NationStates Jolt Archive

You're not even reading what you quote

I said "not any better than private insurance".

Sheesh.

You call it a massive drain on the budget, right?
And you still think a NHS would be no good. I can read what you're posting. Pristine. And you are condemning NHS without knowing how it works.

You call it a massive drain on the budget, right?
And you still think a NHS would be no good. I can read what you're posting. Pristine. And you are condemning NHS without knowing how it works.

I know exactly how the UK NHS accounting system works. If you write the software...

I know exactly how the UK NHS accounting system works. If you write the software...

I live in a country that has a NHS. I use it. It's amazing. My country is one of the healthiest in the world. I have first-hand experience...

I live in a country that has a NHS. I use it. It's amazing. My country is one of the healthiest in the world. I have first-hand experience...

Not all NHS are equal... which I said earlier. Not all private insurance are equal... which I said earlier...

If we're going on one person anecdotes, I bet I'm healthier than you are.

IMHO - a single tier NHS system like the Canadian one is the way to go. Some things like health care work better if they are not run for profit. The only losers in this scenario are the private insurers and the CNHS dollar for dollar is much more efficient than the private system in the states ... although Hotwife is right in one respect - the efficiency could be much better.

Not all NHS are equal... which I said earlier. Not all private insurance are equal... which I said earlier...

Have you ever used one?

If we're going on one person anecdotes, I bet I'm healthier than you are.

Right. Give me facts because I am ready to give you mine.

Right. Give me facts because I am ready to give you mine.

I am prepared to give you a physical right now to test your healthiness.

Even the most scarcely populated area in the UK would merit a hospital.

which explains why large numbers of rural train stations were permamently closed after the rail network was privatised. that also explains why even now hospitals around the country are being closed in the name of 'efficiency' found in privatisation. one of them might be (there's a huge fight about it) in Chichester about 30 miles east of here on the south coast, which isn't exactly a population dead area.

...It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

...and is one of the most mismanaged Federal and State programs in our government.

I don't believe you.

...It's a rather creative take on accounting which under any other circumstance would get you thrown in jail.

I don't believe you.

...which spends 9 dollars out of every 10 on the bureaucracy of providing that care.

I don't believe you.

If you count the overall tax burden, our Medicare and Medicaid is more expensive than private insurance...

I don't believe you.

Have you ever used one?



Right. Give me facts because I am ready to give you mine.

Yes, I used the one in the UK. It was worthless treatment.

And I am very familiar with the imaginative accounting system used by the UK NHS.

I am 48 years old, and can run three miles in 17 minutes 50 seconds. That's with 60 pounds of sand in a backpack on my back.

I am quite confident that I am in better shape than most men my age.

Yes, I used the one in the UK. It was worthless treatment.

I use the one in Spain and it isn't worthless.

And I am very familiar with the imaginative accounting system used by the UK NHS.

You are not qualified to talk about a NHS because you only know one so please, kindly consider. I have used the NHS in Spain and when I visited Canada, I did too.

I am 48 years old, and can run three miles in 17 minutes 50 seconds. That's with 60 pounds of sand in a backpack on my back.

So you say.

I am quite confident that I am in better shape than most men my age.

So you say.

And I am very familiar with the imaginative accounting system used by the UK NHS.

you keep bringing this up. can you show any actual evidence for this, or just your word?

Yes, I used the one in the UK. It was worthless treatment.

And I am very familiar with the imaginative accounting system used by the UK NHS.

I am 48 years old, and can run three miles in 17 minutes 50 seconds. That's with 60 pounds of sand in a backpack on my back.

I am quite confident that I am in better shape than most men my age.

I think it is far better to have open access to medical treatment, even access to a GP is invaluable - I'm very glad that I have the right to free healthcare as a resident of the UK. I may have to wait a little before getting treatment sometimes if it isn't an emergency but it's guaranteed access to healthcare, at no point decided by who I am, where I come from or how much money I have.

