tinfoilhat   11 #193 Posted January 16, 2017 No its not. It's not the thin end of the anything. There are already conditions placed on lifestyle risks for certain treatments such as transplants. We're not looking at this as the inventors of national healthcare schemes. Look at what's already out there and pick the one you like best. Not based on high ideals but real outcomes across society.  Then I'd go the Swiss or French version. I pay for other peoples lifestyle choices as it is (as do we all really) I don't mind collectively splurging money on a guy getting a hoover attachment removed from his sex parts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #194 Posted January 16, 2017 Then I'd go the Swiss or French version. I pay for other peoples lifestyle choices as it is (as do we all really) I don't mind collectively splurging money on a guy getting a hoover attachment removed from his sex parts  I tend to agree. You understand that this is likely a system of small fees for pretty much anything, kind of like our prescription charges. We'd have to ensure that benefits and entitlements were high enough so that the most vulnerable didn't have to choose between healthcare, food and heating. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sgtkate   10 #195 Posted January 16, 2017 What about breaking my leg playing football when someone slides into me? Acciently, the pitch isn't great and it could have got rained off. Do I pay? The guy who broke my leg? The ref for not calling the match off? Diabetes is, in many cases, avoidable with a healthy lifestyle. Need a triple bypass? Smoker? Totally avoidable - that's £20k please. Childbirth?!?!?!?  You get my point by now surely ;);)  Oh of course I get your point completely, however, if it's defined clearly what is and isn't covered and so on then it's up to you. An example of where we do this already is with travel insurance. Most of us get travel insurance when we go abroad to cover any medical bills, we pay for that insurance because we are doing an activity that isn't covered by our NHS (except under limited EHIC scheme countries and hospitals). Whilst that is slightly different to the S Korean model it's not miles apart. Sports club would offer insurance for any injuries as part of their membership fees, same for ski injuries perhaps included in the lift price. I'm not saying the model is perfect, but I do think it's worth a look as a sensible way forward without everyone paying massively through the nose for healthcare that's not adequate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Obelix   11 #196 Posted January 16, 2017 The counter to your question of who should pay is 'Should I and everybody else pay because you and another person recklessly injured you in an activity you know is risky?'. If your answer is "yes", then you can vote for a system, like for example the French of Swiss systems, where these kinds of things are covered, knowing that it increases the cost substantially.  Driving is risky. Perhaps we should charge for the full medical cost of a car accident because people didn't take the safer option of walking, bus, train, or plane....  Falling down stairs is avoidable. Theres lots of ways you can play this game.  What if you stop everyone who wants to exercise doing so, you'd immediately stop anyone playing many sports and excercsie rates would plummet... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #197 Posted January 16, 2017 Driving is risky. Perhaps we should charge for the full medical cost of a car accident because people didn't take the safer option of walking, bus, train, or plane.... Falling down stairs is avoidable. Theres lots of ways you can play this game.  What if you stop everyone who wants to exercise doing so, you'd immediately stop anyone playing many sports and excercsie rates would plummet...  Yes that's a strong argument against the ROK model. As I say I'd prefer one of the continental models. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sgtkate   10 #198 Posted January 16, 2017 Driving is risky. Perhaps we should charge for the full medical cost of a car accident because people didn't take the safer option of walking, bus, train, or plane.... Falling down stairs is avoidable. Theres lots of ways you can play this game.  What if you stop everyone who wants to exercise doing so, you'd immediately stop anyone playing many sports and excercsie rates would plummet...  But again insurance for car accident medical bills would be included in your car insurance. There are multiple ways for people to be covered. What this does stop is people taking the proverbial and getting covered for incredibly risky activities at the cost of others, and I don't think that is a bad thing but needs careful review to make sure people are not penalised for keeping healthy etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Obelix   11 #199 Posted January 16, 2017 So it's not reducing the cost then - it's still going to cost me just as much if not more because there is another layer of people wanting a cut of the money.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
petemcewan   27 #200 Posted January 16, 2017 I heard on the wireless a day or so ago. That 2p increase in NI contributions and £2.00p per prescription charge (not per item ) for old age pensioners; would raise quite a large sum of money to help out the NHS. Is that possible politically-or is it pie in the sky ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #201 Posted January 16, 2017 I heard on the wireless a day or so ago. That 2p increase in NI contributions and £2.00p per prescription charge (not per item ) for old age pensioners; would raise quite a large sum of money to help out the NHS. Is that possible politically-or is it pie in the sky ?  Pie in the sky - pensioners are sacred cows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #202 Posted January 16, 2017 I heard on the wireless a day or so ago. That 2p increase in NI contributions and £2.00p per prescription charge (not per item ) for old age pensioners; would raise quite a large sum of money to help out the NHS. Is that possible politically-or is it pie in the sky ?  NI is less progressive than income tax. An increase in the standard rate of income tax would raise a similar amount in a more progressive way.  ---------- Post added 16-01-2017 at 16:46 ----------  So it's not reducing the cost then - it's still going to cost me just as much if not more because there is another layer of people wanting a cut of the money....  Nationalisation breeds inefficiency by removing competition. I don't care if somebody is making a profit as long as it's good value overall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
I1L2T3 Â Â 10 #203 Posted January 16, 2017 Nationalisation breeds inefficiency by removing competition. I don't care if somebody is making a profit as long as it's good value overall. Â On the other hand for natural monopolies nationalisation could be the optimum model. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #204 Posted January 16, 2017 On the other hand for natural monopolies nationalisation could be the optimum model.  I see the wisdom of this with regard to some things, mail for example. How is healthcare a natural monopoly? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
