6 ms·
As someone who comes from the United Kingdom where the tax payer funded NHS takes care of most medical fees, it strikes me as ridiculous that any country could
by shanelja 13y ago
As someone who comes from the United Kingdom where the tax payer funded NHS takes care of most medical fees, it strikes me as ridiculous that any country could expect their tax paying citizens to pay for the privilege to carry on living.
- Nux 13y agoAny country that calls itself civilised must have something like the NHS.
- ISL 13y agoIt's not possible for any other system to be civilized?
- dnautics 13y agoreally? As an ethnic minority, whose diseases are underresearched, and for whom drug safety and efficacy are unlikely to be statisically well-validated, I'd be paying into a system that disproportionately helps, well, to be crude, white men. That's just the way medicine is. Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to have the freedom to opt out of a system that redistributes to the already privileged.
- ollysb 13y agoYour rhetoric makes me feel a little uncomfortable but ignoring that isn't the converse also true, that the system is disproportionately funded by white men.
- Nux 13y agoI'm sure situation will improve in time, these kind of systems are huge and take long to change. I imagine when the NHS and it's counterparts in other (european) countries were established the local population was in majority white. Also, as Africa and Asia develops there will also be more research done in those areas that will benefit all africans and asians throughout the world.
- dnautics 13y agodo I have the responsibility to pay for the healthcare of someone who chooses to smoke? Or should we ban smoking altogether? Is that fair to the person who has a set of genes that prevents them from getting smoking-related negative health consequences and chooses to start smoking to prevent parkinson's disease? Why should someone who has huntington's (a dominant autosomal disease that kills the patient before age 40 in many genetically testable cases i.e. 60-100+ CAG repeats) be forced to pay into an insurance or healthcare system that cares for other people's eldercare?
- andreasklinger 13y agoAnd UK health care seemed very basic to me combared what i knew from Austria. Healthcare for everyone can be fairly reasonable in costs (if not cheaper for everyone) when all patients are treated early. It's sad that health/living is considered an economic priviledge in several countries
- sliverstorm 13y agoWell, do remember the money has to come from somewhere. It isn't a simple black-and-white, "Should we provide medical coverage for our citizens? Nah, that's silly."
- rimantas 13y agoThe source is pretty clear: taxes. My guess it that ratio of tax money spent on health care vs. money spent on killing people (military) does not look nice.
- sliverstorm 13y agoWell of course it would have to be taxes if the government was going to cover all that, but do you raise taxes? That isn't going to fly. Do you take money from other programs? That isn't going to fly either. And thus, the problem.
- grey-area 13y agoThe US currently spends far more per capita on health care than the UK - more than any other country in the world. It also spends at least the same on public healthcare from US taxes as a % of GDP. Moving to a national health service would dramatically reduce the bill, probably result in lower taxes, and certainly lower bills overall, when compared to the many other countries with single-payer public healthcare systems.
- ixacto 13y agoUnited States | health spending | at parity | all sectors | $2.199 trillion per year (2007) Military $503.4 billion per year (US dollars per year) (2005 estimate) I assume these numbers have expanded since then. What is really disturbing in my mind though is that while it is quite easy for most people to get EBT/Welfare in the USA to purchase beer/cigarettes/chips, it is much more difficult to get effective healthcare. HFCS-laden soda is quite cheap, so are trans-fat laden baked goods and frozen foods. Diabetes and heart disease are not though.
- johnsoft 13y agoI've always wondered, why do people use this argument for medical care, but not food? Both are necessary to carry on living, and both are provided by people who themselves work full-time and need to keep the lights on somehow.
- tlrobinson 13y agoExactly. Your country has just chosen to draw the line at a slightly different point.
- ollysb 13y agoWhile there may be much debate regarding who should receive them I don't think anyone in the UK is arguing that we should get rid of social benefits.
- jackowayed 13y agoThe cost of food is very predictable and pretty flexible. Anyone who needs to can eat well on <$100/week as long as they have access to a reasonably-priced grocery store and facilities to cook and store food. (Also, note that even our barebones welfare state includes foodstamps.) On the other hand, medical costs can vary wildly and randomly. A perfectly healthy person who's been following health best practices might suddenly develop a serious condition that is treatable, but only with five to six figures of treatment.
- kefka 13y agoFoodstamps, for a single white male, is $207 a month in Indiana. And 3 months ago, I was cut. Paperwork's "lost in the system". No job. No unemployment. Living on the scraps of money I had in goods that I sold.
- munimkazia 13y agoI am just guessing here.. but it is much harder to manage because it would be a nightmare to distribute food for every single meal, every single day to all those who need it. Medical care is different. Most people don't have to walk into a hospital three times a day to get their daily care (hopefully)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]