NationStates Jolt Archive

It has been stated, in opposition to two-tier healthcare:

"A good and just society believes all people should get the medical treatment they need, not the medical treatment they can afford."

Why can't we have both? We could provide to everyone the treatment they need, and then allow those who can afford better treatment to buy it.

Any objections?

tis what we have in the UK. it works great. if you want (and can afford) to pay to cut the waiting list and get fancier, nicer treatment, you can. but for the most part, and for most people, the National Health Service is just great

It has been stated, in opposition to two-tier healthcare:

"A good and just society believes all people should get the medical treatment they need, not the medical treatment they can afford."

Why can't we have both? We could provide to everyone the treatment they need, and then allow those who can afford better treatment to buy it.

Any objections?

Seeing as how this often comes from people advocating equality, I can imagine there'd be objections. For one, it's not equal. Disregard those seeking equality of opportunity.

However, it does work, provided that whomever can afford the private hospitals still have to provide for the public hospitals in general and provided that people figure out whether or not private hospitals should also get public funding. The advantages/disadvantage to this are that some doctors may choose to work in both systems (it does happen). Whether or not that is good or bad depends a lot on the doctor's ability to handle more than one job and the doctor's motives for working in the public system and the private system at the same time, as well as the type of jobs performed.

The biggest issue is in the public hospitals getting marginalized by politicians.

However, it does work, provided that whomever can afford the private hospitals still have to provide for the public hospitals in general and provided that people figure out whether or not private hospitals should also get public funding. The advantages/disadvantage to this are that some doctors may choose to work in both systems (it does happen). Whether or not that is good or bad depends a lot on the doctor's ability to handle more than one job and the doctor's motives for working in the public system and the private system at the same time, as well as the type of jobs performed.

The biggest issue is in the public hospitals getting marginalized by politicians.
Would it be necessary to have two set of hospitals, though? You could have a single provider of healthcare (only public hospitals) where some of the services required fees and some did not.

Alternately, you could have only private hospitals, where only some procedures were funded publicly.

There's no need to have both private and public hospitals, or the private hospitals poaching doctors from the public hospitals, or doctors trying to game the system.

You could have a single provider of healthcare (only public hospitals) where some of the services required fees and some did not.

Alternately, you could have only private hospitals, where only some procedures were funded publicly.
In both these cases, full healthcare is only available to those with easy access to money; a terrible situation.

I dislike the two-tier system, but I far prefer it over a healthcare system that would give priority to those who have more money than others.

If everyone is guaranteed a decent basic minimum level of healthcare I do not see why others can't purchase more than that.

Would it be necessary to have two set of hospitals, though? You could have a single provider of healthcare (only public hospitals) where some of the services required fees and some did not.

Alternately, you could have only private hospitals, where only some procedures were funded publicly.


here we have a mix of those two:

1. there are indeed two sets of hospitals. however, the NHS has the vast share of the market in this regard

2. there are public hospitals where certain treatments (often non-essentials like cosmetic surgery, etc) require payment, but can either be done with the NHS or private doctors

3. there are private healthcare clinics where the NHS carries out treatments for free, using private sector facilities

4. in all cases, public or private, prescription medication is subsidised by the public sector


politicians of late have tried to make the NHS more efficient, particularly by promoting quasi-markets and encouraging competition between the regional NHS trusts. however, i fail to see the point as there can be no competition (and hence no efficiencies generated) in an area if there is only one hospital in that area. but that's just me being grumpy

However, it does work, provided that whomever can afford the private hospitals still have to provide for the public hospitals in general and provided that people figure out whether or not private hospitals should also get public funding. This is how I feel about it, too. Let people pay for public healthcare and then voluntarily remove themselves from the pool of people using it. It reduces costs per person who does use it.

tis what we have in the UK. it works great. if you want (and can afford) to pay to cut the waiting list and get fancier, nicer treatment, you can. but for the most part, and for most people, the National Health Service is just great

I still prefer private. My dentist is infinitely more pleasant, the staff better spoken and more polite, and the treatment easier to obtain, than at an NHS practice.

