Thread: Paying For Health Care

I am from the UK, here we have the National Health Service (NHS), which is a socialised model. People pay national insurance in the form of tax and this money is then used to fund the healthcare system. The only time when you need to pay a bill is when you need entirely elective procedures, dental care and in some cases prescription charges (if you can afford them). The system has its flaws.

Alot of people take it for granted, waste valuable time with minor complaints. There is a problem with waiting lists for operations. At the moment I am waiting to see someone, god knows how long that will have to take. But I will wait, and I won't complain, as this beats having to pay in full out of my own pocket, I just cannot afford it. Of all the possible uses of tax money, this is probably the least objectionable in my opinion. I feel comforted knowing that people in my country get taken care of when they need it.

Trojan, the free market does not have all the answers. If I am lying injured, I don't have time to shop around, there is only one thing on my mind and that is getting medical attention. And I am glad I live in a country that recognises that. In the UK, healthcare is a right not a privelage. That will enrage alot of Americans, and it dissapoints me that it would, it is a very cold attitude toward healthcare, and indeed their fellow citizens when they would deny them healthcare if society as a whole needs to pay for it via very small deductions from their income that wouldn't cripple them. The idea of viewing healthcare as nothing more than a comodity as opposed to an essential service disturbs me to an extent. I find it exceptionally cold hearted.

Originally Posted by benzss

This is because you are not allowed to object to it, under pain of a prison sentence sentence.

My problem with the NHS is that if it fucks up, you can't go somewhere else. You instead have to pay for the NHS AND for a private hospital if you're (understandably) pissed off with the NHS.

NHS does have its (many) problems. America needs to learn from the UK's mistake and form a socialized system that is more efficient and effective.

Yeah, as many problems as NHS has, the American system has more--again, it leaves 15% of the entire American population (50 million people) totally uninsured, so NHS's problems like waiting lists or whatever are fairly minor in comparison.

Originally Posted by benzss

This is because you are not allowed to object to it, under pain of a prison sentence sentence.

My problem with the NHS is that if it fucks up, you can't go somewhere else. You instead have to pay for the NHS AND for a private hospital if you're (understandably) pissed off with the NHS.

That isn't why I find it unobjectionable - I find it one of the least objectional uses because it helps people in need. I won't argue with you, we clearly sit on 2 different sides of the fence, but I just wanted to clear that one up.


The UK is one of the top 5 richest countries in the world, the general idea behind the NHS (put crudely) is "we are gonna take care of our own". I think this is an important sentiment. And if you are rich enough to do something like this, I do think it is important to go for it. The US is richer than the UK. It has the resources, it can learn from other countries, what they do well and do wrong.

Originally Posted by gismo

I am from the UK, here we have the National Health Service (NHS), which is a socialised model. People pay national insurance in the form of tax and this money is then used to fund the healthcare system. The only time when you need to pay a bill is when you need entirely elective procedures, dental care and in some cases prescription charges (if you can afford them). The system has its flaws.

Alot of people take it for granted, waste valuable time with minor complaints. There is a problem with waiting lists for operations. At the moment I am waiting to see someone, god knows how long that will have to take. But I will wait, and I won't complain, as this beats having to pay in full out of my own pocket, I just cannot afford it. Of all the possible uses of tax money, this is probably the least objectionable in my opinion. I feel comforted knowing that people in my country get taken care of when they need it.

Trojan, the free market does not have all the answers. If I am lying injured, I don't have time to shop around, there is only one thing on my mind and that is getting medical attention. And I am glad I live in a country that recognises that. In the UK, healthcare is a right not a privelage. That will enrage alot of Americans, and it dissapoints me that it would, it is a very cold attitude toward healthcare, and indeed their fellow citizens when they would deny them healthcare if society as a whole needs to pay for it via very small deductions from their income that wouldn't cripple them. The idea of viewing healthcare as nothing more than a comodity as opposed to an essential service disturbs me to an extent. I find it exceptionally cold hearted.

I disagree

Originally Posted by Bob Paulson

I disagree

Well that was an insightful first post.