I'll be happy to keep our "drain on resources" and you can keep your disgustingly discriminatory insurance.

you keep bringing this up. can you show any actual evidence for this, or just your word?

Here, I'll give you my evidence (http://www.ambientjobs.com/healthcare.php).

Spain has a public (national) health system which provides free or low cost healthcare for those contributing to the Spanish Social Security systems and their dependants. The system also caters for pensioners and includes those from other EU countries.

Spain has an excellent system of private medicine and this exists easily alongside the State system with both operated so as to compliment each other.

you keep bringing this up. can you show any actual evidence for this, or just your word?

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=F27AD3E2-7FF4-4cdd-BB92-DF5C4BDD18FF

This in particular:

RAB is a system of accounting and budgeting that applies to government, based on expenditure incurred and income earned during an accounting period. RAB is considered in detail in Chapter 3.

12 Achieving financial balance both nationally and locally relies on sound financial management. Historically it also rested on three other factors:

* a high profile in performance management terms for the achievement of financial balance, nationally and locally and within individual organisations which were under the direct control of the Department of Health and SHAs;
* significant flexibilities available to individual organisations, for example, the ability to transfer capital to revenue and to extend waiting times to ease financial pressures; and
* the ability to cover financial problems by moving funds between organisations.

13 Each of these factors has been diluted or altered, often for positive reasons, by relatively recent policy changes. The performance management profile of financial balance was reduced in recent years as greater weight was given to the achievement of service improvements. The importance of achieving financial balance has now been reasserted. However, the introduction of FTs has introduced a new dynamic. They operate under a different regime and have no specific duty to break-even. Financial balance is less important in the short to medium term than achieving a cash surplus, although it is likely that individual FTs will need to break-even over the longer term and indeed make surpluses if they are to remain viable. Moreover, FTs are not subject to Secretary of State direction or SHA performance management. However, the net surplus or deficit incurred by FTs in any year counts towards the Department of Health’s net surplus or deficit for RAB purposes. The size of the surplus/deficit may be immaterial when there are relatively few FTs, but will become a more significant factor as the numbers grow. Moreover, the Department must also cover pound for pound the cost of any FT capital spend from its DEL, although it has no control either over the borrowing limits set by Monitor for each FT, nor over the amounts actually spent by each trust. Again, such an arrangement may be immaterial when there are relatively few FTs and significant capital funds have been made available to the NHS, but over time the risks are likely to increase and the Department needs an effective way of managing them.

This in particular:

It's an Audit Commission Report saying that the NHS Organisation should implement additional check and balance procedures because of differing shifts of Governmental policy in recent years.

It doesn't say that the UK NHS doesn't work.

Of course medical care is going to be a drain on resources and yes it's a good thing that reviews are made regularly to see if systems are working etc. but saying something is bad, crap and "worthless treatment" because it costs a lot of money is silly.

It's an Audit Commission Report saying that the NHS Organisation should implement additional check and balance procedures because of differing shifts of Governmental policy in recent years.

It doesn't say that the UK NHS doesn't work.

Of course medical care is going to be a drain on resources and yes it's a good thing that reviews are made regularly to see if systems are working etc. but saying something is bad, crap and "worthless treatment" because it costs a lot of money is silly.

It points out that the accounting system is flawed, and that they haven't been able to track the money. They're making changes, but the flaws will continue to exist for some time.

There's no way to find out exactly how much money the UK NHS has used.

An example:

The NHS has been very adept at moving money between organisations in order to hide or fix financial problems through a system of brokerage. Such an approach does not affect the overall financial position of the NHS, but it does affect individual institutions and can have perverse effects and incentives, including for organisations that have managed their funds well.

80% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the border.

What are they all doing there? What are they planning? It's too close to us! TOO CLOSE!


we need to build a wall...

What are they all doing there? What are they planning? It's too close to us! TOO CLOSE!


we need to build a wall...

It's too late, they're already among us. Rarely do I go a day without seeing a car with Ontario plates around town.

