4 ms·

From a moral standpoint, I'd say this person is in the right - they've paid in to the NHS at some point earlier, or their parents had - to cover this sort of th

From a moral standpoint, I'd say this person is in the right - they've paid in to the NHS at some point earlier, or their parents had - to cover this sort of thing. Legally, I don't know enough about the NHS to say for sure.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "they've paid in to the NHS at some point earlier, or their parents had" Yeh, to cover them for the time they were paying. If you're no longer paying your taxes or seeking employment or unable to work due disability the money you paid in the past should't cover you morally. Edit: There's no doubt the price the writer has to pay in the US is a disgrace and if they couldn't afford it then I think using the NHS is a good temporary solution but the fact that he could afford it but uses that money for a holiday instead is very immoral imo.
- droope 12y ago
  I know, we should take this person their medicine away, so they can have a wretched and miserable life! Healthcare should not be something you can or cannot afford, we should all be able to access healthcare. It is just common sense.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Huh? I didn't say that at all. This person CAN afford their medicine. Instead they spend that money on a trip to the UK to see family but also gets their medicine. Medicine they didn't contribute taxes to pay for.
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  > Yeh, to cover them for the time they were paying So... what if someone is no longer paying anything in, living there, but is a huge net drain? Should people only be covered while they're able to pay premiums/taxes?
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  He doesn't really indicate that he can afford it. min $500/month for 6 months is $3k. Trip to UK, staying with family, is far less than $3k.
VLM 12y ago
From a moral standpoint in the USA the international megacorp will say "Oh, your health is worth anything to you? Hmm. Howabout everything you got minus $1" Like a semi-kind mugger. Its not a free market. Pay up or die, sucka! In the UK the .gov will fight for you instead of the corporation so you pay a fair price. The UK gov is under no life and death pressure to pay up or die, and they have regulators who are educated and understand the market. It is a much free-er market than the USA market. Arguably what he's coughing up in hotel fees and surcharges and taxes and hotel prop tax is Exactly how a visitor should be paying for medical care, so on an individual level he's moral and ethical. Not getting screwed over when someone else gets screwed over does not imply some kind of survivors guilt is ethical.
- ancap 12y ago
  >From a moral standpoint... From a moral standpoint it is immoral to force person A to pay for person B's misfortune. You and I call that stealing. >they have regulators who are educated and understand the market It is impossible to "understand the market" without market prices. >It is a much free-er market than the USA market The USA is not a free market. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
- refurb 12y ago
  It is a much free-er market than the USA market Umm...no. The UK is a single payer system, that is, the government holds a monopoly over healthcare purchasing (or nearly all healthcare delivered). If a really skilled doctor wanted to charge a higher rate for their services, tough, he/she would get the same as every other doc. It's not a "freer" system.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    This is false. The UK has a national health service and private provision running side by side. Any doctor is free to work outside the NHS to provide private practice. Maybe you're thinking of Canada?
    - refurb 12y ago
adwf 12y ago
Not to mention that most young ex-pats do eventually come back to the country and contribute. I'd rather they came back alive and well, even if it is me footing the bill for them in the meantime. That's one of the big missing parts of the US healthcare debate. It's not just about immediate cost, it's about potential future tax revenue and economic value that you're losing when you let people die before their time.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

>> "they've paid in to the NHS at some point earlier, or their parents had" Yeh, to cover them for the time they were paying. If you're no longer paying your taxes or seeking employment or unable to work due disability the money you paid in the past should't cover you morally. Edit: There's no doubt the price the writer has to pay in the US is a disgrace and if they couldn't afford it then I think using the NHS is a good temporary solution but the fact that he could afford it but uses that money for a holiday instead is very immoral imo.

droope 12y ago
I know, we should take this person their medicine away, so they can have a wretched and miserable life! Healthcare should not be something you can or cannot afford, we should all be able to access healthcare. It is just common sense.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Huh? I didn't say that at all. This person CAN afford their medicine. Instead they spend that money on a trip to the UK to see family but also gets their medicine. Medicine they didn't contribute taxes to pay for.
mgkimsal 12y ago
> Yeh, to cover them for the time they were paying So... what if someone is no longer paying anything in, living there, but is a huge net drain? Should people only be covered while they're able to pay premiums/taxes?
mgkimsal 12y ago
He doesn't really indicate that he can afford it. min $500/month for 6 months is $3k. Trip to UK, staying with family, is far less than $3k.

VLM 12y ago

From a moral standpoint in the USA the international megacorp will say "Oh, your health is worth anything to you? Hmm. Howabout everything you got minus $1" Like a semi-kind mugger. Its not a free market. Pay up or die, sucka! In the UK the .gov will fight for you instead of the corporation so you pay a fair price. The UK gov is under no life and death pressure to pay up or die, and they have regulators who are educated and understand the market. It is a much free-er market than the USA market. Arguably what he's coughing up in hotel fees and surcharges and taxes and hotel prop tax is Exactly how a visitor should be paying for medical care, so on an individual level he's moral and ethical. Not getting screwed over when someone else gets screwed over does not imply some kind of survivors guilt is ethical.

ancap 12y ago
>From a moral standpoint... From a moral standpoint it is immoral to force person A to pay for person B's misfortune. You and I call that stealing. >they have regulators who are educated and understand the market It is impossible to "understand the market" without market prices. >It is a much free-er market than the USA market The USA is not a free market. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
refurb 12y ago
It is a much free-er market than the USA market Umm...no. The UK is a single payer system, that is, the government holds a monopoly over healthcare purchasing (or nearly all healthcare delivered). If a really skilled doctor wanted to charge a higher rate for their services, tough, he/she would get the same as every other doc. It's not a "freer" system.
- DanBC 12y ago
  This is false. The UK has a national health service and private provision running side by side. Any doctor is free to work outside the NHS to provide private practice. Maybe you're thinking of Canada?
  - refurb 12y ago

adwf 12y ago

Not to mention that most young ex-pats do eventually come back to the country and contribute. I'd rather they came back alive and well, even if it is me footing the bill for them in the meantime. That's one of the big missing parts of the US healthcare debate. It's not just about immediate cost, it's about potential future tax revenue and economic value that you're losing when you let people die before their time.