Question concerning Government Funded Health Care

[Yojimbo]

As you all are doubtless aware, there is quite a bit of noise here in te states about government funded healthcare. One of the main arguments that are posed against the idea is that socialized medicine does not work in Canada or the UK and fails to meet the level of care currently provided for in the system currently in place in the United States. This leads me to my question:

For those of you who live either in the United Kingdom or in Canada, I am curious as to what your opinion is of the level of healthcare provided to you by the government. Do you feel that it is efficient and fair or wrought with red tape and governmental impotence, etc? Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

[krakenslayer]

As you all are doubtless aware, there is quite a bit of noise here in te states about government funded healthcare. One of the main arguments that are posed against the idea is that socialized medicine does not work in Canada or the UK and fails to meet the level of care currently provided for in the system currently in place in the United States. This leads me to my question:

For those of you who live either in the United Kingdom or in Canada, I am curious as to what your opinion is of the level of healthcare provided to you by the government. Do you feel that it is efficient and fair or wrought with red tape and governmental impotence, etc? Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

As with any government service, there are issues with it. Largely, however, the main complaint that people have is that NOT ENOUGH public money is spent on the NHS. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the UK that actually wanted to get rid of it, and most of us live our whole lives under the care of NHS family doctors, and end it in an NHS hospital.

There are some minor issues with red tape, etc. but to be honest, I'd say yes, while the system could do with a bit of spit and polish, it does work. Plus, if we want to pay for private healthcare we can, but most people choose not to, even those who can afford it, because the differences between private and public are mainly superficial - you get fawned over a little more in a private hospital, and you get more private consultation time, etc. but the level of actual care isn't really all that vastly different.

I, for one, would never ever choose to live in a country where I was expected to pay for basic medical treatment.

[Tricky]

State health care is a good thing, as long as it isnt abused,full of overpaid bureaucrats & open to the rest of the world to pop in & use, which is where the UK system is falling down at present.

[krakenslayer]

State health care is a good thing, as long as it isnt abused,full of overpaid bureaucrats & open to the rest of the world to pop in & use, which is where the UK system is falling down at present.

Agreed. But the important thing to note is that: A) These issues are not necessarily going to present themselves in every public healthcare system in every country - they are minor glitches in our system, but not an integral part of the system, and B) Most of us would rather live in a country with a state-funded healthcare system albeit with problems of beaurocracy, than in a country with no beaurocracy because there's no public healthcare.

[EvilNed]

I think that a country like England or Canada (or Sweden) which provides healthcare for everybody is giving everyone a better shot at life. Money isn't an issue when you break a leg. That's what I personally find morally wrong with the US health care system: If you're born into a rich family, you can get better healthcare. If you're born into a poor family and get diagnosed with cancer, it's gonna ruin you financially. Even if you get rid of it.

[MinionZombie]

I'd just like to add a little something:

TAX PAYER FUNDED not Government funded.

The government has no money, they merely control our money. "Free" healthcare doesn't exist, us Brits pay for the NHS through our taxes.

I'm glad to have the NHS, but goddamn it's in serious need of a massive kick up the arse to shake loose the death-grip of needless bureaucracy and waste and moronity (yes, I made up a word just for this instance :p).

[Danny]

I think that a country like England or Canada (or Sweden) which provides healthcare for everybody is giving everyone a better shot at life. Money isn't an issue when you break a leg. That's what I personally find morally wrong with the US health care system: If you're born into a rich family, you can get better healthcare. If you're born into a poor family and get diagnosed with cancer, it's gonna ruin you financially. Even if you get rid of it.

i agree, my brother broke his arm when he was 9, we went to the hospital, he was casted up and back home in an hour after they did the x rays.
My mate broke his arm in the states last week, he couldn't even get to see the doctor for casting after it was a confirmed break unless he forked up 1100 dollars.

you can whine about taxation but thats bullshit it really is, instead of little taxation's here and there over the years to make sure the facilities are there and free to use, he had to take a loan to have his arm sorted. Unless you can afford decent health insurance id take the first option.

[SymphonicX]

I'd just like to add a little something:

TAX PAYER FUNDED not Government funded.

The government has no money, they merely control our money. "Free" healthcare doesn't exist, us Brits pay for the NHS through our taxes.

I'm glad to have the NHS, but goddamn it's in serious need of a massive kick up the arse to shake loose the death-grip of needless bureaucracy and waste and moronity (yes, I made up a word just for this instance :p).


you know what MZ, I'm so glad we get free healthcare!! :D :D :D

LULZ

Sorry dude....

Anyway as the point has already been made - I'll just reiterate.

Some healthcare is better than no healthcare. I've had pretty bad and pretty good experiences with the NHS, it's definitely been caught up in a lot of red tape and urban health services can be very lacking - there's also issues of postcode lotteries dictating what quality of care you recieve - but even the basic care is still basic care, it's there, it's funded by the population and its necessary.

I've said it hundreds of times but I just don't understand the US on this issue - its so stupid that its gotten to this point. Healthcare isn't a priviledge, it should be a RIGHT.

I mean what kind of country would let a mother of two die of cancer because she didn't enter details of her thrush treatment when applying for the insurance? I mean, that's just f**king sick.

[MinionZombie]

Hellsing - like you said, taxation - so it's never "free".

Sorry to labour the point lads, but it REALLY fucks me off whenever the NHS is referred to as "free". All it is, is that you pay less than you would if you went Private - but you get a lower quality service as a result, but you don't have to get your cheque book out when you're in hospital.

You will when you pay your sky-rocketing council tax though (well, depending on where in the country you are - e.g. the vast increases in the Liberal-or-Tory 'Shires, as opposed to the much lower levels in the usually-Labour Manchester - true story) ... but again, it's never "free". It doesn't fall out of the sky, carried on the wings of a rainbow-coloured Unicorn ... it's paid for by public taxation.

Anytime I see some moron in America bleatering "where will it come from, my paycheck?!" - OF-FUCKING-COURSE IT WILL, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!

But you know what - that's a good way of doing it for the masses.

If you want to get Private though, fine by me. You're still paying your taxes into the big "for everything" pot of tax payer's money, but you've chosen to go Private because you can afford it - good for you, I say. I can't be doing with the politics of envy ... it fucks me off big time that does.

...

Symph - Agreed on all counts sir.

The NHS is a public service - the general public require a service, for example transportation, that's a "public service", not socialism. Likewise, healthcare should be a public service.

...

I've heard though that in America, in an emergency situation you will always be dealt with - some law, or such - but I don't know what happens then - do you have to stump up if you don't have insurance, or do you get a free pass because it was an emergency situation?

[krakenslayer]

Hellsing - like you said, taxation - so it's never "free".

Sorry to labour the point lads, but it REALLY fucks me off whenever the NHS is referred to as "free". All it is, is that you pay less than you would if you went Private - but you get a lower quality service as a result, but you don't have to get your cheque book out when you're in hospital.

You will when you pay your sky-rocketing council tax though (well, depending on where in the country you are - e.g. the vast increases in the Liberal-or-Tory 'Shires, as opposed to the much lower levels in the usually-Labour Manchester - true story) ... but again, it's never "free". It doesn't fall out of the sky, carried on the wings of a rainbow-coloured Unicorn ... it's paid for by public taxation.

Anytime I see some moron in America bleatering "where will it come from, my paycheck?!" - OF-FUCKING-COURSE IT WILL, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!

But you know what - that's a good way of doing it for the masses.

If you want to get Private though, fine by me. You're still paying your taxes into the big "for everything" pot of tax payer's money, but you've chosen to go Private because you can afford it - good for you, I say. I can't be doing with the politics of envy ... it fucks me off big time that does.

...

Symph - Agreed on all counts sir.

The NHS is a public service - the general public require a service, for example transportation, that's a "public service", not socialism. Likewise, healthcare should be a public service.

...

I've heard though that in America, in an emergency situation you will always be dealt with - some law, or such - but I don't know what happens then - do you have to stump up if you don't have insurance, or do you get a free pass because it was an emergency situation?

Yeah, it's all paid for by society as a whole. Everyone who earns chips in what they can afford (at least in theory) and everyone gets the benefit of it. It's not a matter of paying hospital fees by stealth - if you had a kid who was born paralysed and spent the whole of its life in hospital, you would be taking more from the system than you were adding in, but I wouldn't imagine anyone would complain about it.

[SymphonicX]

Yeah - only the heartless deny healthcare due to financial reasons...

OH....shit! That's all the USA's republicans, and some of our government too...who regularly deny care due to the cost implications...but in terms of UK government, its usually just those 10 grand cancer treatment pills....argh.

[Yojimbo]

Thanks folks for the very interesting responses. Not that I know exactly where I should stand on this issue - and not that even if I did would it make all that much of a difference regardless - but your thoughts on this issue are greatly appreciated.

[TheSeasonOfFire]

Thanks for the feedback on this. Some of the stuff being spouted over here about the NHS would probably drive some of you UK folk mad. And for some reason the US media never really talks to people overseas or in Canada about their health care, all you hear about is the "nightmare" cases of some random person dying while waiting 12 years for a surgery or something.

[clanglee]

Anytime I see some moron in America bleatering "where will it come from, my paycheck?!" - OF-FUCKING-COURSE IT WILL, YOU FUCKING MORON!!!
?

This is actually the main crux of the argument here, There is a very strong libertarianism streak here in the U. S. and the main argument is "why should I pay for other peoples problems?" It's a valid point, not one I agree with, but valid nonetheless. If someone is able to take care of their own, they shouldn't necissarily be forced to help take care of someone else too. Most people will if asked, but not when forced. Once again, let me say that I don't feel that way, . . . .I just understand the point of view without malice.

[Danny]

"why should I pay for other peoples problems?"

Because there also paying for yours. Here everybody pays, the ones who actually pay there taxes, and everyone gets the care they need, theres problems but your not a grand king in a castle paying for peasants, or building up a fund to pay off a future accident, your paying for a service to exist, everyone pays for everyone. You cant whine and bitch about some kid being on a life support machine which everyones paying for, and then expect the exact same treatment for your child and its absolutely kosher. I personally think thats an incredibly selfish look at the situation, to reiterate, your not paying for a doctor to look after you, its paying for the doctor to be there to look at you and not hand you a bill for keeping you alive, and applying it to everyone, not just those who can afford it.

[DubiousComforts]

There is a very strong libertarianism streak here in the U. S. and the main argument is "why should I pay for other peoples problems?"
And the answer is: "Because you're already paying for the uninsured." Since nobody is denied health care, it's far better to have a system where everybody pays something into it. We already pay into such a system with mandatory auto insurance, which no one is allowed to opt out of simply because they anticipate being a "safe driver."

It's ironic that all this "concern" over paying for other people's health problems typically falls short when it comes to choosing a healthy lifestyle. Why should a healthy person pay the same insurance premium as a person that abused their body with poor eating, booze, smoking, etc.? Just as there is a reduced rate for those with good driving records, it makes sense that there should also be a deduction for those that prevent long-term illness by choosing a healthy lifestyle, which saves everyone money.

[TheSeasonOfFire]

I think it is best described as a "pioneer" mentality.

Also, one of the main talking points used against most social programs is "You will have your taxes raised by a ton so you can pay for lazy people on welfare." The best was the tea party rally, populated with elderly (covered by Medicare), people with scooters (paid for by Medicare), and overweight people (driving up insurance costs for healthy people like me) shouting about how evil and unfair universal health care is.

[clanglee]

As I said guys. . . I don't agree with the argument.

[DubiousComforts]

As I said guys. . . I don't agree with the argument.
I understood as much from your post and simply provided a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical argument.

I don't agree that those asking the question subscribe to a libertarian viewpoint. It's just a convenient way for them to argue for the right to do whatever the hell the want.