It points out that the accounting system is flawed, and that they haven't been able to track the money. They're making changes, but the flaws will continue to exist for some time.

There's no way to find out exactly how much money the UK NHS has used.

I can think of plenty of businesses - your much loved private enterprise where "the accounting is flawed", just because something is private enterprise doesn't make it inherently 'better run' than governmental organisations. I'm not denying that my NHS seems to have a bad financial leadership but I'm still saying that it's better for it to be there for me if I can't afford it and need it.

It's too late, they're already among us. Rarely do I go a day without seeing a car with Ontario plates around town.

Dude, MI should be annexed to Canuckland as it is.:D

I can think of plenty of businesses - your much loved private enterprise where "the accounting is flawed", just because something is private enterprise doesn't make it inherently 'better run' than governmental organisations. I'm not denying that my NHS seems to have a bad financial leadership but I'm still saying that it's better for it to be there for me if I can't afford it and need it.

Your NHS is better run than the UK NHS.

Do read my posts. I've said that some are better and some are worse.

Just "being" an NHS is no guarantee that "we'll all have better health care for less money".

Your NHS is better run than the UK NHS.

Do read my posts. I've said that some are better and some are worse.

Just "being" an NHS is no guarantee that "we'll all have better health care for less money".

Mate, my NHS is the UK NHS - also I never said that just because having an NHS means low cost healthcare for everyone, you were specifically attacking my NHS and so I responded. My NHS guarantees you able to see a GP if you're ill, sometimes they will be able to see you at home if you're too ill. Basically - I'm saying that my NHS doesn't care whether I'm rich, insured, famous, poor or anything else - I just have to be ill and they'll be kind enough to see me and treat me free of charge from the beginning to end of service.

Having my NHS means that we'll all have health care, guaranteed.

Dude, MI should be annexed to Canuckland as it is.:D

Hush, you!

*hides the remains of the poutine he had for lunch*

Hotwife, all your criticisms can be refuted with one line: free heathcare for all > total efficiency or cost considerations.

The US's (mostly) private health-care system is one of the last great advantages the US enjoys over the collectivist tyrannies of Western Europe, because it is one of the few ways in which Americans are not enslaved to their fellow men to the extent that Western Europeans are.

The US's (mostly) private health-care system is one of the last great advantages the US enjoys over the collectivist tyrannies of Western Europe, because it is one of the few ways in which Americans are not enslaved to their fellow men to the extent that Western Europeans are.

Bwahahahahah!

Yes, I used the one in the UK. It was worthless treatment.
In what respect was it 'worthless'?

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/NATIONAL-REPORT.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=F27AD3E2-7FF4-4cdd-BB92-DF5C4BDD18FF

...which has resulted in the NHS overall overspending by £536 million according to the unaudited accounts for 2005/06...

yup, that counts as pretty bad money management. i'll concede on that!

but...


It doesn't say that the UK NHS doesn't work.


QFT. i'd also point out that that's one year and, without reading through the rest of that report, it could be assumed that other years' overspending is less. it could also be assumed to be more, of course.

but still, despite cost considerations, the NHS still provides excellent, free-at-the-point-of-consumption healthcare to all in this country, and almost no amount of overspend or mismanagement will change my mind that the NHS is an institution worth keeping, and one that works for the people. perhaps one that needs better management, but that's about fixing problems as opposed to the whole system or idea being at fault.

but still, despite cost considerations, the NHS still provides excellent, free-at-the-point-of-consumption healthcare to all in this country, and almost no amount of overspend or mismanagement will change my mind that the NHS is an institution worth keeping, and one that works for the people. perhaps one that needs better management, but that's about fixing problems as opposed to the whole system or idea being at fault.

And that is simply the truth of the matter. I used to work in the NHS and during my time there I found that the main problem is mismanagement, too many Cheifs and middle management, there was and there remains an atmousfear of lots of middle management in fear for yteir jobs, unrealistic target setting and general low moral amongst staff.