I'd sooner see the NHS privatised as far as possible to lower the ridiculous, and unnecessary, burden it placesupon the budget, and thus both the more responsible taxpayers, and other public services.

I still prefer private. My dentist is infinitely more pleasant, the staff better spoken and more polite, and the treatment easier to obtain, than at an NHS practice.

Reading this, I wonder if you've ever even been in an NHS practice. Just because a dentist takes NHS patients makes him poorly spoken and rude?

The reason healthcare shouldn't be free to anyone and everyone is because it isn't free. No matter how you slice it someone has to pay for it, and the last time I checked it wasn't my obligation to make sure that everyone else in this country is responsible enough to procure health care coverage for themselves. The exception I'd like to leave open here is for people who are unable to work for reasons such as mental/physical handicaps, verterans and children. I'm willing to shell out fews bucks to ensure these individuals are taken care of, but everyone else can get off their ass and get their own coverage just like I did.

Reading this, I wonder if you've ever even been in an NHS practice. Just because a dentist takes NHS patients makes him poorly spoken and rude?

It did in the one I went to.

I still prefer private. My dentist is infinitely more pleasant, the staff better spoken and more polite, and the treatment easier to obtain, than at an NHS practice.

I'd sooner see the NHS privatised as far as possible to lower the ridiculous, and unnecessary, burden it placesupon the budget, and thus both the more responsible taxpayers, and other public services.

Who pays for your private dental care?

I broke a veneer on one tooth a few months ago and was quoted £450 to fix that single tooth.

It did in the one I went to.

Ah. Anecdotal evidence. Wonderful.

The reason healthcare shouldn't be free to anyone and everyone is because it isn't free. No matter how you slice it someone has to pay for it, and the last time I checked it wasn't my obligation to make sure that everyone else in this country is responsible enough to procure health care coverage for themselves. The exception I'd like to leave open here is for people who are unable to work for reasons such as mental/physical handicaps, verterans and children. I'm willing to shell out fews bucks to ensure these individuals are taken care of, but everyone else can get off their ass and get their own coverage just like I did.

See, the thing with public health care is, everybody does pay in. It's called taxes.
It makes sure everyone pays, and it makes sure everyone gets treatment when required. Much like all other public services.

Ah. Anecdotal evidence. Wonderful.

It stands to reason. If private employees are paid more, and the private dentist is able to set his own standards, they are likely to be better; better at their jobs, and better to talk to.

It stands to reason. If private employees are paid more, and the private dentist is able to set his own standards, they are likely to be better; better at their jobs, and better to talk to.

Definitely. When I had my braces, the dentist was crappy, moody, openly molested or abused his nurses whenever he felt like it. The nurses never stayed for very long and were not trained very well, but that guy had two mercedeses at home and owned a massive villa.

Yep, I was a private patient, my parents payed for the procedure.
But since he was the private guy, and it's such a well-known fact that public health-care dentists are so crappy, he could afford being an asshole, cause people believed he was better. Stands to reason indeed...

It stands to reason. If private employees are paid more, and the private dentist is able to set his own standards, they are likely to be better; better at their jobs, and better to talk to.

Are private employees paid more?

Many Dentists take on both NHS *and* private patients. Are they rude to the NHSers and pleasant to the privates?

See, the thing with public health care is, everybody does pay in. It's called taxes.
It makes sure everyone pays, and it makes sure everyone gets treatment when required. Much like all other public services.

Except that a good number of people don't pay, do they? Thousands on benefits, unemployed for no reason beside sheer fecklessness, are able to recieve free healthcare from a state for whom theft from the productive members of society is deemed acceptable.

I do wonder at what level of household income public healthcare actually becomes economically beneficial.

Except that a good number of people don't pay, do they? Thousands on benefits, unemployed for no reason beside sheer fecklessness, are able to recieve free healthcare from a state for whom theft from the productive members of society is deemed acceptable.

I do wonder at what level of household income public healthcare actually becomes economically beneficial.

So free health care for all but the unemployed?
Yeah, I can so see that working...

Are private employees paid more?

Many Dentists take on both NHS *and* private patients. Are they rude to the NHSers and pleasant to the privates?

And even more deal only with one or the other.

It is much the same as private healthcare. Much as it offends those for whom public healthcare is a panacea to all society's ills, a private hospital is invariably a more pleasant environment than a public equivalent.

It has been stated, in opposition to two-tier healthcare:

"A good and just society believes all people should get the medical treatment they need, not the medical treatment they can afford."

Why can't we have both? We could provide to everyone the treatment they need, and then allow those who can afford better treatment to buy it.

Any objections?

That's exactly what I'd love to see here in the US - Universal/socialized healthcare for those who can't afford it or just need basic healthcare and privatized for those who can afford or want better for whatever reason.

So free health care for all but the unemployed?
Yeah, I can so see that working...

I see no problem with denying the use of such services to those who are of able body and mind, and who refuse work. Call it an incentive to work.

That's exactly what I'd love to see here in the US - Universal/socialized healthcare for those who can't afford it or just need basic healthcare and privatized for those who can afford or want better for whatever reason.
Isn't that what you guys have already (Medicaid)?

My NHS dentist is excellent and the practice staff are really friendly.

It stands to reason. If private employees are paid more, and the private dentist is able to set his own standards, they are likely to be better; better at their jobs, and better to talk to.

This is one of the more annoying myths about nationlized health care. Doctors in NHS systems are not abused, disgruntled, under-paid wage-slaves powerless to protect their rights from Da Man and thus taking out their impotent rage against hapless patients who have no choice but submit to them.

They are doctors. They make good money for a skilled profession. Most of them participate in private service programs as well as NHS programs. Some doctors are better than others, but NHS or private is not what makes the difference.

And as to patients, NHS programs do maintain a base standard for all citizens regardless of means. Citizens also have the right to purchase additional care from private providers if they so choose. It is not an either/or proposition.

As to patients stuck with crappy doctors, I know from public information and personal experience that, in the private-provider managed care system of the US, it can be as hard as hell to replace a bad doctor. I have yet to hear any story from anyone living with a NHS program that would make me think changing NHS doctors is significantly harder than it is in the US private system.

And even more deal only with one or the other.

It is much the same as private healthcare. Much as it offends those for whom public healthcare is a panacea to all society's ills, a private hospital is invariably a more pleasant environment than a public equivalent.

This article is interesting :



Private healthcare sector's performance no better than NHS

· Independent providers analysed for first time
· 15% fail on at least three tests of quality and safety

John Carvel, social affairs editor

The Guardian, Tuesday October 31 2006 Article history

Paying for private medical treatment does not guarantee a safer or better quality of care than using the NHS, the health inspectorate said yesterday in its first analysis of the performance of the independent sector.

The Healthcare commission found only 50% of the private hospitals and clinics in England and Wales met all the required minimum standards when they were inspected in the 2005-06 period, compared with 49% of NHS trusts.

About 15% of the independent providers failed on at least three tests of quality and safety. NHS trusts had to comply with more standards and their comparable failure rate was 19%.

The most frequent lapses in both sectors included lack of systematic monitoring of treatment provided, poor standards of staff training and inadequate procedures to minimise risk of infection. About 14% of pregnancy termination clinics in the private and voluntary sector failed to deal with the infection issue properly.

Anna Walker, the commission's chief executive, said standards in the independent sector were "pretty much the same" as in the NHS. It was hard to make direct comparisons and the commission wanted a change in the law to put all establishments on the same footing. But it was fair to say private and voluntary hospitals were no better or worse than the NHS.

Ms Walker said the private sector has been inspected against the standards since 2000 and might have been expected to secure a better pass rate than the NHS, where the standards were introduced for the first time this year. But tests for the private sector were more detailed and might be considered tougher.

