Originally posted by RSMA1234then it is not a matter of bad health care system, rather a matter of a customer skipping bill. if you don't pay your bill in a restaurant, you get a ride in the police car. but if the restaurant manager let's you walk on the promise you will pay up eventually, it is the manager's fault for being a trusty silly wabbit.
Actually it is effect free for all........as even if you get the bill as a tourist, most donl;t pay
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziStill, the problem remains and it should be considered as one.
then it is not a matter of bad health care system, rather a matter of a customer skipping bill. if you don't pay your bill in a restaurant, you get a ride in the police car. but if the restaurant manager let's you walk on the promise you will pay up eventually, it is the manager's fault for being a trusty silly wabbit.
The question is that this is seen as a problem by those that attack universal health-care based on arguments they themselves do not defend.
For example:
1) You cannot leave them to die on your doorstep, so you have to give them healthcare.
Although I would agree that you cannot leave them to die on your doorstep, I don't see how privatizing the NHS would solve that issue.
1.1 Yeah, but this creates incentives for people to come die on our doorstep
So basically this guy's saying that we should let them die on our doorstep, to "remove incentives". Again, this is an issue that doesn't require the privatization of the system.
In fact, there is no argument here for privatization of the NHS, yet this is how people like DSR would like you to read this.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think thats a fair point, persoanlly I think all non-uk citizens should have to take out insurance which would be presented at point
the alternative would be the american way: "pay up front or you don't get the treatment. pay or die, maggot"
the problem with americans is the american way is applied to american taxpayers as well.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThats true and not deniling that the NHS could improve a lot, but the reality is that when someone is bleeding etc and you have treated them, they say they do not have any money, what can you actually do ?
then it is not a matter of bad health care system, rather a matter of a customer skipping bill. if you don't pay your bill in a restaurant, you get a ride in the police car. but if the restaurant manager let's you walk on the promise you will pay up eventually, it is the manager's fault for being a trusty silly wabbit.
Bottom line is that yes you get arrested for not paying a bill, but then you get bail.....but if the person skips the country what happens ?
Hence my logic of inusrance upfront
Originally posted by RSMA1234I believe that one of the strength of the NHS and other single-payer health care systems is that they are quite good at issuing prescriptions for the flu or mending a broken leg. The problem they run into is treating chronic conditions and health issues of the elderly (replacing a broken hip, heart disease, cancer, etc.). Why can't the doctors of the NHS refuse free treatment of foreigners for elective surgeries, treatment of chronic conditions or squirting out a kid?
Thats true and not deniling that the NHS could improve a lot, but the reality is that when someone is bleeding etc and you have treated them, they say they do not have any money, what can you actually do ?
Bottom line is that yes you get arrested for not paying a bill, but then you get bail.....but if the person skips the country what happens ?
Hence my logic of inusrance upfront
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI see where you are heading and from a logical point off view I agree in principle, I guess the issue comes down to the oath that doctotrs swear where by the promise to help the ill regardless, also from a moral point of view is it correct not to treat someone when you are able to due to cost ?
I believe that one of the strength of the NHS and other single-payer health care systems is that they are quite good at issuing prescriptions for the flu or mending a broken leg. The problem they run into is treating chronic conditions and health issues of the elderly (replacing a broken hip, heart disease, cancer, etc.). Why can't the doctors of ...[text shortened]... t of foreigners for elective surgeries, treatment of chronic conditions or squirting out a kid?
Originally posted by RSMA1234one can always cheat the system. but you can't really hurt the paying, honest customers because of a few bad apples.
Thats true and not deniling that the NHS could improve a lot, but the reality is that when someone is bleeding etc and you have treated them, they say they do not have any money, what can you actually do ?
Bottom line is that yes you get arrested for not paying a bill, but then you get bail.....but if the person skips the country what happens ?
Hence my logic of inusrance upfront
imagine you are in a restaurant which had some customers skipping bills. as such, they instituted a policy by which customers are required to pay up front. a waiter brings you a glass of wine until you wait for your meal and demands money. you pay him and then you remember you would like some saltines. you pay him again. the meal comes and you pay the meal. then you realize you are still hungry and pay again for another dish. then you pay for desert. Takes the fun out of an evening at a restaurant, doesn't it?
But wait, apply this example to a patient. he comes in unconscious, or delirious from fever. Would you check his wallet? The point i am trying to make in defending a national health care system is that it is better to pay taxes when you are healthy rather than pay when you are sick.
Originally posted by RSMA1234if i crack my head in amerika, shouldn't i get treated? i am on vacation, and i don't have any money, will you let me die?
I see where you are heading and from a logical point off view I agree in principle, I guess the issue comes down to the oath that doctotrs swear where by the promise to help the ill regardless, also from a moral point of view is it correct not to treat someone when you are able to due to cost ?
