The Health Service - a quick story

dunkman

In 1948, Britain came up with the free National Health Service. It is a genius idea. It enables people to get treated for illnesses/diseases regardless of how much they have, or dont have, in the bank. Simple. The End.




so why does the richest nation in the world still make its citizens pay for health treatment?

know1

dunkman wrote:

In 1948, Britain came up with the free National Health Service. It is a genius idea. It enables people to get treated for illnesses/diseases regardless of how much they have, or dont have, in the bank. Simple. The End.




so why does the richest nation in the world still make its citizens pay for health treatment?

If we went to Universal Healthcare, wouldn't the citizens still be paying for their health treatment through taxes?

It really shocks me that people seem to think that government programs somehow magically show up with no cost.

It shocks me almost as much that people don't realize the cost of anything the government touches is going to be more expensive than otherwise.

dunkman

know1 wrote:

If we went to Universal Healthcare, wouldn't the citizens still be paying for their health treatment through taxes?

sure they would. you assume of course that all citizens pay taxes. what about someone who has just lost their job through this global financial shitstorm?

evenkat

dunkman wrote:

In 1948, Britain came up with the free National Health Service. It is a genius idea. It enables people to get treated for illnesses/diseases regardless of how much they have, or dont have, in the bank. Simple. The End.




so why does the richest nation in the world still make its citizens pay for health treatment?

Isn't that about the time Britain lost its greatest nation in the world title and the US took it over?

Nah, I'm all for it! Those who disagree have all sorts of reasons why it won't work or we shouldn't do it but overall the pros outweigh the cons.

dunkman

evenkat wrote:

Isn't that about the time Britain lost its greatest nation in the world title and the US took it over?

Nah, I'm all for it! Those who disagree have all sorts of reasons why it won't work or we shouldn't do it but overall the pros outweigh the cons.

its got some problems so it has, but overall its one of the greatest humanitarian inventions in the last 100 years by a modern wealthy country.

its utterly respected by institutions and governments around the world.

and people keep saying its not 'free'.. look i know my taxes pay for it... but i've worked this out. if i earned $50,000 per year in the states which is the equivalent to £25,000 here... i dont pay any more tax than the US person... ok we might not have the greatest military in the world, but i could break both my arms and then not have too worry about whether my insurance would cover it all.

its a really great idea, the NHS, its something british people should be immensely proud of i think.

know1

dunkman wrote:

sure they would. you assume of course that all citizens pay taxes. what about someone who has just lost their job through this global financial shitstorm?

But if all citizens lost their jobs and stopped paying taxes, there would be no healthcare. It only works if the vast majority are still paying for it. Plus, the government is taking its cut as well.

_

dunkman wrote:

its got some problems so it has, but overall its one of the greatest humanitarian inventions in the last 100 years by a modern wealthy country.

its utterly respected by institutions and governments around the world.

and people keep saying its not 'free'.. look i know my taxes pay for it... but i've worked this out. if i earned $50,000 per year in the states which is the equivalent to £25,000 here... i dont pay any more tax than the US person... ok we might not have the greatest military in the world, but i could break both my arms and then not have too worry about whether my insurance would cover it all.

its a really great idea, the NHS, its something british people should be immensely proud of i think.

What I think a lot of people don't realize is that, in the U.S., we ALREADY spend more TAX money for healthcare per capita than any other nation. We're already paying for universal care, we're just not getting it. Things need to be restructured so we get what we're paying for.

polaris

universal health care works ONLY when the service provided is the primary focus ... in america - it's all about profiteering ... policies are enacted to ensure profitability for a sector ... so, in the case of the USA: you have drug companies that need to maximize profits; insurance companies that need to maximize profits; etc ...

the system is there to ensure that a) people continue to get sick and b) people will profit from their illnesses ...

also - programs such as this need to be appropriately funded ... it does not work if it is underfunded ...

know1

Those drug companies are international. The are selling drugs in Canada and they are making a profit. If all countries moved to a system which prevented the companies from making a profit then we would probably have a lot less drugs and new medicines around.

