Why should healthcare be 'free'?

lostinrates

LydiaJ wrote: »

Because if you are put off going to the dentist because of the cost, the worst that can happen is all your teeth fall out. If you put off going to the GP because of the cost, you can die unnecessarily, or infect lots of other people with something nasty.

I don't think thats true. I believe, though i am happy to be corrected, that infections that start in the mouth and under a dentists remit, can have significant impact on the rest of the body or body function in some cases.

E.g. Heart disease and gum disease corelations.

Edit: cross post with ilw!

LydiaJ

ILW wrote: »

Most mouth cancers are picked up by dentists.

Interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks.

adouglasmhor

LydiaJ wrote: »

Because if you are put off going to the dentist because of the cost, the worst that can happen is all your teeth fall out. If you put off going to the GP because of the cost, you can die unnecessarily, or infect lots of other people with something nasty.

You can die from septicaemia from a dental abscess or lose a load of bone tissue leading to reconstructive surgery being needed, you can die from mouth cancers that dentists are trained to spot, and you could have an underlying health condition which a dentist will refer you to a doctor for but which shows its early symptoms as dental problems.

Edited to add, X posted with those above, sorry!

StevieJ

Carl31 wrote: »

i think part of the problem with the NHS is, as its 'free' people are inclined to use it when its not required. For example, many people seem to run to the docs over the slightest thing, leading to over worked GPs, Hospitals A+E rooms filled with people that dont really need treatment

I think there are more people who don't get checked out when they should do.

lostinrates

A._Badger wrote: »

You really do need to cast your net a little wider than the BBC and the Guardian.

Most 'right wing americans' (sic) of my acquaintance do not object to a safety net - indeed, at various times, on a state by state basis, safety nets have operated well. What they object to is Obama's probably unconstitutional imposition of mandatory coverage.

The reason they object to it is because it wrecks the existing system which (whatever the shroud wavers at the BBC like to claim) works pretty well for most Americans and provides clinical outcomes better, in many areas, than often the shoddy NHS.

Just smearing people as 'right wing' when you don't even take the trouble to listen to what they say is, sadly, all too typical of the hysterical British attitude to health provision.

I will chuckle on and off all day about chewmylegoff being a gardianista or significantly left of centre.:D

tomterm8

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't think thats true. I believe, though i am happy to be corrected, that infections that start in the mouth and under a dentists remit, can have significant impact on the rest of the body or body function in some cases.

E.g. Heart disease and gum disease corelations.

Edit: cross post with ilw!

Untreated tooth infections can kill you. The infection can get into the bloodstream and result in strokes, pulmonary embolisms, and cellulitis which can cause you to lose limbs, or cross the brain blood barrier and result in your death.

There's no exaggeration there: we only consider tooth infections minor because they are routinely treated.

Loughton_Monkey

We have one of the worst systems in the civilised world. There is (quite wrongly I think) this idealistic requirement to be "free at the point of delivery". The trouble with this 'ideal' stems from the obvious fact that there is simply not enough money available to give a near perfect service.

So what happens? Basically it's 'rationed'. Rationed by time/waiting lists. Managing the triage [urgency] and managing the waiting lists, in turn, soaks up incredible amounts of money making it a vicious circle. Add to that the huge bureacracy, and it's no wonder that the health service is not fit for purpose.

The best systems I've seen have (a) a very small charge per 'visit' to weed out time wasters, but more importantly (b) rationing by creating a well defined 'box' within which things are free. If you want anything 'outside the box' [like the latest drug rather than a generic one that will do the job] you contribute accordingly.

It is a bit akin to dentists now. Under the health service (assuming you can get into an NHS dentist) if a tooth decays, they will pull it out for free. If you want a cap or bridge etc., we have to pay. That would be perfect, except the profit from this goes directly into the (private) dentist's trousers. Whereas the system I propose would have the extra payments (from those who can afford) would remain within the health system to help subsidise core services.

When working/living in Asia, I had a German colleague. He would use most of his holiday in Asia, but would 'use' his free flight home, and one week only, to return to Germany and have a week of 'health' under his national health system. This would include a full check-up plus remedial work on teeth, a full doctor MOT [x-rays, blood test, ECG etc.], plus (in his case) a routine colonoscopy, and get all this done - with feedback - within the week.

Try that under the 'great' British Health Service!

tomterm8

That said, I'd like to point out that in the UK, anyone can obtain water for free (it is a legal requirement for water companies to provide a minimum number of stand pipes in every area), and almost everyone is within fifteen miles of a state sponsored soup kitchen. People aren't aware of these things because they don't need them, but the UK doesn't allow anyone to starve or die of thirst.

Kennyboy66

Wookster wrote: »

To my mind I don't see a problem with free (at the point of use) healthcare but there are problems associated with providing free healthcare indefinitely.

1. I some instances free healthcare means that people stop taking their health seriously as they feel someone else will pick up the tab. This is quite evident in how people with bad health habits are molly coddled. Why should someone else take care of you if you can't be bothered to do basic things yourself.
2. Money is spent very very inefficiently
3. Providing more things for free encourages an attitude of entitlement.

So, I suppose I have argued myself into taking the view that free to use healthcare isn't long term helpful.

Really ?

The last OECD report seemed to disagree with you.

The main problem is that too much of the huge increase in health spending during Labour's period was spent on increased pay - rather than improved treatment.
GP's being the most overpaid by international comparisons.

This is not however "being inefficient" - a canard, you seem obsessed with.

Loughton_Monkey

tomterm8 wrote: »

and almost everyone is within fifteen miles of a state sponsored soup kitchen.

Yes, but the croutons on my truffle and wild mushroom consumme were a little bit soggy last time. I blame the coalition.