Quote:
Originally Posted by alecE
2. Dental care - NHS dentistry is a mess, I have not been able to get an NHS dentist, so I go private. Spent £240 this week for routine appointment, de-scaling and (the biggie) extraction of some root fragments;
3. Eye care - I spend about £15 every two years for a bog-standard eye test, plus whatever I care to pay for spectacles.
Ultimately of course I do pay for the 'free' NHS treatment via my taxes, but at least taxation is proportionate to income. If I had to pay the full cost of medical treatment or had to have private health insurance, I believe I would be in worse health and much worse financial shape.
What really puzzles me is why there is any debate about this at all in the USA. Why should healthcare be made available *only* to people who can cough up the dosh for it? If the argument is followed to a logical conclusion, then presumably the same should be done for (say) education, clean water, refuse collection?
|
I have an NHS dentist, who gives me a great standard of care and it's very inexpensive. I do not understand though the justification why dental and optical care are not free. I went to the optician a few weeks ago for the first eye test I've had in at least 10 years, and was surprised to see that the Scottish Parliament had used it's devolved powers to make eye tests free in Scotland.
I'm not against optional private care. I don't see any reason why someone can't opt to pay more to have a choice over what time their operation is at, or to have it nicer surroundings, with nicer meals etc. I also can agree with allowing people to pay more money to have an operation faster - as long as that operation is in no way time critical.
Something you mentioned is what standard of health you would have if you had to pay for it yourself...
Let's now imagine that everybody could afford healthcare. Let's have a system where everybody has to pay for healthcare, but the cost is entirely dependent on income.
Since the government is no longer providing it, benefits will increase accordingly, and taxes will reduce. Anyone paying for health care will be exactly in the same position they are now in. In other words someone on 50 benefits a week will now be on 60, and healthcare will cost 10. Someone earning 5,000 a month will be taxed 1,000 less, and healthcare will cost 1,000.
The major problem I see there is that a great number of people will choose
not to pay for healthcare.
The reason why I believe this? I used to work directly with people applying for credit in a bank. A great number of people are stupid, lazy and selfish. They will spend every penny they can get their hands on, and struggle financially as a result. They would phone the bank when they ran out of money to ask for more. Or worse still, they would ignore letters and telephone calls from the bank until the bank stopped paying their bills, then they would phone the bank begging or demanding more money.
My job has changed and now I deal with pensions, life assurance, mortgages etc. I now find that the people on the lower end of the income scale are the least likely to properly protect themselves with insurance or pay into a pension. A huge number start the pension with too low an amount and cancel within the first 18 months. They justify it by saying money is too tight and they can't afford it. Somehow that makes it ok for them. Sadly when they reach the age of 65 (up to 68 for some now) they will be unable to retire and will have to work until they die. If they become too infirm to work, they face abject poverty. Whatever the case though the state will have to provide extra support, because they chose not to pay into a pension.
Sadly income insurance/life insurance in the UK is underwritten based on medical circumstances/post code/age/job etc. As a result of that it's not a level playing field and someone with poor health simply can't get insured. I believe it's the same with health insurance in the US.
I used to be ultra liberal towards pensions/money in general/state services. But as a result of these experiences I've moved slightly towards what would be called "socialist". I'm certainly no Red Ken though.
But to finally bring this long post back to the subject.... (I did have it in mind the whole time).... this is the reason why I support "free" health care for all.
Simply because if it's not free then idiots will choose not to pay for it, which will result in some people unfairly paying more than others, and or people suffering because of it.
There's a very good example of that which has come out in the news in the UK this week. The UK Government foolishly decided to instead of paying housing benefit to the claimants landlord, pay it to the claimant. The result is that landlords aren't getting the money. The knock on result is evictions. Another is that landlords won't take on tenants on housing benefit. Quite simply if you give people the freedom to make stupid choices then they will make stupid choices.
That's why some things simply have to be provided by the state, and why control has to be removed from people.