DOSW

know1 wrote:

It shocks me almost as much that people don't realize the cost of anything the government touches is going to be more expensive than otherwise.

Not true, especially with healthcare. The equivalent cost that Europeans pay for their healthcare in taxes is much lower than the average cost of a decent plan here.

polaris

know1 wrote:

Those drug companies are international. The are selling drugs in Canada and they are making a profit. If all countries moved to a system which prevented the companies from making a profit then we would probably have a lot less drugs and new medicines around.

there is a difference between profit and maximizing profit ... when you deregulate the industry to allow them to get sketchy drugs that have huge side effects to be passed - it ends up costing the tax payer more in the end to cure the people from the problems the drugs cure ...

know1

DOSW wrote:

Not true, especially with healthcare. The equivalent cost that Europeans pay for their healthcare in taxes is much lower than the average cost of a decent plan here.

That's not an apples to apples comparison.

What I'm saying is that if you compare program run by private industry in one country compared to a similar program run by the government of that country, the government program will generally cost quite a bit more.

_

know1 wrote:

That's not an apples to apples comparison.

What I'm saying is that if you compare program run by private industry in one country compared to a similar program run by the government of that country, the government program will generally cost quite a bit more.

Who cares? That's completely irrelevant. The government doesn't need to run healthcare - they just need to pay for it.

Strangest Tribe

know1 wrote:

But if all citizens lost their jobs and stopped paying taxes, there would be no healthcare. It only works if the vast majority are still paying for it. Plus, the government is taking its cut as well.

If everyone lost their jobs could they still pay insurance?

If you think about it reasonably just substitute "insurance payments" every time you use the words "more taxes"

There are more people paying taxes than there are that have health insurance.

Besides... The amount of insurance you pay on your group programs are driven up by those on your plan that are older and have more health issues so essentially if you are on any group plan you're already paying for other people's health problems.

Does this help with your viewpoint on universal healthcare?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Hey don't knock it....it's working in the US.

Rainbows around the corner















(after everyone gets fried by lightning)

Model Roll Model

Do they universal dental care there, Dunk? Just curious....

jeffbr

Model~Roll Model wrote:

Do they universal dental care there, Dunk? Just curious....

I hope the answer is no based on the smiles I see in the crowd at EPL games on TV. It would be a bad testimony for NHS if dental were covered.

Gonzo1977

know1 wrote:

If all countries moved to a system which prevented the companies from making a profit then we would probably have a lot less drugs and new medicines around.

That's not true at all. It's not like Drug Production is going to come to a sreaching hault because Universal Health Care is implemented. Do you honestly believe that we're going to stop the science of producing life-saving drugs because there is no profit in it anymore? That's absurd.

We just have to kill the mentality that we're locked in this system and that ther's no way out.

The United States hasn't even tried Universal Health Care, so how can they say it can't work?

dunkman

Model~Roll Model wrote:

Do they universal dental care there, Dunk? Just curious....

all our dentists look like Austin Powers.

dunkman

know1 wrote:

But if all citizens lost their jobs and stopped paying taxes, there would be no healthcare. It only works if the vast majority are still paying for it. Plus, the government is taking its cut as well.

but if everyone lost their jobs in the US, wouldnt that be the exact same case? you couldnt pay your insurance? i fail to see your point on that one i'm afraid.

know1

Gonzo1977 wrote:

That's not true at all. It's not like Drug Production is going to come to a sreaching hault because Universal Health Care is implemented. Do you honestly believe that we're going to stop the science of producing life-saving drugs because there is no profit in it anymore? That's absurd.

We just have to kill the mentality that we're locked in this system and that ther's no way out.

The United States hasn't even tried Universal Health Care, so how can they say it can't work?

Did I say anything that even remotely resembled "stop the science of producing life-saving drugs"? I said there would be less.

Furthermore, my comment was in reference to a post that seemed to claim that profit wasn't really an incentive in Canada. I tried to point out that profit does play a role.

You sure like to read one thing and extrapolate it into something that it's clearly not.