Quote:
Originally Posted by rab60bit
The point of the discussion is that our UK health service is not free, all citizens have to contribute to the NHS pot (sort of "from cradle to grave" - but paid into over +5 decades of their working/earning/contributing lives). Some choose not to use the service (prefer private, separately funded healthcare) but regardless they still significantly/fairly contribute to the NHS (thus viewed as a 'closed' circulating system of health needs and care for all).
Anyone (without distinction other than being an adult of working age) not fitting the closed system profile should anticipate/expect some sort of 'catch-up' payment/surchage (whether it's a 100% or a proportional contribution can be debated but the principal remains) should they subsequently have need to access benefit of the NHS (or alternatively provide private insurance cover for any personal health eventuality meantime).
You are quite correct to point out the wider choice governments must make where national healthcare is concerned but that is a very different more long term question of policy and political will - for all the best reasons the UK made it's decision in 1946 and adjustments (rightly or wrongly) have been made in the interim. Crass decisions in the meantime don't make things better and that's one such situation that we are discussing here.
Maybe it's a subject not specifically appropriate to this Forum but it's an interesting, eye opening response...
|
No-one is claiming the NHS is 'Free' but 'Free of charge at point of delivery'. UK taxpayers pay for the NHS, notice I said 'taxpayers'. There are many UK citizens who are not tax payers that benefit from the NHS - should all these also be being charged in your view? How many generations of UK citizens should I count as my ancestors before I qualify in your view?
What decision(s) are you labelling as 'Crass' (stupid and insensitive)?