Why should healthcare be 'free'?

kabayiri

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I have no problems paying tax for the NHS.

I have a big problem with being forced to pay for the very fat.

In fact I would go as far as to say that the very fat should have to pay extra taxes on food, much like smokers pay on tobacco, to cover their nhs treatment.

We do seem to have inconsistent views in UK regards things considered 'good' and 'bad'.

We are happy to tax tobacco to discourage consumption, yet not unhealthy foods as you say.

However, I'd propose the use of "inverse tax" :- subsidise healthy basic produce - dairy, fruit,veg, bread - in supermarkets and local shops ; at the expense of taxing highly processed foods. People love a bargain, they'd flock to buying the healthier staples.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

If you think that NI covers the cost of the welfare state then you should retake your maths GCSE,

It's worse than that Gen. NI is a political deception nowadays.

I'd quite like clear ring fenced taxes, but no government would accept it here now. It's why we have cash cow taxes like fuel duty without any direct relation to the quality of our road maintenance and the volume of traffic increases these roads have to cope with. No wonder people are cynical on tax increases.

JanCee

Healthcare is free because there isn't a political party that would stand a chance of election, nor a government that would survive should they try & tackle the behemoth that is the NHS.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

That's pretty much how the system works in Aus: you get basic care 'free' from the state. If you bust yourself up playing sport for example they'll mend any broken bones, give you a prescription for painkillers (you can reclaim the cost against your tax), lend you crutches or a wheelchair etc. The state will not pay for physiotherapy however so if you need/want that then you'll have to pay.

I think this is an uncomfortable position tbh. While a huge part of me feels a state service is to patch us up and keep us working, i think this undermines the importance of some of what you are describing as 'support therapies'. E.g. Physio might be a nice extra after simple breaks than can be omitted. But in very complex breaks? In limb losses? In peoe with various muscular or neurological systems that rely on physio support for basic function? Or basic pain relief?

These are very difficult lines to draw, and inevitably they are drawn by those healthy enough to draw them. I am mot saying that they should not be redrawn, far feom it, i think they need to be, but as someone who has paid for a lot of this ancillary support, much of which is more useful than the more rudimentary stuff the financial burden this places on a healthy income is not to be underestimated.

Generali

lostinrates wrote: »

I think this is an uncomfortable position tbh. While a huge part of me feels a state service is to patch us up and keep us working, i think this undermines the importance of some of what you are describing as 'support therapies'. E.g. Physio might be a nice extra after simple breaks than can be omitted. But in very complex breaks? In limb losses? In peoe with various muscular or neurological systems that rely on physio support for basic function? Or basic pain relief?

These are very difficult lines to draw, and inevitably they are drawn by those healthy enough to draw them. I am mot saying that they should not be redrawn, far feom it, i think they need to be, but as someone who has paid for a lot of this ancillary support, much of which is more useful than the more rudimentary stuff the financial burden this places on a healthy income is not to be underestimated.

I don't know if the rules are different if a patient has lost a limb or something. Thankfully that hasn't been something that my family or I have had to investigate.

I do know that if an injury is sustained at work then a very high level of care is provided via a mandated insurance fund known as Workcover.

I do find it refreshing to be in a place where people are expected to look after themselves and their families: if one of the Generalissimos had a chronic illness then I would be expected to support them financially and emotionally rather than palming that off to the state. As I pay a lot less tax than I would in the UK I can afford to take on that burden.

lostinrates

Generali wrote: »

I don't know if the rules are different if a patient has lost a limb or something. Thankfully that hasn't been something that my family or I have had to investigate.

I do know that if an injury is sustained at work then a very high level of care is provided via a mandated insurance fund known as Workcover.

I do find it refreshing to be in a place where people are expected to look after themselves and their families: if one of the Generalissimos had a chronic illness then I would be expected to support them financially and emotionally rather than palming that off to the state. As I pay a lot less tax than I would in the UK I can afford to take on that burden.

