Lets imagine there is a nurse, a nurse that does not get paid very well. They run every day, they are in good shape, they eat as healthily as they can with their budget and they basically look after themselves. They are in good health and haven't been to the doctor in years. Unfortunately private medical insurance is not an option for this person due to cost. One day while out running they get hit by car that mounts the pavement driven by a drunk driver. The drunk driver has no job, no money, no insurance etc. The nurse needs immediate treatment and ongoing rehabilitation due to injuries. The drunk driver goes to prison but has no money to pay for treatment. The nurse couldn't afford insurance. What happens then?
I think the point that PNP made is the most telling whatever your political pursuasion. The USA spends much more on health care than we do for a far less effective service that provides very little for whole sections of the community. The NHS is one of the cheapest systems in the world. What the coalition is doing right now to the NHS in England will be the end of it.
Your teeth, car, house etc are all far less complex than your health Thor. Yes there are certain 'diseases' like obesity and smoking which are self inflicted and cost the NHS too much money. But paying for these is a small price to pay if we can guarantee treatment of the diseases which are not self-inflicted, and which the victims don't have control over, accidents of fate, genetic or otherwise. You and those close to you have clearly been very lucky with your health, because if you hadn't you would appreciate the value of the NHS, regardless of any health insurance.
It seems TMT wants a welfare state that penalises the persistently/wilfully negligent. If so, not an uncommon view.
It's also a view that's very, very hard to pin down, though. I'm sure that the bankers that ****ed the economy and the politicians that screwed up the system to allow them to do it would agree with that, but wouldn't class themselves as negligent. Who would be disqualified from the NHS? Drinkers? Smokers? Drivers who break the speed limit? The fat? The thin? The stupid? The good, the bad and the ugly? The system needs some refinement, as I'm sure that we're all aware of stories about people taking the piss and getting unnecessary procedures for free, but it works well overall. It's better and cheaper than most and certainly an all round improvement on the I'm Alright Jack alternative.
I have no ides what a binge drinker spends. In the UK, presumably a fair bit. As I have said, I am no rampant socialist. Whilst I would agree that there should be more personal accountability in certain cases. I.e. Smokers, alcoholics who refuse to seek help, teenage single mothers with 4 kids, etc, you simply cannot leave those who cannot, or cannot afford to help themselves to their fate. When I worked in The City, many times the taxman would take home more than me. Yes, I was a more than a little pissed off about that. But, I was more pissed off with the way it was wasted by successive gvts. I have never minded my taxes going to pay to help those who can't help themselves. Or to those who have fallen on temporary hard times and need a hand up. And there lies the difference, the state should always be there to lend a hand up. Hand outs, however, should be far more closely controlled. Personally, I think Farage & co are a bunch of opportunistic chancers. But, speaking to working Londoners in the pub near my mum's place, and listening to their moans about where their taxes are going, you begin to understand how UKIP has gained in popularity so quickly. And I don't just mean white people either!..
18 months. Makes the next election in UK very confused. Could elect a Labour Govt that loses its majority after a year or so.
"Who would be disqualified from the NHS? Drinkers? Smokers? Drivers who break the speed limit? The fat? The thin? The stupid? The good, the bad and the ugly?" Someone who has been medically advised to "cease and desist" on their lifestyle choices (diet, alcohol etc) , and continually refuses to take that advice for the better.
Problem with UK Governments is their blinkered short-termism. They're so focussed on winning the next election that there's no time to properly fix anything. Education and NHS need independent commissions to set out 20 year plans which are actually carried out and untouchable by successive government's, not swinging back and forth every five years which wastes so much money and achieves nothing.
Unfortunately, WY, as has been said, whoever you vote for you get politicians. Most of whom are honours graduates in "How to be sincere, even when you don't mean it"
I think overweight people self exclude on many procedures where their weight makes certain medical interventions difficult or risky. It's also worth pointing out that smokers & drinkers save the NHS money by dying earlier.
Not to mention contributing huge amounts in taxes. It's a slightly awkward dilemma but drinkers and smokers donate far more money to the NHS than their associated problems cost the NHS.
"I think overweight people self exclude on many procedures where their weight makes certain medical interventions difficult or risky." The classic example is a lifelong piss-artist who now needs a liver transplant. Should they get it in front of a kid who needs the same due to a congenital medical condition ?? "It's also worth pointing out that smokers & drinkers save the NHS money by dying earlier." I refer you to this old chestnut : My <acquaintance> smoked 40 a day and lived til the ripe old age of 80 odd. What did they die of ?? Lung cancer. Those lot have a habit of often not conforming to statistical norms. Add drunk/reckless drivers who cause massive pile-ups causing reams get killed other than themselves, to that list.
Sorry I had to go out so couldn't answer the points. Yes of course there are circumstances when the NHS is needed as I've said for those who can't afford private and for emergencies like the drunk driver who hits a nurse or WHOEVER he hits, let's not single out nurses. I've already said that. Let's take a footballer earning £300,00- per week. He has forked out for a house which cost millions. He drives a car which cost scores of thousands. He goes on holiday to expensive places staying in hotel suites costing thousands a night. Now he injures himself in training or on the pitch,ARE YOU SAYING THAT HE CANNOT MEET HIS OWN MEDICAL EXPENSES? Of course he can.
You think footballers use the NHS for their injuries? You should approve, they take advantage of Private Insurance.
Maybe in booze, but I think the majority of tobacco smoked nowadays is either imported or counterfeit. My mum still smokes - she's 93! O.k that's an exception to the rule. I always take ***s over for her. Don't really like doing it, but trying to make her stop now would do her more harm than good.
PNP, I don't know if your claim about private insurance is true and if it is less effective, it certainly takes the pressure off the NHS and some cancers like lung are because of smoking which again is self inflicted.
