3 ms·

That’s an obscene example of government interference with family and human life. This is an extreme example but there are many more misery inducing circumstance

That’s an obscene example of government interference with family and human life. This is an extreme example but there are many more misery inducing circumstances that are by products of a single payer system wedded to government. One of the most pervasive is a general rationing of care with long delays before procedures or even basic diagnostic tests but there are others like having to be assigned a doctor or having little to no choice of hospitals or clinics. The modern world needs a system that provides options for everyone and there must be a way to structure healthcare so that those who can’t afford it still receive it while those who can are able to buy the service they want. Everyone should receive the best care but you have to allow the market to find the best solutions do everyone can benefit from them. It’s just like taxing the rich if you want to look at it that way, they shell out gobs of money to create a demand for top notch doctors and facilities and the government then legislates that those resources must also provide care for everyone in exchange for access to something only the government can provide like tax breaks etc.

dm319 6y ago
'Family' and 'human life' does not over-ride all else, which is obvious in cases of abuse or neglect. It's more complicated when medical experts and parents disagree on what is best for the child. What you understand as the 'best care' may not be the same as what an expert in that area may understand as 'best care'. 'Everyone should receive the best care' - so how do you suggest this is best done?
vidarh 6y ago
This has nothing to do with the specific of the healthcare system, but about child protection measures. The NHS had no power to stop them, and did not. The courts did because the parents were taking actions that were not supported by medical evidence. As for the rest of what you're saying, it is also unsupported both by evidence, and by the fact that the UK does have a free market for medical treatment, one that is far cheaper than the US, and for health insurance, that is far cheaper than the US. One might argue it would be paying twice, but the NHS costs about the same per capita as Medicare and Medicaid combined, so Americans pay twice. But the NHS offers universal cover for that price. UK health insurance is in general cheaper than in the US because there's no demand for comprehensive cover - almost all the cover is "top up" and "queue jumping" type cover that assumes people go to the NHS first and get referred private if they need something that can't be offered quickly enough by the NHS or that isn't covered. Yet despite the low cost, only about 10% of people in the UK feel a need to obtain private health insurance. The free market has spoken - for most it does not offer compelling alternatives to the NHS.

dm319 6y ago

'Family' and 'human life' does not over-ride all else, which is obvious in cases of abuse or neglect. It's more complicated when medical experts and parents disagree on what is best for the child. What you understand as the 'best care' may not be the same as what an expert in that area may understand as 'best care'. 'Everyone should receive the best care' - so how do you suggest this is best done?

vidarh 6y ago

This has nothing to do with the specific of the healthcare system, but about child protection measures. The NHS had no power to stop them, and did not. The courts did because the parents were taking actions that were not supported by medical evidence. As for the rest of what you're saying, it is also unsupported both by evidence, and by the fact that the UK does have a free market for medical treatment, one that is far cheaper than the US, and for health insurance, that is far cheaper than the US. One might argue it would be paying twice, but the NHS costs about the same per capita as Medicare and Medicaid combined, so Americans pay twice. But the NHS offers universal cover for that price. UK health insurance is in general cheaper than in the US because there's no demand for comprehensive cover - almost all the cover is "top up" and "queue jumping" type cover that assumes people go to the NHS first and get referred private if they need something that can't be offered quickly enough by the NHS or that isn't covered. Yet despite the low cost, only about 10% of people in the UK feel a need to obtain private health insurance. The free market has spoken - for most it does not offer compelling alternatives to the NHS.