many countries with universal socialised healthcare. I then go on to cynically attribute this to the idea that the government refuses to pay it's lowly administrators more, but insurance companies feel the need to have to pay their employees more or face them deserting in search of higher paid jobs - to any real difference in effciency.

Each to their own but I’m a libertarian so I see the tax taken from my family for such services as punishment for being successful. We could be buying a yacht or something. ;)Ah yes, but successful in what? Being materially productive, being able to wield power, or both? I believe that a significant proportion of the wealth of the rich is amassed through the exercise of power. Hence the concept of socialised services is merely a way of redressing the balance of power. People are still rich if they are successful, but people are not impoverished through extortion.

I know it gets old but, well, it's worth saying again:
"And, you know, there is no such thing as society there are individual men and women, and there are families...people must look to themselves first."

combining my buying power with every other family in the country for a better deal in regards to Health is looking out for my family 1st

You are of course talking to an individual who doesn't believe in taxation except for defence and law and order. While you may not want a military you inevitably use it because your personal safety relies on your nation's ability to protect you.

our military is a waste of money, we haven't been attacked in over a hundred yrs and the only country ever to attack us was the USA and should they do so again our military is not capable of stopping them so my personal safety does not depend on them...but I pay my tax which pays the defense budget whether I agree with it or not because I am a member of my society...

On the other hand; using State education and using State healthcare are completely optional (options I don't take) so I shouldn't have to pay for them. It's quite simple and using the status quo as justification for that theft is ridiculous.

what a ludicrous statement, it completely counters the preceding quote...paying taxes for the military to protect you is OK but paying educational tax to train medical personal to protect you from illness should be optional...will you give up the privilege for crossing a government constructed bridge? you opted out of paying the education tax that trained the engineers who designed it, the welders who built it?...you've put very little thought into this...

opting out of being part of society then taking advantage of all it's benefits does not work...you want everything but pay nothing for it, how nice...

I wish they'd take it away from the government. Public funded and all, with taxes and national insurance, but keep it away from the Houses of Parliament, so that peoples' healthcare isn't affected by peoples' political careers.

Yes, cheaper, better, brillaint thing the NHS.

Yes, cheaper, better, brillaint thing the NHS.

I just thought I would let you the english members know that 2 weeks ago 6 mental health departments in North Derbyshire managed in one day to waste £9,000 on useless headed paper, this is A-typical for the NHS.

Reduce this sort of bullshit and I assure you, you will get a much better NHS for your money.

i spend around $2000/year on health insurance that includes health, dental and eye.

do british doctors have the option of running a non nhs practice?

i spend around $2000/year on health insurance that includes health, dental and eye.

do british doctors have the option of running a non nhs practice?
Very much so.

Very much so.

then i couldnt support the idea of a fully british system nhs for the US. we would end up with the really good doctors setting up private practice. we would pay for nhs AND the insurance to cover the better private doctors.

we already have plans to cover the poor, the elderly, most children. i would rather go with a "massachusetts" plan for universal insurance than have the government run our healthcare system.

then i couldnt support the idea of a fully british system nhs for the US. we would end up with the really good doctors setting up private practice. we would pay for nhs AND the insurance to cover the better private doctors.
Nah, you'd put up with the NHS like most people here - it's perfectly good, and free at the point of service - although some do pay for private health insurance too.

Problems with too much government involvement in the healthcare system:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,399537,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5072386.stm
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1942544,00.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1934995,00.html

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,575805,00.gif

Now, I'm not saying it's 100% certain that it will happen, but there is a certain likelihood of it. Government just isn't very good at efficiency and flexibility.

Note that the German system is a bit funny and different from pretty much everywhere else: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/bb3Germany.php

Nah, you'd put up with the NHS like most people here - it's perfectly good, and free at the point of service - although some do pay for private health insurance too.

nah i couldnt put up with the wait. a friend of mine from sheffield had a cataract in one eye, it took a year to get it removed, then the other eye developed a cataract and that took a year and a half.

in the US, that would be taken care of within a month.

nah i couldnt put up with the wait. a friend of mine from sheffield had a cataract in one eye, it took a year to get it removed, then the other eye developed a cataract and that took a year and a half.

in the US, that would be taken care of within a month.

Or less depending on the severity of it.

nah i couldnt put up with the wait. a friend of mine from sheffield had a cataract in one eye, it took a year to get it removed, then the other eye developed a cataract and that took a year and a half.

in the US, that would be taken care of within a month.

or not at all, depending

Or less depending on the severity of it.

not only that but my british friend had to make his own way to his eye surgery. he didnt have a friend who could take him so he had to use the bus both ways.

when my mother had it done, of course she was elderly and living in florida, the eye center came to pick her up, she had both eyes done the same day, then they returned her to her home.

i dont think an NHS clone would ever do that.

not only that but my british friend had to make his own way to his eye surgery. he didnt have a friend who could take him so he had to use the bus both ways.

when my mother had it done, of course she was elderly and living in florida, the eye center came to pick her up, she had both eyes done the same day, then they returned her to her home.

i dont think an NHS clone would ever do that.

Agreed with you 100%.

I just thought I would let you the english members know that 2 weeks ago 6 mental health departments in North Derbyshire managed in one day to waste £9,000 on useless headed paper, this is A-typical for the NHS.

Reduce this sort of bullshit and I assure you, you will get a much better NHS for your money.

I agree with you mate, i suggest you read Simon Kenkins book, Thatchers SOns. Not about the NHS, but shows why care hasn;t improved becuase of the mroe money that has been poured in-too much centeralisation and a very, very odd attempt to apply free-market economics to the NHS. I had to call up today as I've broken my finger and I need a scan, I spent about 10 minuates beign asked where I wanted to eb treated, adn verious stats about each hospital-there where 10 hospitals on the list, including Newcastle which is a 3 1/2 hour drive. MAd, when the hospital I want is my local one.

I agree with you mate, i suggest you read Simon Kenkins book, Thatchers SOns. Not about the NHS, but shows why care hasn;t improved becuase of the mroe money that has been poured in-too much centeralisation and a very, very odd attempt to apply free-market economics to the NHS. I had to call up today as I've broken my finger and I need a scan, I spent about 10 minuates beign asked where I wanted to eb treated, adn verious stats about each hospital-there where 10 hospitals on the list, including Newcastle which is a 3 1/2 hour drive. MAd, when the hospital I want is my local one.

your typing makes your story all the more poignant.

Or you can haul into the local A&E and they'll deal with it.

Yes there are inefficiencies (especially when work is contracted out to private companies, odd that) and GOD help you if you need medical advice and your GP's surgery is shut (my one's open perhaps 6 hours a day, none of which include my lunchtime so I need to call in sick to get an appointment) because then you need to try and get sense out of the call-centre nurses but quite frankly I'll live with losing 1/8th of my pay (rough estimate from my paypacket today) if it means I can get otherwise expensive medicines when I need them on a cheap prescription.

And I've needed them more than once recently. My brother fell ill badly enough he couldn;t eat. Without an NHS prescription, well he'd be alive but we'd be a lot poorer and when I fell ill with the same we'd have been even worse off rather than able to nip it in the bud.

NHS is crippled by the fucking Government ( I work for the NHS). They decided that such a great service at 7% of one's wages is far too cheap... so they are crippling it with their aberrant targets that help no one, and with putting business people in charge of health, lite it's a fucking factory.

Guess what happens... due to the idiotic targets and money spent on shit- cutting into NHS dental plans but paying for boob jobs and other shit, firing nurses but hiring £50,000/year managers to be in charge of saving money.
wards are closed down from lack of money... to be bought in bulk by private healthcare providers who will rent their services to the NHS at thrice the cost.

The NHS is a good thing if it would have been left alone and if the fucking idiots in our government wouldn't have been after profits for their golf partners... why do you think the names of the top shareholders in private healthcare providers is undisclosed?

I will give you an example, ok?
I had breast cancer surgery in December at a private hospital. Why? Because the waiting list for NHS was 9 months- in my case the difference between life and death. Why? Because of the idiotic targets put on the UHL trust, which led to people being fired and closure of wards... therefore waiting lists.

Of course the moronic idea of allowing "health tourists" doesn't help. If there would be a rule that only UK resident can get free NHS treatment, it would help a lot.
Those're the complaints I see over and over again about HMOs. Bureaucrats are in charge of health decisions and the government can't do anything well. Hard obstacles to overcome...

Those're the complaints I see over and over again about HMOs. Bureaucrats are in charge of health decisions and the government can't do anything well. Hard obstacles to overcome...

Bureaucrats in the sense used in HMOs are private ones. My making it hard and time consuming to actually get the coverage HMOS are supposed to give Doctors and patients are given a disincentive to perform/recieve a treatment. This saves the HMOs money.

Bureaucrats in the sense used in HMOs are private ones. My making it hard and time consuming to actually get the coverage HMOS are supposed to give Doctors and patients are given a disincentive to perform/recieve a treatment. This saves the HMOs money.

I'm not sure about what you're trying to say. My point is that bureaucracy is bureaucracy whether it belongs to the government or to a private institution. As soon as you take health care decisions away from the doctors and patients, you have screwed it up. Apparently, this is just as true in the NHS, as it is in our HMOs, according to Shreetolv. The government can't do very many things well. I doubt that the administration of health care is one that they can do.