About 2,000 independent hospitals and clinics in England and Wales charged about £10.3bn in 2005-06 for services ranging from acute surgery to tooth cleaning and tattoo removal - about 14% of total spending on health. In most cases the bill was paid by insurers or by patients, but the total also included NHS patients who had operations at independent centres funded by the taxpayer.

The commission said larger private hospitals achieved higher scores than smaller clinics. But it found one Bupa hospital with inadequate infection control and two where inspectors were not satisfied about the recruitment and training of staff.

A commission spokesman said it was wrong to assume these hospitals were unsafe because faults would have been corrected since the inspection.

The British arm of the Swedish hospital chain Capio did not meet the infection control standard at two hospitals, the recruitment standard at three and did not adequately monitor quality of treatment at four. Capio has a network of 21 acute hospitals in England and is one of the leading suppliers of services to NHS patients.

Capio Healthcare UK said: "We have worked closely with the commission during their inspections and where they have highlighted areas for improvement we have implemented changes to ensure excellence in all our units." The company said it had no serious incidents of hospital-acquired infections.

A spokeswoman for Bupa Hospitals said: "We are pleased that the report highlights strong compliance with the more rigorous standards set for independent sector providers such as Bupa Hospitals."

The commission said it was concerned about mental health services in the independent sector, where 35% of establishments failed three or more of the 32 standards and 12% failed seven or more.

The Department of Health also produced the first firm figures for the number of compulsory redundancies in the NHS. Although trusts have announced more than 20,000 jobs will have to go, there have been only 903 compulsory redundancies in the NHS in England, affecting 167 clinical staff.

The Royal College of Nursing said: "We are dismayed that ministers have failed to include in their published evidence the number of voluntary redundancies and posts to be deleted in the NHS."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/oct/31/health.politics

I see no problem with denying the use of such services to those who are of able body and mind, and who refuse work. Call it an incentive to work.How will you determine if someone is mentally healthy? Will they be getting a psychiatric evaluation?

This is one of the more annoying myths about nationlized health care. Doctors in NHS systems are not abused, disgruntled, under-paid wage-slaves powerless to protect their rights from Da Man and thus taking out their impotent rage against hapless patients who have no choice but submit to them.

They are doctors. They make good money for a skilled profession. Most of them participate in private service programs as well as NHS programs. Some doctors are better than others, but NHS or private is not what makes the difference.

And as to patients, NHS programs do maintain a base standard for all citizens regardless of means. Citizens also have the right to purchase additional care from private providers if they so choose. It is not an either/or proposition.

As to patients stuck with crappy doctors, I know from public information and personal experience that, in the private-provider managed care system of the US, it can be as hard as hell to replace a bad doctor. I have yet to hear any story from anyone living with a NHS program that would make me think changing NHS doctors is significantly harder than it is in the US private system.

I appreciate that qualified medical professionals tend to well paid, however, I defy the will of anybody to claim that a private hospital, given the customers it is likely to have, the more exacting standards it is able to impose upon staff, and the more effort taken in it's construction and decoration, will not be a more pleasant environment in which to recover from illness than amongst the grey mediocre blurs of society at large and an organisation for whom protocol, efficiency and cost is paramount.

This article is interesting :



http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/oct/31/health.politics

Firstly, given that this is from the Grauniad, I'd be doubtful as to whether this is wholly correct, and without substantial bias and omission of certain statistics.

However, my argument against the NHS is not statistical; to analyse public services solely in terms of statistics is a ploy favoured by Blair, crouching behind increased investment, and failing to consider anything more subtle and abstract than purely financial statistics and evaluations.

I object to NHS service on the grounds that the wards are not as pleasant as private hospitals, the staff less well spoken, the food worse, the treatment harder to procure, and the atmosphere frankly common and demeaning. One feels like little more than a statistic which NHS "colleagues" (a vile emotionally stunted, modernism for "employee" anyway) seek to process as quickly as possible meeting the minimum standards of quality expected.

How will you determine if someone is mentally healthy? Will they be getting a psychiatric evaluation?

If people apply for unemployment benefits, they must be deemed mentally incapable of taking a job. If not, they can bloody well find one and stop being a leech.