Problems yes, but not ones that can't get sorted.

and that is simply the truth of the matter. I used to work in the nhs and during my time there i found that the main problem is mismanagement, too many cheifs and middle management, there was and there remains an atmousfear of lots of middle management in fear for yteir jobs, unrealistic target setting and general low moral amongst staff.

Problems yes, but not ones that can't get sorted.

qft.

Over spending and Over Payment to people who have done a really bad job for the Company they are supposed to be running is why we have the problems we now find ourselves in. Beyond that is the politcians that have sold us out to the highest bidder so they can become richer.

Better than having them drain the budget and weigh on the taxpayers pocket.
Except that the current private operators receive more public subsidy to operate their services then British Rail did pre-privatisation, not exactly reducing the "drain" on the taxpayers pocket.
Even the most scarcely populated area in the UK would merit a hospital. Frankly, you have a unmitigatedly, simplistically negative view of business practice.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Even with the current NHS patients in areas like Cornwall have to travel to Plymouth to get some treatment because they are not deemed "cost-effective". So, considering we operate both a public and private system in the UK, if every area in the UK would merit a hospital why haven't those private companies already moved to provide those services?

http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg1.html

The above is a link to a series of economic articles written by economists who specialise in health-care explaining in economic terms why free-market economics will simply not work for providing healthcare.
Gee, an anti-free market piece by the PR wing of the NHS. Nice try, but it's not really as good as a piece in a peer-reviewed journal. It's not even as good as an opinion column in the pre-Murdoch WSJ.

Why don't you go read a few unbiased pieces from the Heritage Foundation?

To everyone:

Just today, it was announced that my insurer was involved in fraud with respect to underpaying claims (after requiring preoperative approval). In sum, they set up their own company to give them advice as to what was a "reasonable and customary" rate to pay for a procedure, and then provided their own company with the rates.

Nice way to ensure that they collect premiums for "private insurance" while they pay 50 cents on the dollar on the claims, eh?

As this announcement was a complete surprise to me today, and reinforces my belief that private insurance does not work (and rebuts many of the "gut" beliefs of others that private insurance is the only way), I thought I would share the following "surprise" information with you

By the way, I still await preoperative "approval" from this company, for a surgery scheduled 1/20. (As of yesterday, they said they needed a "diagnostic code" which they have had for a year, as they previously approved this surgery).

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ANNOUNCES HISTORIC NATIONWIDE HEALTH ...Statement From Attorney General Andrew Cuomo On Governor's State Of The State .... We appreciate the fact that United Healthcare has come to the table to ...
www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/jan/jan13a_09.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages -

More results from www.oag.state.ny.us »
NYS Medical Society Applauds AG Cuomo’s Lawsuit vs United ...NYS Medical Society Applauds AG Cuomo’s Lawsuit vs United Healthcare for Fraudulent ... General Andrew Cuomo’s Office is investigating United Healthcare. ...
readme.readmedia.com/news/show/NYS-Medical-Society-Applauds-AG-Cuomo-s-Lawsuit...United-Healthcare.../63925 - 11k - Cached - Similar pages -

The US's (mostly) private health-care system is one of the last great advantages the US enjoys over the collectivist tyrannies of Western Europe, because it is one of the few ways in which Americans are not enslaved to their fellow men to the extent that Western Europeans are.
To everyone:

Just today, it was announced that my insurer was involved in fraud with respect to underpaying claims (after requiring preoperative approval). In sum, they set up their own company to give them advice as to what was a "reasonable and customary" rate to pay for a procedure, and then provided their own company with the rates.

Nice way to ensure that they collect premiums for "private insurance" while they pay 50 cents on the dollar on the claims, eh?

As this announcement was a complete surprise to me today, and reinforces my belief that private insurance does not work (and rebuts many of the "gut" beliefs of others that private insurance is the only way), I thought I would share the following "surprise" information with you

By the way, I still await preoperative "approval" from this company, for a surgery scheduled 1/20. (As of yesterday, they said they needed a "diagnostic code" which they have had for a year, as they previously approved this surgery).

