View Single Post
Old 09-24-2008, 01:49 PM   #73
3 Years in the Lurk
SW01's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern Ireland, UK
Posts: 1,075
Current Game: Real Life
I do have a problem with a nationalized system. It will be too easy to currupt.
Corruption? I don't think I can recall an incident of NHS corruption at any level. Consider this: the Health Service is nationalised. A government minister is ultimately responsible for it. He doesn't decide who gets what care when, but is an overseer. If the system becomes inefficient, or fails due to managerial inefficiency, you as a voter in a democratic society exercise your democratic right, and remove the government from office. Governments are accountable to the peolpe. Buisnessmen are not.

We are looking at tax burdens ontop of the financial tax burden ontop of...etc...
Another thing you must understand: we are not billed for healthcare once we receive it. All of that is included in taxation. At no time will you be required to 'settle your bill.' Further, health insurance is not requisite. At all. We have a private sector for medical care, which you can pay for if you want to. This sector has no influence over the NHS.

Universal Healthcare has more negative consequences than positive ones.
What are the negative consequences? Specifically? The only major problem with the NHS has been waiting lists, which are being reduced. I can think of many negative consequences for capitalistic provision of healthcare:
1) the wealthy get priority, and by definition the best treatment;
2) the Hippocratic Oath goes out the window: by turning away a sick person because they don't have enough money you are perpetuating harm;
3) hospital management is not accountable to the electorate, or to any elected body, therefore the people have reduced control;
4) a governmental overseer, if open to corruption, can be sidelined by a generous donation from a particular hospital or insurance company to overlook their shortcomings. It has just been said that it happened with credit card companies.

Everyone has a great argument for those with medical conditions, but those are not the people I'm talking about.
And, surely people with medical conditions are those most likely to have an interest in healthcare? A healthy person who cannot be bothered working is unlikely to be spurred into the workforce by the possibility that he may perhaps at some remote time in the future need to go to hospital. Certainly, it is not the biggest concern of any voluntarily unemployed person I have ever met.

Creditcard companies have been regulated for years. Not too long ago sixty-minutes did a piece on creditcard regulation. It turns out that the government overseer is on the side of the creditcard companies.
Many of your points seem to indicate that it is your government that is at fault, not the concept of universal health care.

I want the freedom to give my money freely, and to not have anyone tell me to do so.
I don't imagine your federal government would be best pleased if you informed them that you wouldn't pay your income taxes for that reason...

SW01 is offline   you may: quote & reply,