State Health Service versus Private Health Service

stan1980 · Jun 9, 2008

Just wondering what your thoughts are on having a national health service (where all routine medical needs are free) against having a privately run health service (where you need to be covered by insurance or pay hard cash for service).

Where I live, medical help is free to all. The costs are covered by taxes. Although our national health service gets criticised by some, I think overall it is a good system, although expensive for the tax payer. I'd be strongly against any move to privatise it, and fortunately I don't think any government would be brave enough to that. In America, am I right in saying if you're poor and don't have insurance you are pretty much screwed? Seems pretty harsh.

Anyway, I welcome your thoughts.

wanderingone · Jun 9, 2008

While I want "state" health care I think we need to remind ourselves it's never "free" we pay for it with our taxes.

In America you are screwed the most if you are working class and have no insurance, and often if you are working class and do have insurance because so many people have substandard insurance with high deductibles, no payment for preexisting conditions.

Personally as a government employee I pay about $300 a month for a fairly decent family policy (it would be less than half that for an individual policy) my copays are between $18 and $35. We have a choice between about 13 different plans. The companies are required to cover pre existing conditions and are not allowed to deny anyone the coverage. So if I have a kid with an expensive health condition and start working for the state the insurance company can't jack up the cost or refuse to cover my kid.

I think if we wiped out the middle man (the insurance companies) and had national health care it wouldn't have to cost even that per family/person. Of course most of the plans for national coverage continue the idea of using private insurance companies for the coverage, which makes no sense in my opinion.

InigoMontoja · Jun 9, 2008

stan1980 said:
J
Where I live, medical help is free to all. The costs are covered by taxes. Although our national health service gets criticised by some, I think overall it is a good system, although expensive for the tax payer. I'd be strongly against any move to privatise it, and fortunately I don't think any government would be brave enough to that. In America, am I right in saying if you're poor and don't have insurance you are pretty much screwed? Seems pretty harsh.

Anyway, I welcome your thoughts.

No. In the United States there are free/volunteer health clinics, and there are many, many charities out there to assist people in their need.

stan1980 · Jun 10, 2008

InigoMontoja said:
No. In the United States there are free/volunteer health clinics, and there are many, many charities out there to assist people in their need.

Why do you think Private Health Care is a good thing, out of interest?

Lynden1000 · Jun 10, 2008

I have mixed feelings, so I didn't vote. In theory I like the idea of everyone having equal access to medical care, but in practice, there are still a lot of things I worry about.

Athene · Jun 10, 2008

Lynden1000 said:
I have mixed feelings, so I didn't vote. In theory I like the idea of everyone having equal access to medical care, but in practice, there are still a lot of things I worry about.

I wonder if you could be persuaded to enlarge upon that, what things are there to worry about with a national health service?

I've had discussions like this before and the most used argument from the pro-private health care crowd is that the US is private and they have the best hospitals in the world. Undeniably the US has excellent hospitals though I'm not sure if they are the best in the world, I've not compared them all but it's interesting that despite the US having all these wonderful facilities they don't do much better in Cuba in terms of health of the general population, the UK with the NHS and all its problems with under-staffing, over-crowding, long weighting lists etc does much better.

The vast majority of people don't need fantastic health care to be healthy, they need adequate health care, they need access to antibiotics when needed, immune shots, a clean operating theatre and a ward to recover in and trained staff of course. In the UK we get adequate to good health care, it's sufficient for our needs.

And before somebody mentions it, yes people from the UK go to the US for treatment, they generally fall into two categories, rich people who can afford the extortionate cost of health care in the US, and people whose illnesses can only be treated in the US and in those cases the NHS will pay.

InigoMontoja · Jun 10, 2008

I wonder what people are thinking: Apparently in Europe and Canada people have no moral objections to forcing one guy to pay for another guy's private health concerns. So I guess that's OK in the UK. So the next time I visit I'll be sure to take lots of money from people to pay for my recent bout with food poisoning from all these tomatoes.

InigoMontoja · Jun 10, 2008

stan1980 said:
Why do you think Private Health Care is a good thing, out of interest?

I'll answer that question with a question: Why do you think it is OK to extort money from one person to pay for another persons private, unrelated health concerns like herpes?

WatersMoon110 · Jun 10, 2008

InigoMontoja said:
I'll answer that question with a question: Why do you think it is OK to extort money from one person to pay for another persons private, unrelated health concerns like herpes?

If by "extort money from one person" you mean "collect taxes from everyone" I would say that I believe this is acceptable, in that everyone can have all of their health care issues paid for by tax money; instead of paying a percentage of wages to insurance companies, a percentage would just be taxed for this. That way no one would ever have to suffer from any health concern simply because they didn't have the money to pay for it.

Now, why don't you play nice and actually answer the question asked of you? Or, more fun, answer this one: Why do you consider it moral to exclude people from getting health care because they can't afford to pay for it?

InigoMontoja · Jun 10, 2008

WatersMoon110 said:
If by "extort money from one person" you mean "collect taxes from everyone" I would say that I believe this is acceptable, in that everyone can have all of their health care issues paid for by tax money; instead of paying a percentage of wages to insurance companies, a percentage would just be taxed for this. That way no one would ever have to suffer from any health concern simply because they didn't have the money to pay for it.

Now, why don't you play nice and actually answer the question asked of you? Or, more fun, answer this one: Why do you consider it moral to exclude people from getting health care because they can't afford to pay for it?

State run health care is a violation of inherent rights. Period. First, it is stealing from one person and giving to another for their individual needs. That cannot be debated. It is stealing, which is a violation of basic property rights. You cannot be a Christian and be for stealing. All this pure crap about 'being equal' is just that. All the slaves were equally denied their humanity.
Second, the state should not know about my health concerns unless I choose it. It is a violation of my God given rights of privacy for the government to have that kind of power.
People who think they can steal my property and violating my God given rights are evil. State dictated health programs are asinine. End of story.

WatersMoon110 · Jun 10, 2008

InigoMontoja said:
State run health care is a violation of inherent rights. Period. First, it is stealing from one person and giving to another for their individual needs. That cannot be debated. It is stealing, which is a violation of basic property rights. You cannot be a Christian and be for stealing. All this pure crap about 'being equal' is just that. All the slaves were equally denied their humanity.
Second, the state should not know about my health concerns unless I choose it. It is a violation of my God given rights of privacy for the government to have that kind of power.
People who think they can steal my property and violating my God given rights are evil. State dictated health programs are asinine. End of story.

How is denying health care to people who can't afford it "Christian" in any way? I don't remember Jesus ever saying to tend to the poor, unless they can't pay you for it...

And taxes aren't stealing. Unless you don't like driving on paved, public roads, the protection of the police, the post office, the fire department, hospitals, or EMTs, I would think you would understand the importance of taxation. You might not agree with all of the things that tax dollars go to. But taxation is not stealing. And, if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS is certainly going to take your money and property - LEGALLY.

Lynden1000 · Jun 10, 2008

Athene said:
I wonder if you could be persuaded to enlarge upon that, what things are there to worry about with a national health service?

.

It's admittedly selfish, but I worry about the cost to me. Right now I pay $0 for health care coverage because my employer picks up the tab. So if we were to adopt a national health care system, I would want:

A) Little, if any, increased cost to me.

B) The same great service I currently receive with no long waiting times.

C) Little, if any, negative consequences on the profit growth of health care related companies. I have a lot of my retirement money in health care stocks, and I want to retire just like everyone else

D) Minimal risk of abuse. I'm thinking of my sister in law who has TennCare and takes her kids to the doctor every time one of them sneezes or farts. She is literally there every week.

E) Exclusions for conditions with a strong element of personal choice involved- things like repeated detox for drug users.

Athene · Jun 10, 2008

InigoMontoja said:
I wonder what people are thinking: Apparently in Europe and Canada people have no moral objections to forcing one guy to pay for another guy's private health concerns. So I guess that's OK in the UK. So the next time I visit I'll be sure to take lots of money from people to pay for my recent bout with food poisoning from all these tomatoes.