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ANNOUNCES HISTORIC NATIONWIDE HEALTH ...Statement From Attorney General Andrew Cuomo On Governor's State Of The State .... We appreciate the fact that United Healthcare has come to the table to ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_cen...jan13a_09.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages -

More results from www.oag.state.ny.us »
NYS Medical Society Applauds AG Cuomo’s Lawsuit vs United ...NYS Medical Society Applauds AG Cuomo’s Lawsuit vs United Healthcare for Fraudulent ... General Andrew Cuomo’s Office is investigating United Healthcare. ...
readme.readmedia.com/news/show/NYS-Medical-Society-Applauds-AG-Cuomo-s-Lawsuit...United-Healthcare.../63925 - 11k - Cached - Similar pages -

I don't believe you.



I don't believe you.



I don't believe you.



I don't believe you.
To everyone:

Just today, it was announced that my insurer was involved in fraud with respect to underpaying claims (after requiring preoperative approval). In sum, they set up their own company to give them advice as to what was a "reasonable and customary" rate to pay for a procedure, and then provided their own company with the rates.

Nice way to ensure that they collect premiums for "private insurance" while they pay 50 cents on the dollar on the claims, eh?

As this announcement was a complete surprise to me today, and reinforces my belief that private insurance does not work (and rebuts many of the "gut" beliefs of others that private insurance is the only way), I thought I would share the following "surprise" information with you

By the way, I still await preoperative "approval" from this company, for a surgery scheduled 1/20. (As of yesterday, they said they needed a "diagnostic code" which they have had for a year, as they previously approved this surgery).

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO ANNOUNCES HISTORIC NATIONWIDE HEALTH ...Statement From Attorney General Andrew Cuomo On Governor's State Of The State .... We appreciate the fact that United Healthcare has come to the table to ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_cen...jan13a_09.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages -

More results from www.oag.state.ny.us »
NYS Medical Society Applauds AG Cuomo’s Lawsuit vs United ...NYS Medical Society Applauds AG Cuomo’s Lawsuit vs United Healthcare for Fraudulent ... General Andrew Cuomo’s Office is investigating United Healthcare. ...
readme.readmedia.com/news/show/NYS-Medical-Society-Applauds-AG-Cuomo-s-Lawsuit...United-Healthcare.../63925 - 11k - Cached - Similar pages -

And Just in Case you Have Something Against NY--The same Is True In Kansas Dorothy!

United Healthcare to pay $50 million for sticking patients with ... - 12:29am... of interest," New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo said in a statement. ... United Healthcare to pay $50 million for sticking patients with bills ...
www.kansascity.com/382/story/978500.html - 59k - Cached - Similar pages -


Group Health Inc. and United Healthcare agree to NY doctor ...Group Health Inc. and United Healthcare will now follow a model established by state AG Andrew Cuomo for ranking physicians, one which, among other things, ...
www.abouthealthtransparency.org/node/185 - 17k - Cached - Similar pages -

Industry News | Healthcare IT NewsJan 13, 2009 ... New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo into charges that the insurer ... "We view this as a positive event for United Healthcare and the ...
www.healthcareitnews.com/news/united-healthgroup-pay-50m-settle-charges-rigged-rates - 39k - Cached - Similar pages -

UnitedHealth Group pays $50 million to settle fraud allegations ...Jan 13, 2009 ... But allegations against the Minneapolis-based health insurer by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said a UnitedHealth subsidiary known ...
www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-biz-united-healthcare-scheme-jan13,0,6282629.story -

In Australia, Medicare pays for a public health system that includes bulk billing for a doctor's consultation (where one pays for about a third of the cost of the visit and the govt pays the rest) and free hospital treatment.

There are problems with the system however and there can be longish waiting lists for surgery (especially for elective surgery). We have private health insurance as well, so the health insurers must be competitive.

Beware the governments that give too much power to corporations for the corporations will try to screw their customers if they can.

