Government Health care

so i live across the pond in the colonies and I'm not to fond of the health care bill that Obama is pushing not that i spent the time to decode 2500 pages of legal crap. So the question since the UK has a socialized health care system what do you think of it? Should i be in favor or opposed just wanted some insight from people who have it.

[Mr Speirs]

Why on earth would you be opposed to a government funded health care scheme? You'd be bloody bonkers to.

[Bri w]

You're asking the converted.

I feel that social support, whether it be for health or other domestic issues, is an indication of a supportive and caring community. Invariably those that don't want to pick up the tab are from the wealthier side of the tracks, and in truth could possibly afford to "spare a little change."

That said, I feel, the UK has gone beyond reasonable support to the extent that some feel there is a good enough life available even if they don't work/contribute. It would appear they feel that the Gov will support them whatever comes their way. Sadly, they lose sight of the fact that it is the ordinary working man/woman that is supporting them. The Gov only manages the money taken in taxes, it isn't a producer in its own right.

Healthcare to a level for what ever is needed, yes. Social support to a point where many don't see the need to get of their ar5es, no.

I think it's totally dependent on whether or not it's available to all, or dependent on where you live, like in reality our NHS is.

We have private health care on top of this, because of the disparity of available treatment.

[the_lone_wolf]

Don't let the UK administration's abysmal handling of the NHS put you off publicly funded healthcare as an idea...

[Red Herring]

In the day when the majority of the population believed they were expected to work for a living, that they had a responsibility to support themselves and their family, and that it was morally wrong to take something you were not entitled to then the national industries, including the NHS, worked just fine. Now that we have entire generations who believe in something for nothing, be it benefit, healthcare, compensation or even their rights the system is much closer to breaking point. The problem now is that there are a fair percentage of such people running the show, and they are more interested in what they can get out of it than what they provide for the population.
The children folks are running the school.

I don't know how your healthcare system works over there exactly, but I do know that if I had had to pay to fund my own healthcare that I've needed so far (quite a bit in the last few years!) I'd be bankrupt! I certainly wouldn't be able to afford my daily medication!

I think the NHS is a great system. You pay your taxes, and when you need the op, its essentially all been paid for. No nasty bills afterwards or no painfull agonising beforehand.

The only problem is the abuse of the system, and whether or not people who have been responsible for their illness (i.e. morbidly obese people, cancer caused by smoking, livers failing due to alcohol abuse, that kinda thing) should receive completly free treatment. There are also some long waiting lists, although these have been coming down.

I agree that it's a good thing but have seen it used more by the abusers of the system than the genuine taxpayers who have contributed all their lives.

I think the private system works better, I grew up in South Africa and you got healthcare as a benefit of the job, that encouraged people to actually have one (plus not having the dole etc).
+1 to Alpinestar and Red Herring's comments!

[phi-dan]

The major difference with a social healthcare system is that it is free at the point of delivery. All the funding is from taxes, so you don't pay to see your general practitioner, you don't pay to see the consultant (or his minions) if you are referred to hospital, you don't pay for the x-rays / scans / whatever and there is a fixed tariff for prescriptions which is affordable.

As well as the excellant points made by Bri and Red, there are also problems with the funding models. The government sets targets and priorites centrally, but has devolved responsibility to each hospital trust to spend it's own funds the way it sees fit to meet these targets. This does then mean that different hospitals provide different levels of service. The funding also does not take account of the needs of the population served by each hospital. Where I live there is a higher than average elderly population, which has increased healthcare costs, and we have a huge influx of holiday makers every year (the population almost doubles during peak periods), as well as a large migrant workforce, and all this takes funding away from providing the full range of services required locally - some services have already been transferred to a neighbouring hospital (I say neighbouring - they are about 45 mins apart by road, less by air ambulance!).
At the end of the day, whether healthcare is funded socially or by private insurance, there will people who benefit more from one scheme than the other, and there is still the option of private healthcare should you want it (and this will still be there under Obama's bill iirc)