I see no problem with denying the use of such services to those who are of able body and mind, and who refuse work. Call it an incentive to work.

Well, that argument basically trims you to fit perfectly in a nice dismissive cubbyhole with the label "Elitist Asshat." Just note this remark, tuck you into your cubby and forget about you.

Why? Simple: It abandons logic in favor of a selfish social agenda. Here are the logical flaws in your statement:

1) A person who is of "able body and mind" does not need to use a health care system, because he/she is already currently healthy. So such a person is not a drain on the system and will not cause one dollar of your taxes to be spent on them.

2) A person who needs to use a health care system is not of "able body and mind" and thus cannot work, so your "incentive" is meaningless. All you would be doing is denying care to people who actually need it because they are currently sick or injured.

3) Finally, it also assumes that allowing other people to get sick will have no effect on you. Hm... you never heard of germ theory, eh? Remind me not to touch any doorknobs after you. There actually is a self-interest to be served in helping other people stay healthy.

I appreciate that qualified medical professionals tend to well paid, however, I defy the will of anybody to claim that a private hospital, given the customers it is likely to have, the more exacting standards it is able to impose upon staff, and the more effort taken in it's construction and decoration, will not be a more pleasant environment in which to recover from illness than amongst the grey mediocre blurs of society at large and an organisation for whom protocol, efficiency and cost is paramount.

If all you need to bounce back to perfect health is a pretty bedroom, you may as well convalesce at home. Personally, I have never found any hospital of any kind to be anything but a depressing cavern of sickness, pain, worry, resignation, bad smells, ringing phones, awkward visitors trying hard not to look into the wrong rooms while finding the person they've come to see, all with the shadow of death hanging over it. Pretty patterns stuck on the walls only make me more aware of the germs coating everything.

If you're serious about saving money, die at home. It's the cheapest way.

See, the thing with public health care is, everybody does pay in. It's called taxes.
It makes sure everyone pays, and it makes sure everyone gets treatment when required. Much like all other public services.

What you my dear friend fail to understand is that almost 50% of the people in the united states don't pay any taxes at all. If not everyone pays then why should everyone get to reap the benefits?

Moreover of those 50ish% that pay no taxes, many of them still get a check back from Uncle Sam at tax time. Behold the abuses of the redistribution of wealth

Well, that argument basically trims you to fit perfectly in a nice dismissive cubbyhole with the label "Elitist Asshat." Just note this remark, tuck you into your cubby and forget about you.

Why? Simple: It abandons logic in favor of a selfish social agenda. Here are the logical flaws in your statement:

1) A person who is of "able body and mind" does not need to use a health care system, because he/she is already currently healthy. So such a person is not a drain on the system and will not cause one dollar of your taxes to be spent on them.

2) A person who needs to use a health care system is not of "able body and mind" and thus cannot work, so your "incentive" is meaningless. All you would be doing is denying care to people who actually need it because they are currently sick or injured.

3) Finally, it also assumes that allowing other people to get sick will have no effect on you. Hm... you never heard of germ theory, eh? Remind me not to touch any doorknobs after you. There actually is a self-interest to be served in helping other people stay healthy.

If one is able bodied, one may not always remain so. This applies equally to the able of mind, and dismisses points 1 and 2.

Equally, if one does work, becoming ill by contagion is not an issue; one has healthcare, for which one has actually worked, to deal with it.

Why can't we have both? We could provide to everyone the treatment they need, and then allow those who can afford better treatment to buy it.
We do in the UK, and it works fine. Aye, there's the odd case of some old biddie waiting 19 years for a hip replacement or whatever, but the NHS is largely run in a pretty good way.

And if you want to, you can go into a private hospital. You can get your own medical insurance in addition to National Insurance, which pays for you (and everyone else) to get NHS care, and many people do so, too.

What you my dear friend fail to understand is that almost 50% of the people in the united states don't pay any taxes at all.
Proof?

