News Why not free universal healthcare if

[cristo]

'must' -> 'can'. And you're back to equality of some result again, in this case equality of 'NHS'. NHS does not equal health care, as 220 day waiting periods demonstrate.

Replacing words in sentences completely changes their meaning. We're just going round in circles, and you aren't making any relevant comments. Can you read what I'm saying, or are you just choosing to ignore it? Why can you not see that these two comments are different:

1. Every citizen has the opportunity to take up NHS healthcare;
1. Every citizen must take up their offer of NHS healthcare?

Furthermore, your 220 day waiting list that quote was, firstly, based on statistics which were released in 2000 and, secondly, highly misleading. What one needs to look at is waiting lists for different types of surgery, at least based on risk.

However, it's quite apparent that you do not believe in nationalised, free, healthcare, which explains why you try to present misconstrued data. I also don't wish to enter into a "my countries healthcare system is better than yours" 'discussion.' Thus, it is pointless for me to continue this discussion.

 

[Borek]

However, if the entire nation has healthier lifestyle doesn't that mean that pre-emptive work done by public heathcare is providing very good results?

Not necesarilly.

French have low level of heart diseases, which is attributed to diet and wine, it has nothing to do with healthcare - it is just a lifestyle.

Note, that even if the example I gave (about low level of heart diseases and the reason behind) is wrong, my point is still valid

 

[mheslep]

I see your point. However, if the entire nation has healthier lifestyle doesn't that mean that pre-emptive work done by public heathcare is providing very good results? This work done is much more cost-effective, which is of course what we seek the most, than treating already sick people. Surely private sector won't educate general public (not paying customers) of healthier living.

I agree with most of this, though I don't know how to correlate a healthier nation with pre-emptive care. Still it certainly makes sense that pre-emptive care probably is effective and desirable. I don't know that it has to be free at the point of access to enable it. There's an old RAND study on this around somewhere.

 

[mheslep]

...I also don't wish to enter into a "my countries healthcare system is better than yours" 'discussion.' Thus, it is pointless for me to continue this discussion.

I haven't mentioned US healthcare in this resurrected thread, not once; there's much wrong with US healthcare - medical errors, excessive cost. My statements here address the frequently floated, but unexamined, wonders of 'universal' heath care abroad.

 

[misgfool]

I get stuff frequently from my provider of non-tax deductible automotive insurance on how to be a better driver, and generally (I believe) the auto insurers in part sponsor the public campaigns to improve auto safety and inform on same. And my home insurer insists on smoke detectors and fire extinguishers for a good rate.

Yes, but you are a client for your insurance company. The company wants to collect fees from you and avoid paying in case of an accident. However a company that does not have you as a client does not care of your wellbeing.

I agree with most of this, though I don't know how to correlate a healthier nation with pre-emptive care. Still it certainly makes sense that pre-emptive care probably is effective and desirable. I don't know that it has to be free at the point of access to enable it. There's an old RAND study on this around somewhere.

I think it is in the interest of the state to have healthy, working and productive citizens. It should be free because for private sector it is more profitable to treat patients. So for it there is a conflict of interest and it is prone to select the most profitable option.

 

[misgfool]

French have low level of heart diseases, which is attributed to diet and wine, it has nothing to do with healthcare - it is just a lifestyle.

Health officials have clear impact to lifestyle. I for one try to listen reasonable sounding advice regarding things like my diet, physical exercise and rest. Since I was brought up in school medical inspection world, for example I go to the dentist every year to have my teeth checked even if I have no problems as a pre-emptive measure. Actually in my university days (yes, the good old) 2 years ago, the price of dental check was 4€. And I almost got the female dentist to go out with me, but no it wasn't my day. Now as an official ex-student it's about 40€.

I also believe that France has the worlds highest mortality rate in alcohol related liver cirrhosis. Naturally I have a another claim from the government of Hong Kong to support my claim. I bet that in the end this all is traceable to some statistical fact.

http://resources.edb.gov.hk/biology/english/health/definition_health/alcoholism.html

Note, that even if the example I gave (about low level of heart diseases and the reason behind) is wrong, my point is still valid

I guess you never lose a debate . But where is the challenge and the joy of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat?

 

[mheslep]

Yes, but you are a client for your insurance company. The company wants to collect fees from you and avoid paying in case of an accident. However a company that does not have you as a client does not care of your wellbeing.

? My insurer is the only one that's relevant. Why should I, or anyone, care about some other company?

I think it is in the interest of the state to have healthy, working and productive citizens.

The state? It is just as much in the interest of every individual to be healthy, working, and productive.

It should be free because for private sector it is more profitable to treat patients. So for it there is a conflict of interest and it is prone to select the most profitable option.

Well that's just reiterating the point I refuted above. To my mind it is desirable to have a) an insurer and GP for which it is profitable to keep me healthy, and b) in the event I do get sick to have a well paid medical profession for which it is profitable to treat me, rather than shove me into the dirty corner.

 

[misgfool]

...

I think that our viewpoints differ too much to reach any meaningful conclusion. Therefore I forfeit. You win.