In Australia, the governments (both federal and state) insist that all wages and salaries be directly deposited into our privatised banks. This gives the banks (which generally operate as a cartel) enormous power over depositors' accounts and the bank charges are horrific.

There's no way to find out exactly how much money the UK NHS has used.
Universal healthcare costs money?

I am shocked.

But luckily, I can receive treatment for that shock at a hospital, without faffing around with insurance or companies who look to profit margins, not patients.

"There are problems with the system however and there can be longish waiting lists for surgery (especially for elective surgery). We have private health insurance as well, so the health insurers must be competitive.

Beware the governments that give too much power to corporations for the corporations will try to screw their customers if they can."

While there is a long wait for surgery in Austrailia, there is similarly a long wait here in USA while our private insurers "slow roll" patients and delay their care by requiring preoperative approval and piecemeal submissions, only to require patients to pay 50% of the bill at the end. This makes our cost for any kind of surgery or medical care closer to 60%, after the payment of annual premiums.

As for governments giving too much power to corporations, our government has already done that under Bush by failing to regulate and oversee banks and investment companies, and I am sure you can see the result--they have nationalized the debts of private companies while keeping the assets privatized.

Seems like the USA taxpayers should get something for all this subsidization of corporations, and perhaps a national healthcare system to which everyone contributes is the answer. No one expects it to be free, and I expect to pay something toward healthcare, but I think at this point the costs have to be spread across the nation, so that everyone gets care, not just those who can afford these crappy "private" insurance policies.

Beware the governments that give too much power to corporations for the corporations will try to screw their customers if they can."


Whereas the government will screw everyone equally? With very little recourse? Be careful when you try to ascribe too much altruism to the government.

Universal healthcare costs money?

I am shocked.

But luckily, I can receive treatment for that shock at a hospital, without faffing around with insurance or companies who look to profit margins, not patients.

Unlike the NHS, whose priority is providing expedient political capital for the incumbent government by meeting such contrived targets as have been set for it.

Unlike the NHS, whose priority is providing expedient political capital for the incumbent government by meeting such contrived targets as have been set for it.
Hey, if a government program can't meet the low standards that are set, then the only thing to do is lower the standards some more. We see that in education all the time and the idea that a NHS would do the same thing is completely believable.

Unlike the NHS, whose priority is providing expedient political capital for the incumbent government by meeting such contrived targets as have been set for it.
Because the Tories aren't going to do the exact same? If it was up to me, we'd handle the NHS like the Bank of England, basically taking it out of government hands and letting it set its own priorities. Still funded by the government, obviously.

Because the Tories aren't going to do the exact same? If it was up to me, we'd handle the NHS like the Bank of England, basically taking it out of government hands and letting it set its own priorities. Still funded by the government, obviously.

You're correct, completely. Though I appreciate that all parties would use the NH for their own ends, you must concede New Labour have been the first to do so through the use "targets".

Gee, an anti-free market piece by the PR wing of the NHS. Nice try, but it's not really as good as a piece in a peer-reviewed journal. It's not even as good as an opinion column in the pre-Murdoch WSJ.

Why don't you go read a few unbiased pieces from the Heritage Foundation?

So, because you can't actually show the evidence is wrong, you're just going to claim that the source is biased.

Are you going to show how their biased? No. You're just going to claim it.

Tell you what, why don't you provide a piece in a peer-reviewed journal that expalins how the free market will provide optimal health coverage even though patients don't have things like perfect information? Or how using a private insurance model doesn't create problems with adverse selection?

I don't think you will.

Because the Tories aren't going to do the exact same? If it was up to me, we'd handle the NHS like the Bank of England, basically taking it out of government hands and letting it set its own priorities. Still funded by the government, obviously.

I would second that. Some institutions are just to important to be used as canon fodder every time an election rolls round.

You're correct, completely. Though I appreciate that all parties would use the NHS for their own ends, you must concede New Labour have been the first to do so through the use "targets".
Absolutely.

