3 ms·

I don't think anyone, in the UK at least, thinks the NHS is free. Most people in the UK who describe it as "free" really mean "free at the point of use" (i.e. n

I don't think anyone, in the UK at least, thinks the NHS is free. Most people in the UK who describe it as "free" really mean "free at the point of use" (i.e. no invoice after treatment), but that's a bit of a mouth full.

mjevans 9y ago
It removes an entire department and source of variable from a 'company' that doesn't need it. Ultimately you aren't going to deny someone coverage based on cost*, they're going to end up in an ER and 'written off' which will then be billed in to everyone else's costs. Worse, the outcome for the individual is often less good and frequently means they will be, overall, more of a burden on society than if they had received proper treatment in an early stage. Instead, the 'cost' of billing that is 'outsourced' to the government's tax collectors, which are going to be the /very/ last thing removed if ever.
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  Ultimately you aren't going to deny someone coverage based on cost For acute conditions, yes, but in the American ER they do not treat chronic conditions, like cancer, depression and substance addiction. That's a public health issue.
  - deepsun 9y ago
    And even for sub-acute thing, for example if you've broken ankle, it needs a surgery to bring your bones together and put a metallic screws and a plate. But the only thing they'll do in ER is put a cast on your leg (for ~$7,000 bill to your insurance). For the surgery you'll need to look for a surgeon yourself (and, there's HUGE shortage of surgeons everywhere in US, seems like the system wants it that way). Then your surgeon's hospital will pre-agree on the surgery cost with your insurance. If you don't have insurance or money -- welcome to limpers.
mikeash 9y ago
Nothing is truly free. TANSTAAFL and all that. We all know this, and we use the word anyway because it gets the point across. But for some reason any time it's used in the context of health care, people just have to point out that it's not really free.

mjevans 9y ago

It removes an entire department and source of variable from a 'company' that doesn't need it. Ultimately you aren't going to deny someone coverage based on cost*, they're going to end up in an ER and 'written off' which will then be billed in to everyone else's costs. Worse, the outcome for the individual is often less good and frequently means they will be, overall, more of a burden on society than if they had received proper treatment in an early stage. Instead, the 'cost' of billing that is 'outsourced' to the government's tax collectors, which are going to be the /very/ last thing removed if ever.

HarryHirsch 9y ago
Ultimately you aren't going to deny someone coverage based on cost For acute conditions, yes, but in the American ER they do not treat chronic conditions, like cancer, depression and substance addiction. That's a public health issue.
- deepsun 9y ago
  And even for sub-acute thing, for example if you've broken ankle, it needs a surgery to bring your bones together and put a metallic screws and a plate. But the only thing they'll do in ER is put a cast on your leg (for ~$7,000 bill to your insurance). For the surgery you'll need to look for a surgeon yourself (and, there's HUGE shortage of surgeons everywhere in US, seems like the system wants it that way). Then your surgeon's hospital will pre-agree on the surgery cost with your insurance. If you don't have insurance or money -- welcome to limpers.

mikeash 9y ago

Nothing is truly free. TANSTAAFL and all that. We all know this, and we use the word anyway because it gets the point across. But for some reason any time it's used in the context of health care, people just have to point out that it's not really free.