Tax doesn't begin to cover it. (edit, and that of course is the problem. If one of the generalissimi were ill, you would of course find tremendous inner conflict in the situation you describe, and i wish with everything that works in me it never does happen! The problem is, we expect to be well, pain free, fit and vibrant, but we pay enough to be alive. Horrendously difficult decisions would have to be taken, and i can tell you, every single medical practioner i have spoken to frankly on my thoughts on this, relating of course to me, has been horrified and most have made enquiry as to my mental health. The attitude we consider responsible in animal husbandary os considered heinous in the care of the human animal)

The first year i was ill a very large six figure sum at least was expended. (by me). I paid a percentage and i was lucky to have a benefactor who picked up the rest of the tab for me. Some of the 'ancillary' therapists also helped, e.g. The benefactor's doctor wanted me to receive lots of osteopathy, adpnd we negotiated a deal where i saw the chosen osteo and he accpeted reduced payments from me, partly because he knew my benefactor had sent and would continue to send more work his way. A serious chronic illness is a lot more than my dh, whose warnings you roughly know, would pay in tax, and in many cases, more than he would earn at this stage in his career. Bearing in mind he is in a high percentage income bracket, this means that those suffering from chronic, rare or complicated illness would be in the cold.

Now, i am not against a radical reform, i argue for it myself. But it is naive to think that reduced taxes alone could pay for my healthcare if dh and i are paying for it alone certainly as things stand.

The heinous thing is, lots of things should be cheaper via nhs, massive purchasing power etc, yet instead the size seems to cost money in wastage and poorly negotiated deals, unbalanced pay stata etc.

If we wen this way we would have to qccept more people would not make it or be well enought to contribute again. Thats not necessarily wrong...and i say that from a precarious position myself.


Edit. An onteresting excercise if i can be bothered, might be to work out how much i have cost bupa and the NHs and us this summer. I would need ro find a list of charges for the various proceedures and staffing costs and the actual rather than NHS prescription cost of my drugs (never know, they might be cheaper than i pay, lots is)

fwog

My take on this is health care is its a rub off from modern diets and lifestyles. We are encouraged to lead sedentary lifestyles, thus there will eventually be a health cost. Ergo, the Obamacare' debate in the US.
I, personally, have had some major health problems, nothing to do with lifestyle, but curve-balls you couldn't hope to avoid. I'm happy I have had healthcare free at the point of need. Glad I have the assurance of 'health on tap'. We did plan to move To Aus 4 years ago, but our daughter decided to say she didn't want to go. Lucky really, as my long term health needs would have driven up our insurance costs to the point of bankruptcy.
If you have had perfect health, well done and fair play. I'm 40 years old, a healthy 6ft1' and 15 stone. I look the picture of health. You would even have any idea I've been through this.
So be glad of small mercies as you cant see what's lurking just around the corner.

antrobus

kabayiri wrote: »

...However, I'd propose the use of "inverse tax" :- subsidise healthy basic produce - dairy, fruit,veg, bread - in supermarkets and local shops ; at the expense of taxing highly processed foods. People love a bargain, they'd flock to buying the healthier staples.

Which would be counter-productive if you wanted to cut overall healthcare costs.

Chip eating smokers who spend their free time sitting on the sofa stuffing their faces with crisps washed down with supermarket lager will drop dead from a heart attack at 57 and cost the NHS very little. It's the healthy-diet-and-regular-exercise mob that you have to worry about; they're the ones that will coast to 97 and cost the NHS a fortune.

lostinrates

James_N wrote: »

I am glad you have had such an easy time of it, healthwise. Others have not.
I am surprised you cannot see the benefits to society generally, or to the individual of free-at-point of need healthcare. The rise of society's ability to stand well in terms of health since 1947 brings economic and social benefits to all.
And you misunderstand free-at-point of need. Look at your pay slip. See that entry for NI? That's a part insurance / part assurance compact with the government to provide various services, some of which you will use and some you may be lucky enough not to use. You don't have a pay-slip perhaps? That means ** I ** am paying for you too.

Fwiw...

You do not need to be well to think the system needs reform. I think it does from a different position from generali.

I am not sure what social or economic beneit my lumbering on brings society in general tbh ( nit feeling sorry for my self, just a factual assessment).

I do not have a payslip. I have kept alive, but not employable. Sorry to have been a burden on your payslip!

StevieJ

Carl31 wrote: »

. Not a large cost, like £5 or something, it might make people think twice about whether they need to see a doctor or not
Obviously, this change should be reflected in NI contributions

From all the adverts I see around, I get the impression that people don't visit the doctors enough, and when they do it has often turned critical.