Hotwife, all your criticisms can be refuted with one line: free heathcare for all > total efficiency or cost considerations.

I dispute your implied premise that "free healthcare for all" is necessarily good.

I fail to see why the mere fact of one's existence automatically entitles him to the means by which to continue that existence, especially when that means must be provided by someone else.

I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to draw any moral distinction between that and abject slavery.

I dispute your implied premise that "free healthcare for all" is necessarily good.

I fail to see why the mere fact of one's existence automatically entitles him to the means by which to continue that existence, especially when that means must be provided by someone else.

I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to draw any moral distinction between that and abject slavery.

Then I pity you dude.
=[

I dispute your implied premise that "free healthcare for all" is necessarily good.

I fail to see why the mere fact of one's existence automatically entitles him to the means by which to continue that existence, especially when that means must be provided by someone else.

I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to draw any moral distinction between that and abject slavery.

You seem like a confused individual.

Humanity is built to interact with each other we are social animals, what is normaly good for sociaty is good for the individual.

Free health care paid by taxes is not paid by 'somebody else' but paid by all, for the betterment of all.
Do you also take issue with schooling, after all that is also paid for by taxes, for the betterment of all?

I dispute your implied premise that "free healthcare for all" is necessarily good.
Alright, let's put it in simple words for simple people -

In the US, 50% of people who go bankrupt do so due to healthcare costs. In the UK, that figure ought to be as low as 0%. Anyone who is a UK citizen gets free healthcare for most stuff (alright you have to pay for dentistry, but that's about it). This is a Good Thing.

Free health care paid by taxes is not paid by 'somebody else' but paid by all, for the betterment of all.
Just some nitpicking:

If it's paid by everybody, then everyone is paying for it. Therefore, it is not free.

/end nitpick

I dispute your implied premise that "free healthcare for all" is necessarily good.

I fail to see why the mere fact of one's existence automatically entitles him to the means by which to continue that existence, especially when that means must be provided by someone else.

I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to draw any moral distinction between that and abject slavery.

Forget about morality.

Public healthcare is cheaper for everyone. Even for the individual consumer. Do you really want to pay more simply because it's more in line with your economic ideology?

Just some nitpicking:

If it's paid by everybody, then everyone is paying for it. Therefore, it is not free.

/end nitpick

Of course and a good nit pick it was. However I'm sure that you understand that when we use the word 'free' when talking about the British NHS, we mean free at the point of service.

Indeed there is not a lot that is actualy free in this world.

Even when they pre-approve a surgery, when the bill comes they "lowball" it and fail to pay the full amount stating it is not a "reasonable and customary" charge for the area.


Insurance company getting busted big time for this.

"Insurers Accused Of Underpaying Patients"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/13/eveningnews/main4719897.shtml

So, because you can't actually show the evidence is wrong, you're just going to claim that the source is biased.

Are you going to show how their biased? No. You're just going to claim it.

Tell you what, why don't you provide a piece in a peer-reviewed journal that expalins how the free market will provide optimal health coverage even though patients don't have things like perfect information? Or how using a private insurance model doesn't create problems with adverse selection?

I don't think you will.
So, if I cast doubt on one claim, then what?

Anyway, I doubt you would like any contrary pieces that I would present from conservative think tanks because of the source. How many times have I read that the Frasier Institute is a bad source because it's just too biased, when complaining of long wait times in Canada's version of the NHS.

And if we only did have the free market at work, I would be able to show examples of success. But the government has meddled in health insurance/care to the point where the free market is just a gleam in a libertarian's eye.

You'll get your answer, but on my time. That means when I have time. This is recreation, not obligation, remember?

Free health care paid by taxes is not paid by 'somebody else' but paid by all, for the betterment of all.
Do you also take issue with schooling, after all that is also paid for by taxes, for the betterment of all?

Yes, of course.

The end does not justify a means.

Man is not meant to be a slave to his fellow men, but only to serve his own rational self-interest, as determined solely by him.

Forget about morality.
That's all that matters.