Originally Posted by gismo

In the UK, healthcare is a right not a privelage.

This particular sentence disturbs me. You're saying then, that you have a right to someone else's labor. Which I can see how someone would be in agreement with, but that certainly isn't freedom.

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

This particular sentence disturbs me. You're saying then, that you have a right to someone else's labor. Which I can see how someone would be in agreement with, but that certainly isn't freedom.

Would you then argue that people have no right to, say, police protection against criminals (which is provided by the labor of policemen), or military protection against foreign invasion (which is provided by the labor of soldiers)? These are two things that even the most hardline libertarians usually accept as legitimate functions of government. Would you say that the provision of these services "certainly isn't freedom"?

Originally Posted by Syme

Would you then argue that people have no right to, say, police protection against criminals (which is provided by the labor of policemen), or military protection against foreign invasion (which is provided by the labor of soldiers)? These are two things that even the most hardline libertarians usually accept as legitimate functions of government. Would you say that the provision of these services "certainly isn't freedom"?

Correct, I wouldn't say police protection is an inalienable right, or that we have a right to "military protection against foreign invasion." If a country were to invade I would certainly be out there risking my life to protect my freedom, but I would absolutely NOT consider it my right to have other people risk their lives for me.

I do see what you were getting at though. However, my assertion was simply that you don't have a RIGHT to someone else's labor, and I really don't see how someone can reasonably think that they do.

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

Correct, I wouldn't say police protection is an inalienable right, or that we have a right to "military protection against foreign invasion." If a country were to invade I would certainly be out there risking my life to protect my freedom, but I would absolutely NOT consider it my right to have other people risk their lives for me.

I do see what you were getting at though. However, my assertion was simply that you don't have a RIGHT to someone else's labor, and I really don't see how someone can reasonably think that they do.

I see your point in turn, but I think that describing government-provided services as a "right to someone else's labor" is somewhat obtuse. Let's take your statement that you would willingly enlist if a foreign country invaded; if this happened, and you really did enlist, you'd be providing your own labor to other people, whether that was your intent or not. Your labor would be helping to ensure the protection of the rest of your country's citizenry, including the ones who didn't enlist to protect their own freedom. If someone becomes a doctor in a country with UHC, aren't they doing the same thing? Willingly providing their own labor when they know that it will be used by the government to serve the citizenry?

Originally Posted by benzss

Well, isn't that the difference between tax and charity?

Not sure what you mean. A volunteer soldier, and a doctor in a UHC country, are both willingly entering professions where they know that they will work for the government in order to provide services to the public. Unless the soldier is a draftee, or the doctor was forcibly enrolled in med school, their labor is not being extracted from them against their will. Whether someone else "has a right to their labor" strikes me as immaterial, since the labor is being voluntarily given. UnreasonablyReasonable seems to be laboring under the misapprehension that if we have UHC, government thugs will force doctors to work against their will because someone else "has a right to their labor".

Originally Posted by Syme

I see your point in turn, but I think that describing government-provided services as a "right to someone else's labor" is somewhat obtuse.

Whoops, I apologize that it sounded like I meant that. I was just saying that having a right to healthcare translates itself into having a right to someone else's labor. I'm not saying that just because they're employed by the government that we have a right to their labor. I wouldn't say that these government programs are things we have a right to, therefore I wouldn't consider myself to have the right to the work that government employees perform.

I hope that makes sense. I'm afraid I may be very poor at articulating my thoughts.

It may translate into having a right to another person's labor, but that person has willingly decided to put themselves into a position where it's their job to provide that labor. So what's the problem? I mean, if you personally feel that you don't have a right to the labor of government employees, that's fine for you, but it's no argument against UHC or any other government program.

Originally Posted by UnreasonablyReasonable

This particular sentence disturbs me. You're saying then, that you have a right to someone else's labor. Which I can see how someone would be in agreement with, but that certainly isn't freedom.

What is your definition of freedom?

Do you feel entitled to your mail?

Originally Posted by ephekt

What is your definition of freedom?

Do you feel entitled to your mail?

Ahem