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziTo be honest with you ......yes I would
if i crack my head in amerika, shouldn't i get treated? i am on vacation, and i don't have any money, will you let me die?
I would for this very simple reason
The NHS has only has finite amount of money to spend, if they spend money on you, then that means they have less money to spend on other people who for exmaple have a life threatering injury as they can not afford the drugs to treat them.
I know that you may think, thats a bit harsh and yeah right, but it does happen, their was a recent case where by a person only had a few months to live, but the health trust could not afford the cancer drugs and thus the person had to take them to court so that they would buy the drugs to save his life
It does happen more often then most people think
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7555068.stm
Thus in my view, unless you pay, the services should go for free to the local pop only
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think that your example does not work, it does not work for the simple reason that patianets from the UK do not get charged, thus the resuratant you meantion would have two streams, one for people who do not pay as they are from the country and the other for people outside the UK who have to pay....no restruarnt could live like that as all customers have to pay.
one can always cheat the system. but you can't really hurt the paying, honest customers because of a few bad apples.
imagine you are in a restaurant which had some customers skipping bills. as such, they instituted a policy by which customers are required to pay up front. a waiter brings you a glass of wine until you wait for your meal and demands mone ...[text shortened]... stem is that it is better to pay taxes when you are healthy rather than pay when you are sick.
The reality is that my tax payers money is used to fund the NHS (I have no issues with this even thought I use private health care), but if the money that I pay is being used to treat people from outside of the UK who do not pay and then this leads to a reduction in the amount of money my health care service can spend on the local pop...I have issues....after all it is my tax payers money
As I mentioned before, I think that inusrance is the way forward, so if you travel then pay for treatment with insurance, either that or a plan with is like when I go to the EU mainland.
I go to my post office, fill out a form, this gives me a health card and if I get ill in another country, they charge this to the NHS....fair enough in my view
Originally posted by RSMA1234What would you do with the body?
To be honest with you ......yes I would
I would for this very simple reason
The NHS has only has finite amount of money to spend, if they spend money on you, then that means they have less money to spend on other people who for exmaple have a life threatering injury as they can not afford the drugs to treat them.
I know that you may think, thats a ...[text shortened]... appen more often then most people think
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7555068.stm
Originally posted by RSMA1234But from a moral point of view, isn't it also correct to not violate another country's immigration and residency laws? In the United States, we have a huge problem with illegal immigrants entering the country, having babies in our hospitals, filling up our emergency rooms for minor issues, and bringing their drug violence injured and wounded to our trauma centers and then skipping the bill. These situations could all be remedied if the foreign nationals would stay on their side of the border or if our hospitals denied them care. I don't think it's very moral to stick U.S. taxpayers with their health care bill or to deny treatment or inconvenience U.S. citizens while they wait at the ER behind 36 illegal aliens who have come there because they don't have health insurance and need a prescription for the flu.
I see where you are heading and from a logical point off view I agree in principle, I guess the issue comes down to the oath that doctotrs swear where by the promise to help the ill regardless, also from a moral point of view is it correct not to treat someone when you are able to due to cost ?
Originally posted by RSMA1234ah, but the local customers do pay. they pay taxes when they are fit and healthy so when their bank crashes and they lose their money and/or they become ill and cannot work and therefore cannot pay taxes they won't have to pay for a life saving treatment.
I think that your example does not work, it does not work for the simple reason that patianets from the UK do not get charged, thus the resuratant you meantion would have two streams, one for people who do not pay as they are from the country and the other for people outside the UK who have to pay....no restruarnt could live like that as all customers have ...[text shortened]... card and if I get ill in another country, they charge this to the NHS....fair enough in my view
you are saying that each should get treatment according to the amount payed. but this is not possible. if a guy gets cancer at 23 and his treatment costs many times more than the taxes he payed, should he wait until 35 to get treatment.
the point of a NHS is to create a contract between the government and the people. the people pay some of their earnings even if they are healthy and the government treats all people regardless of how much they payed. Someone is bound to not get his money's worth, either the citizen who pays and not gets sick(which i doubt he should mind at all) or the government who might register some losses. but it creates a feeling of security knowing that if you get sick you will be taken care of, regardless of the cost involved, because of the contribution you made to society or will make in the future.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterif they could get treatment elsewhere they might not crowd the ER room.
But from a moral point of view, isn't it also correct to not violate another country's immigration and residency laws? In the United States, we have a huge problem with illegal immigrants entering the country, having babies in our hospitals, filling up our emergency rooms for minor issues, and bringing their drug violence injured and wounded to o ...[text shortened]... ve come there because they don't have health insurance and need a prescription for the flu.
you keep yelling "rights for americans" and screw everybody else. you keep mentioning the criminal element of the immigrants. how about the decent hardworking immigrants who would happily do the jobs americans refuse to do. are you forgetting you were all immigrants? when do immigrants stop being heinous criminals and become american patriots like the mighty DSR?