Public healthcare is cheaper for everyone.

Even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

The end does not justify the means.

Objective moral principle trumps all other considerations.

Nothing justifies evil.

Yes, of course.

The end does not justify a means.

Man is not meant to be a slave to his fellow men, but only to serve his own rational self-interest, as determined solely by him.

And that in a nutshell is why the philosopies of Rand are not compatible with humanity.

So you would like to see schools abolished and we all become responsible for the education of our own children?

And that in a nutshell is why the philosopies of Rand are not compatible with humanity.
Actually, Rand's philosophy is the only philosophy that truly embraces and accepts man's fundamental nature. It is collectivism, with its glorification of self-sacrifice and slavery and death of the human spirit, that is anti-human.

So you would like to see schools abolished and we all become responsible for the education of our own children?

Coercively-funded schools, yes.

Privately-funded schools are fine.

Nothing justifies evil.

which is why i cannot comprehend a privatised system whereby people are refused treatment, or given second class treatment, due to inability to pay, or where many go without essential medications because they cost too much.

to me, that is evil.

That's all that matters.

Even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

The end does not justify the means.

Objective moral principle trumps all other considerations.

Nothing justifies evil.


A few things to note here. Do you not find that agreeing that we can forget about morality and then declareing that 'objective moral principle trumps all..' a little contradictionary?


Can evil not be described as only looking out for your own interests and ignoring the plight of your fellow man? I say in a sentiant social creature that yes it can.

Unlike certain sections of the NHS, whose priority is providing expedient political capital for the incumbent government by meeting such contrived targets as have been set for it.
Fixed.

And anyhoo, targets are fairly old hat. It's my understanding that they've been reduced dramatically in recent years.

Give me a NHS that is hampered by political squabbling over a private medical service motivated by profit any day.



I fail to see why the mere fact of one's existence automatically entitles him to the means by which to continue that existence, especially when that means must be provided by someone else.
Because we are social, not solitary, animals. We rise and fall depending on the well-being of the social group and the social set-up. We cannot flourish without the help of others, and if you are privaleged enough to have benefitted greatly from the toil of others, past and present, then helping yet another person seems more than fair.

If you can show that your personal wealth was developed in a vacuum, with no input from any human whatsoever, then you can start comparing a NHS with slavery.

Actually, Rand's philosophy is the only philosophy that truly embraces and accepts man's fundamental nature. It is collectivism, with its glorification of self-sacrifice and slavery and death of the human spirit, that is anti-human.

Ohh that is soooo wrong. What is mans fundemental nature is evidanced by the majority of humanity. The majority of humanity act in a way that is condusive to mankinds social endevours. Goverment, family groupings, tribe mentality, these are man's fundemental nature.

What you are talking about, is alien to mans funemantal nautre. How many 'enlightend' people do you suppose share your philosphy?

Is it the majority of humanity or are you in a minority? what does the answer to this question tell you about mans fundemental nature?



Coercively-funded schools, yes.

Privately-funded schools are fine.[/QUOTE]

So, if I cast doubt on one claim, then what?

Anyway, I doubt you would like any contrary pieces that I would present from conservative think tanks because of the source. How many times have I read that the Frasier Institute is a bad source because it's just too biased, when complaining of long wait times in Canada's version of the NHS.

Go ahead and use the Fraser Institute. the thing I like about their work is that it's easy to separate the data from their interpretation, so they're both a decent resource and an opposing viewpoint.

And if we only did have the free market at work, I would be able to show examples of success. But the government has meddled in health insurance/care to the point where the free market is just a gleam in a libertarian's eye.

In other words, the free market system has never been shown to work in real life.

That's all that matters.

Even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

The end does not justify the means.

Objective moral principle trumps all other considerations.

Nothing justifies evil.

I don't believe in your objective moral principles.

That's all that matters.



Even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

The end does not justify the means.

Objective moral principle trumps all other considerations.

Nothing justifies evil.

I think you rather missed the point in GoG's post.