I'm not sure about what you're trying to say. My point is that bureaucracy is bureaucracy whether it belongs to the government or to a private institution. As soon as you take health care decisions away from the doctors and patients, you have screwed it up. Apparently, this is just as true in the NHS, as it is in our HMOs, according to Shreetolv. The government can't do very many things well. I doubt that the administration of health care is one that they can do.

I'm saying that healthcare decisions aren't taken out of the hands of patients or doctors. Patients can still pay out of pocket, and doctors can refuse to see patients who can only pay or will only pay with an HMO plan. People either get HMO coverage individually or through their employer. If paying into the plan is mandatory and someone doesn' like that then they can get another job. Its still in their hands but they choose to use the HMO coverage.

By making it hard and time consuming to actually get the coverage HMOS are supposed to give Doctors and patients are given a disincentive to perform/recieve a treatment. This saves the HMOs money.

"hey guys, i've got an idea to increase profits. we'll charge people as if we were going to cover their medical expenses, but then we won't actually pay anything out."

"brilliant!"

The problem I see with not having universal health care system is that it simply ignores those who can not afford to have the needed treatment, and attempting to rely on charity seems a particularly generous assumption on humanity, which I do not think is the case.

Wrong-O pally. The United States requires (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/KnowYourEmergencyRoomRights.aspx)that hospital emergency rooms provide care to a patient, regardless of his ability to pay.

Fortunately, a federal law passed in 1986 to prohibit a practice commonly known as "patient dumping" gives you the right to emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. The federal law applies to hospitals that participate in Medicare -- and that includes most hospitals in the United States.

No one is going to die because they can't see a doctor.

your typing makes your story all the more poignant.

you haev very little idea how much that comment annoys me.

Do you think the idea for a nationalised healthcare system paid for by taxes, and largely free at point of purchase, such as we have in the UK is a good idea or a bad one?

No Daily Mail style remarks about how "the NHS is crap these days" please, just about the idea.

Nice idea, very poorly executed in the UK.

I'm not sure about what you're trying to say. My point is that bureaucracy is bureaucracy whether it belongs to the government or to a private institution. As soon as you take health care decisions away from the doctors and patients, you have screwed it up. Apparently, this is just as true in the NHS, as it is in our HMOs, according to Shreetolv. The government can't do very many things well. I doubt that the administration of health care is one that they can do.

They could have done, that is the problem.
I believe that yu have
misunderstood my post, or I have failed to express myself properly- English is not my native language.

The problem with the NHS is NOT the NHS, is the way our corrupt government has chosen to force itself upon the NHS... and as luck would have it, it happens as our thief PM is so in l0000000000v333333333333 with the US model. Moron.

BUT

It's still better than the USA. BY a land fucking slide.

My chemotherapy would cost me upwards of $1500/month in the USA, which may or may not be covered by health insurance... my bet is on not as I have many friends and acquaintances in the USA that found out it wasn't covered.

I get it free here. If my health goes bad enough that I HAVE to go into hospital for a coupla days... i can do that and it is free.

The list can go on. Forever

I cannot blame the system- which is good, because a couple of corrupt politicians have decided to run amok with it.

And as far as "big government" goes, there is a need for things to be done by the Government- healthcare, education and social security are some of them. Can the UK system be improved? sure as hell can. All systems can be improved. But at the end of the day, everyone WILL receive healthcare here regardless of the size of their pockets, which does not happen in the USA.

Health is one of those things where, as proved by the USA example, the so called free market doesn't work.

Not that the free market works, but that is another animal

As I suggested in my previous post i work for the NHS. What a lot of people do not relaise is how little the government actually fucks up the NHS. Most of the time it does it purely by itself.

Imagine imploying med secs who cannot type, office managers who cannot "google" nor even know what the term means.

Imagine people who do not under stand that every depart ment needs to know when the design of headed paper is to change so we don't waste money (£9000 in just a few departments).

The british goverment does screw things up but what you have to remember is that a lot of the people that work for the NHS (not just docs and nurses but admin) have not idea what a hard days work is, nor how the real world works nor how to come up with an idea that involves common sense.

cheaper, more efficient, healthier, and not allowing rich bastards to extort money from the broken? what's the downside?

Wait times, apparently.

Wrong-O pally. The United States requires (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/KnowYourEmergencyRoomRights.aspx)that hospital emergency rooms provide care to a patient, regardless of his ability to pay.
Er, no, it requires this only where particular circumstances apply, a fact that would be clear to anyone who read and comprehended the link you provide.

No one is going to die because they can't see a doctor.
The fact that you can, in a medical emergency, access screening and stabilisation, at a hospital that participates in Medicare, before being appropriately transfered, does not mean that your medical needs cannot be ignored due to an inability to pay. Significantly, it doesnt mean inability to pay wont result in loss of life, long term harm, or an unreasonably reduced quality of life - the point I believe 'pally' was trying to convey.