Why should healthcare be 'free'?

tyllwyd

Generali wrote: »

...Are we saying it's ok to starve but not to be denied access to a podiatrist?

But then again, if you were genuinely on the point of death by starvation or through dehydration, you'd be admitted to hospital where you would be given nutrition and water until you were strong enough to leave again ...

zagubov

Maybe healthcare should be free to kids, adults who keep their appointments and/or people who agree to be organ donors/blood donors.

A small fee for others as co-payments.

And maybe organ / blood donors deserve shorter waiting lists?

adouglasmhor

zagubov wrote: »

Maybe healthcare should be free to kids, adults who keep their appointments and/or people who agree to be organ donors/blood donors.

A small fee for others as co-payments.

And maybe organ / blood donors deserve shorter waiting lists?

I can’t be a donor, but I feel so bad about this I try to make up by taking part in NHS clinical trials.

Rotor

tyllwyd wrote: »

But then again, if you were genuinely on the point of death by starvation or through dehydration, you'd be admitted to hospital where you would be given nutrition and water until you were strong enough to leave again ...

Not if you're old!

Butterfly_Brain

Get rid of most of the overpaid beaurocrats.

Health tourists from abroad should be made to pay for their care instead of waltzing in here and getting it for nothing without having paid any taxes in this country.

Butterfly_Brain

A._Badger wrote: »

I can't accept your comment about the 'Tea Party' movement and strongly suggest you read more about it. The TP isn't about health care: it's a broad church, mostly concerned about government control and taxation. Health care is a small aspect of that. To stigmatise it as being on the 'lunatic' extreme Right is really misleading - it is more a creature of the libertarian Right.

Under the US health system (in a nutshell) around 15 per cent of the population isn't covered. For the most they are the self-employed, people who are employed by companies that don't offer health care - minimum wage jobs, for example - and the like.

In reality, this is more a lower Middle Class issue than one of the genuine poor. They, whatever the BBC likes to pretend. are covered by Medicaid. The retired are covered by Medicare, incidentally, not left to die in the gutter - sorry, Guardian readers!

There was always room for a debate about how cover could be provided for that 15 per cent, but Obama decided instead to impose a universal coverage programme, for ideological reasons.

Had he simply proposed a way of providing coverage for those who do not currently have it - and who won't be able to afford it under his plans anyway - he is unlikely to have met with such visceral opposition.

It is a common complaint about Americans that they have little knowledge about the UK and how our system works. In many ways it's an accurate observation. What we tend not to realise, however, is that just because our airwaves are filled with American TV programmes, that doesn't make our knowledge of the USA much greater.

This is rarely so obvious as when Brits start opining about the US health care system. Or they ours.

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.

Norfolk_Jim

I don't want an Army - if any country tries to invade the UK anyone who doesn't like it can pay for mercenaries or the USA to come and put a stop to it. Why should I have to pay for soldiers to police the world?

LydiaJ

ash28 wrote: »

Survival rates from road traffic accidents are much better in the UK - in fact 3rd in the OECD where the US is near the bottom.

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.

lostinrates

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.

Or indeed other driving laws.

If you could drive at fifteen or sixteen you might not fully comprehend the danger of the position you are in at times. (note, smae applies to riding horses ime)

No idea about other stuff like mots and saftey standards of vehicles.

zagubov

lostinrates wrote: »

Or indeed other driving laws.

If you could drive at fifteen or sixteen you might not fully comprehend the danger of the position you are in at times. (note, smae applies to riding horses ime)

No idea about other stuff like mots and saftey standards of vehicles.

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: