Why should healthcare be 'free'?

lostinrates

zagubov wrote: »

Yup- as I posted on another thread I got a lift from an American family in Scotland who were letting their 15-year old son drive their caravanette on winding mountain roads in the driving rain so he could experience the "driving on the wrong side of ther road" thrill.

They'd never seen a cop since leaving town so just thought "what the heck,let him drive". I made my excuses and got out as soon as poss! :eek:

What numbskulls. Breaking the law of the country you are visiting is rathet stupid. Thankfully, not all americans are fools.

ash28

LydiaJ wrote: »

That may have something to do with seat belt laws. Seat belts are not compulsory across all states - legislation varies concerning the what age of people need to belted up, whether the laws apply to the driver only, the front seat only, or everyone, how big the fines are, and whether you can be pulled over for a seat-belt violation on its own, or only if you've committed another offence as well.

It more than likely has a lot to do with seatbelt laws - 24 states have secondary seatbelt laws - where you can't be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt unless you have done something else wrong. New Hampshire has no seatbelt laws. The rest have primary seat belt laws.

Prevention is better than treatment though and through prevention the UK has far better outcomes than US.

The one-year costs of fatal and non-fatal crash-related injuries totaled $70 billion (71 percent of total costs) for people riding in motor vehicles, such as cars and light trucks, $12 billion for motorcyclists, $10 billion for pedestrians, and $5 billion for bicyclists, the study said

.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/research/cost.html

bradburm

ringo_24601 wrote: »

True, there's all sorts of models around the world. Ours is very open to abuse due to it's 'free-ness'. I'd love us to have an 'NHS account' which told you about your usage and prevents 'non-eligible people' from stealing NHS resources.

That is a great suggestion.

adouglasmhor

ringo_24601 wrote: »

True, there's all sorts of models around the world. Ours is very open to abuse due to it's 'free-ness'. I'd love us to have an 'NHS account' which told you about your usage and prevents 'non-eligible people' from stealing NHS resources.

bradburm wrote: »

That is a great suggestion.

I think the German public insurance scheme used to have something like this. you had a maximum of 6 initial visits to the doctor you were registered with per year follow up appointment were unlimited - but obviously depended on your doctor giving you the follow up appointments, your doctor could also recommend you to a specialist in a field which was not theirs (they did not have GPs like we do, all "Ärzte" had a speciality (most were internists) or arrange for you to visit a hospital or clinic.

This was the most basic scheme in operation available to the low paid, social welfare etc. A friend who was on a higher one got complimentary medicine and a 2 week retreat every year (which did not come out his annual leave) included in his health insurance benefits.

alexlyne

Docs: Make an appointment, pay a £30 deposit. Cancel over 48 hours ahead, get a full refund. Cancel under 48 hours ahead get a part refund.
Don't turn up, no refund.
Go to the appointment and get a full refund.
Perhaps if it's easy to administer, if the person is a hypochondriac then they don't get a full refund.

Cost has to be high as obviously there's an admin overhead involved.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Sort of.

AIUI, it was a government authorized private navy that was allowed to take loot to pay for their military actions. So the King might authorize an investor group to act against the ships of a particular country. They'd be expected to attack and sink or capture vessels from the other country's navy and in return could keep the spoils from capturing merchant ships from that country.

It saved the King from having to raise a navy of his own.

And then there were the grey areas where authority was implied and denied i.e. implied to the sailors but officially denied to the King of Spain

Famous Elizabethan Pirates
The Elizabethan era was the Age of Exploration from which emerged the Famous Elizabethan Pirates and the Golden Age of Pirates! Many of the Elizabethan explorers were also classed as pirates due to their attacking the Spanish treasure fleet and the Spanish colonies. Heroes or Villains? Explorers or Pirates? Queen Elizabeth's 'pirates' brought wealth and power to England! If, on their voyages, the Explorers encountered the opportunity to raid Spanish ships this would not have been greeted with disapproval from the Queen Elizabeth. The Elizabethan Explorers therefore gained the reputation of being pirates. A pirate is a person who robs or plunders at sea, or sometimes the shore, without a commission from a recognised sovereign nation.

http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/famous-elizabethan-pirates.htm

StevieJ

ringo_24601 wrote: »

I think it's the issue of 'consistent requirement'. I will always have a constant need for food, water and shelter. There are universal minimums that an individual can get by on.

However, healthcare can be sporadic, vary in cost and duration per individual. You could go most of your life without a hospital admission and suddenly get a condition in later life that requires a large amount of care. Alternatively, you could have a child born with a lifelong condition.

Effectively - healthcare isn't 'fair'. However there are few people who escape medical care in their lives so it should be expected that we all pay a minimum amount. Balancing the cost across the entire population is an attempt to make it more 'fair'

Sort of like a National insurance I guess

A._Badger

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

Do you not watch Panorama?.......It opened my eyes to how the rich Republicans view the sick who are poor .....Let them die was the shout :eek::mad::mad::mad:
I for one do not want any more insidious Americanisation of this country.
Why listen to them when they can't look after their own properly.

You don't really believe the wholly biased nonsense spouted by BBC Guardianista polemicists do you?

Good grief - no wonder this country is in a mess.

StevieJ

A._Badger wrote: »

You don't really believe the wholly biased nonsense spouted by BBC Guardianista polemicists do you?

Good grief - no wonder this country is in a mess.

Chill out Attila

ruggedtoast

I don't agree with stomach operations for fatties. Not when regular people are left in need.