People in Europe and Canada have no moral objections to helping out the poor and destitute. That's a Biblical concept you know. You can not be a Christian and place money at a higher value then human life. You either serve money or you serve God, which is it to be?

wanderingone · Jun 10, 2008

InigoMontoja said:
No. In the United States there are free/volunteer health clinics, and there are many, many charities out there to assist people in their need.

Who do you think funds those clinics and charities? YOU-- they get grants from the federal and state government and the grants they get from private foundations are tax write offs for businesses...

InigoMontoja · Jun 10, 2008

WatersMoon110 said:
How is denying health care to people who can't afford it "Christian" in any way? I don't remember Jesus ever saying to tend to the poor, unless they can't pay you for it...

Myth: We're virtuous because we're extorting people's money and giving it to 'the poor'.
Truth: Forcing someone else to give their money for someone else's personal medical needs is not virtuous. It is stealing, even when done through Tyranny of the Majority.

And taxes aren't stealing. Unless you don't like driving on paved, public roads, the protection of the police, the post office, the fire department, hospitals, or EMTs, I would think you would understand the importance of taxation. You might not agree with all of the things that tax dollars go to. But taxation is not stealing. And, if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS is certainly going to take your money and property - LEGALLY.

Myth: Taxation to give to individuals for their private medical needs is the same as paying police officers to establish law & order; it is also the same as paying a fire department to stop fires from burning down our cities.
Truth: Paying for Joe's acne treatment does not serve society in general or address the concerns of the constituency. Joe's acne is by no means something that affects society as a whole.

Athene said:
People in Europe and Canada have no moral objections to helping out the poor and destitute. That's a Biblical concept you know. You can not be a Christian and place money at a higher value then human life. You either serve money or you serve God, which is it to be?

Myth: If you want people's rights of property to be observed and to stop individuals acting in the form of government stealing you not only worship money, but do not care about the poor.
Truth: In reality, the Ten Commandments tell us not to steal. Additionally, it is poignant to note that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

wanderingone said:
Who do you think funds those clinics and charities? YOU-- they get grants from the federal and state government and the grants they get from private foundations are tax write offs for businesses...

And I would like my hard-earned dollar back, kthnx.

Spherical Time · Jun 10, 2008

InigoMontoja said:
Myth: We're virtuous because we're extorting people's money and giving it to 'the poor'.
Truth: Forcing someone else to give their money for someone else's personal medical needs is not virtuous. It is stealing, even when done through Tyranny of the Majority.

No one is forcing you to be an American citizen. If you don't like what the government does, change the government or move.

It isn't stealing, and the Bible agrees. "Rend unto Caesar" and all.

InigoMontoja said:
Myth: Taxation to give to individuals for their private medical needs is the same as paying police officers to establish law & order; it is also the same as paying a fire department to stop fires from burning down our cities.
Truth: Paying for Joe's acne treatment does not serve society in general or address the concerns of the constituency. Joe's acne is by no means something that affects society as a whole.

A healthier and happier society is something for the government to address. I have no problem with giving him a topical cream to prevent painful skin problems and improve his self esteem.

I do have a problem with giving people free breast enhancements, but luckily no one is suggesting anything of the kind.

Further, there are medical problems that are best handled by society, as only the society has the resources necessary to treat them.

InigoMontoja said:
Myth: If you want people's rights of property to be observed and to stop individuals acting in the form of government stealing you not only worship money, but do not care about the poor.
Truth: In reality, the Ten Commandments tell us not to steal. Additionally, it is poignant to note that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

First off, I notice that study ignore religious liberals and secular conservatives. Second, Jesus said love your neighbor, and that commandment supersedes the Ten Commandments.

Third, it would be less expensive and people would have more control over it if the government did that. But for some reason, fiscal conservatives don't seem to care about that.

InigoMontoja said:
And I would like my hard-earned dollar back, kthnx.

Go earn another one, or leave the U.S. Your choice.

Athene · Jun 10, 2008

InigoMontoja said:
Myth: If you want people's rights of property to be observed and to stop individuals acting in the form of government stealing you not only worship money, but do not care about the poor.
Truth: In reality, the Ten Commandments tell us not to steal. Additionally, it is poignant to note that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

Could you explain why you are so unhappy for the goverment to use your money to fund health-care yet turn a blind eye to the shocking and often-inhumane practices carried out by the HMO's.