If all you need to bounce back to perfect health is a pretty bedroom, you may as well convalesce at home. Personally, I have never found any hospital of any kind to be anything but a depressing cavern of sickness, pain, worry, resignation, bad smells, ringing phones, awkward visitors trying hard not to look into the wrong rooms while finding the person they've come to see, all with the shadow of death hanging over it. Pretty patterns stuck on the walls only make me more aware of the germs coating everything.

If you're serious about saving money, die at home. It's the cheapest way.

This is personal opinion, and nothing more. Most people want to recover from illness, myself included, and hence would rather do so in a pleasant environment in which one is treated as a person, not a statistic.

Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html)

The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114505726515126546-7cazAvSnuLTS2SyIqH5VuprpZPk_20070415.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top)

St. Louis Federal Reserve (http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/net/20060301/cover.pdf)

National Taxpayers Union (http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

I'd have been more accurate in saying that the bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 10% of the total tax burden, but I said what I did the way I did for dramatic effect and for the sake of not having to type this particular statement.

We do in the UK, and it works fine. Aye, there's the odd case of some old biddie waiting 19 years for a hip replacement or whatever, but the NHS is largely run in a pretty good way.

And if you want to, you can go into a private hospital. You can get your own medical insurance in addition to National Insurance, which pays for you (and everyone else) to get NHS care, and many people do so, too.
Canada's public system is run similarly, but private hospitals are discouraged and private insurance is illegal in much of the country, so a parallel private system can't really operate. I fail to see why this is better.

If one is able bodied, one may not always remain so. This applies equally to the able of mind, and dismisses points 1 and 2.

Equally, if one does work, becoming ill by contagion is not an issue; one has healthcare, for which one has actually worked, to deal with it.

Except the part I aggreed with Muravyets the most on was the "Elitist Asshat" part, which anyone is if they think if you're of able able mind and body to work yet on unemployment benifits then you must be purposely leeching the system.

If one is able bodied, one may not always remain so. This applies equally to the able of mind, and dismisses points 1 and 2.

Equally, if one does work, becoming ill by contagion is not an issue; one has healthcare, for which one has actually worked, to deal with it.

So, your argument is that society should be allowed to become a festering cesspit of contagion among the poor because, if the rich catch a poor man's germ, they can always pay to get it cured. Uh-huh. Of course:

1) Tell that to people like Andy Warhol or Jim Henson, who were richer than sin, but died of contagious germs in hospitals anyway -- all fully paid up by their own funds, btw. You may as well take up recreational shooting yourself because you can always pay to have the bullets dug out later, right?

2) The more YOU use the system, the more money the system demands to keep providing services, so the less mileage you get out of your premiums. The less YOU use the system, the less money it spends. As long as you don't stupidly then cancel your policy on the grounds that you don't need it anymore, then the more mileage you will get out of the premiums you pay in. Geez-god, really, this is so obvious. It does take a special kind of willful blindness not to see it.

Bottom line: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If stopping the poor from getting sick also reduces my risk of getting sick, I consider that profoundly safer and thus more worth my money than exposing myself to sickness on the assumption that I can buy my way back to health later.

This is personal opinion, and nothing more. Most people want to recover from illness, myself included, and hence would rather do so in a pleasant environment in which one is treated as a person, not a statistic.

Excuse me, you think it's only my personal opinion that people in hospitals are suffering serious, often life-threatening conditions? That it's only my personal opinion that people often die in hospitals? Um...when was the last time you visited an emergency room, or cardiac ward, or intensive care ward, or geriatric ward, or cancer ward? People die in hospitals every single day. Pretty curtains don't change that, nor does willfully pretending that all we're doing there is resting until we feel better.

And if you think it is just my personal opinion that hospitals are full of germs, then you, sir, are dangerously misinformed:

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/US-Hospitals-Increasingly-Colonized-by-Drug-resistant-Germs-22576-3/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/25/BAGELQL66N1.DTL

You would do much better to hang nicer curtains in your own bedroom and go rest there than to spend more time than you absolutely have to in a hospital.

EDIT: In all seriousness, Chris, everything you've said so far -- about pleasant surroundings and whatnot -- sound to me like you want to deny basic care to the poor and unemployed only so there will be more money for you to waste on self-indulgent fripperies for yourself.

I still prefer private. My dentist is infinitely more pleasant, the staff better spoken and more polite, and the treatment easier to obtain, than at an NHS practice.

I'd sooner see the NHS privatised as far as possible to lower the ridiculous, and unnecessary, burden it placesupon the budget, and thus both the more responsible taxpayers, and other public services.

my NHS dentist is a friendly, intelligent and thoroughly pleasant man. the surgery is clean and professional. getting appointments, even short notice (eg emergency toothache, etc) are no problem. my general experience has been great all my life, and my teeth are in excellent condition. clearly we've had different experiences with the NHS.
i've also had 100% satisfactory experiences at NHS hospitals the 4 times i've needed them in my life (2 car crashes, one serious, gastroenteritis, and a burst abscess which needed surgery). not a complaint about the service, nor waiting lists, and not a penny paid (directly of course)


though you can privatise the NHS when you prise it out of my cold, dead hands. i hate the level of privatisation that has already occurred (though this is largely due to how ineffective it has been at achieving its aim of generating efficiencies)


Except that a good number of people don't pay, do they? Thousands on benefits, unemployed for no reason beside sheer fecklessness, are able to recieve free healthcare from a state for whom theft from the productive members of society is deemed acceptable.


thousands of people who don't contribute but receive benefit
vs
millions of people who do contribute and do receive benefit


seems ok to me.

It is much the same as private healthcare. Much as it offends those for whom public healthcare is a panacea to all society's ills, a private hospital is invariably a more pleasant environment than a public equivalent.

then pay for it yourself if you want that. just don't take the NHS away from the millions who need it and benefit from free healthcare at the point of consumption.


edit:

...a more pleasant environment in which to recover from illness than amongst the grey mediocre blurs of society at large and an organisation for whom protocol, efficiency and cost is paramount.

and that's not what drives a private business providing healthcare? :rolleyes:


TBC, i'm starting to think you're little more than a troll

What you my dear friend fail to understand is that almost 50% of the people in the united states don't pay any taxes at all. If not everyone pays then why should everyone get to reap the benefits?

Moreover of those 50ish% that pay no taxes, many of them still get a check back from Uncle Sam at tax time. Behold the abuses of the redistribution of wealth

Exactly why the top 10% of the nation currently accounts for 70% of the total wealth of the nation. Damn redistribution!

An interesting tid bit from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#United_States

However, if the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, which was studied in A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S. by Arthur Kennickell at Levy Economics Institute, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

I'm still reeling from the idea that they have dentists in the UK. :P

I'm from the US (if that wasn't obvious by the above joke), and can't speak to how NHS works, so I'll use the word "Medicare" instead.

In all seriousness though, I think that there should be a list of "mandatory" services (notice the quotes), that all people should be entitled to. I don't know, a yearly physical, twice-yearly dental cleanings, and so on (I'm not going to attempt to list the entire set). After those services, it's all on you.

And it's funny cause people are complaining about the service they receive at public healthcare businesses, the people aren't nice, or super professional, or what have you.

First of all, you will find people in private practice all the time who aren't very nice or professional. Just because they don't take Medicare patients doesn't mean they're instantly a better doctor.

Secondly, the sector of society that should be helped by programs such as Medicare have no room to complain - if it weren't for public assistance, they'd have no healthcare.

When health care was fairly primitive, you could conceivably provide the full range of effective health services to everyone with reasonable levels of expenditure. Modern treatments can cost enormous sums, meaning you have to either devote a substantial portion of wealth to providing health care, or ration it.

Where do you draw the line? Do we take two thirds of all wealth generated, drastically reducing the standard of living for everyone, in order to provide the procedures that has some small chance of temporarily improving someone's health?

It is a very tough call, but one that has to be made. When it comes right down to it, how many people do you reduce to abject poverty to extend one sick person's life in the hospital on life support for another year?