You have a strong dislike of stealing so what are your feelings on profit orientated HMO's taking peoples insurance money and then refusing to pay for treatment, as in the recent case of a child from Wisconsin whose fathers HMO refused to cover cancer treatment. Is it not stealing, is it not the worst most malicious kind of deceitfulness for a company to take peoples money in the promise that when needed it will give the money back to pay for medical treatment, but when push comes to shove, they refuse.

LittleNipper · Jun 10, 2008

InigoMontoja said:
State run health care is a violation of inherent rights. Period. First, it is stealing from one person and giving to another for their individual needs. That cannot be debated. It is stealing, which is a violation of basic property rights. You cannot be a Christian and be for stealing. All this pure crap about 'being equal' is just that. All the slaves were equally denied their humanity.
Second, the state should not know about my health concerns unless I choose it. It is a violation of my God given rights of privacy for the government to have that kind of power.
People who think they can steal my property and violating my God given rights are evil. State dictated health programs are asinine. End of story.

I agree with you; however, they are already doing just that with regards to service men and government officals. Why should they expect and get better treatment than JOE average citizen, or do you embrace a class system? The entire healthcare situation is entirely out of control. The are freeloaders and those that pay through the nose. Actually, I feel it would be better if all healthcare "plans" ended and people simply paid for what they needed when they needed it; however, prices would have to drop down to reality.

HaloHope · Jun 10, 2008

Im extremely for nationalized free healthcare for all,

I live in the UK and am more than happy to pay taxes that benefit others and society as a whole as and when they need medical treatment, while im not 100% against private healthcare either (Ive paid for private treatment before and used the NHS too before) its great that people can get what they need to get physically and/or mentally well again for free.

Maren · Jun 10, 2008

stan1980 said:
Why do you think Private Health Care is a good thing, out of interest?

I'll give what I feel is a good example. I have a relative who recently found out her husband has been cheating on her for a number of years, she found out shortly before he sued her for divorce. She has lived modestly because she has wanted to save money for their retirement, only to find that her husband had taken two thirds of the money they had saved -- spending it on his women or possibly hiding some of it so that she can't get it in the divorce. Perhaps she should have seen signs but he was extremely successful, as the truth has come out it has been a shock not only to her but to close friends -- even those from church. And, at the time of his cheating being revealed, he was serving in a leadership position in his church.

Shortly after receiving the divorce papers, she was diagnosed with cancer, and she has previously fought off Leukemia. Once the divorce is final, she no longer will be covered by her husbands medical plan. Because of her current cancer and past Leukemia, she finds she cannot get a new insurance policy. Since she looks to be getting some money from the divorce, she will not be eligible for help with her cancer costs (not that you can get the same cancer treatments for "free" than you can pay for). But the fight against this cancer appears that it will take a long time and be very costly. It is estimated she may need more money than she can get from the divorce, just for treatments. In the meantime, because of her cancer and the treatments she is unable to work, and not only will need treatment for cancer but also for housing and living expenses.

This is but one of thousands, or even millions, of examples why universal health care is the right thing to do. If we had universal health coverage, she would not need to spend all her savings and go on government assistance just to live but would be able to live off her savings and still have her medical treatments paid for -- not have them stolen by a cheating husband.

State Health Service versus Private Health Service

I'm in favour of:

State paid for health service.. everyone gets treated equally

State paid for health service.. but you can pay extra to get to front of waiting lists

Private health care.. insurance is needed, or hard cash

Veteran

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

InigoMontoja

Guest

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Grammatically incorrect

InigoMontoja

Guest

InigoMontoja

Guest

To See with Eyes Unclouded by Hate

InigoMontoja

Guest

To See with Eyes Unclouded by Hate

Senior Veteran

Grammatically incorrect

I'm not lost I'm just wandering

InigoMontoja

Guest

Reality has a well known Liberal bias.

Grammatically incorrect

Contributor

Senior Member

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency