Universal Health Care in the U.K.

Ok, I was reading an article that stated that the Labor party in the UK (I think they correspond ot the US democruds) is proposing changes to the availability of their Universal Health Care benefits....as I understand it..no one has to pay for benefits right now (they are all covered by taxes that are collected). The proposed changes ..from what I understand, will mean that if you do not live a healthy life style (ie no smoking, and eat only foods declared as healthy) exercise, maintain proper body weight as prescribed by the doctor you will receive either reduced or no benefits, or have to pay a surcharge. Now it appears that all these "restrictions are for the purpose of cutting health care costs and to raise the over all health of the individual..perhaps.


To me, this sounds pretty draconian and very intrusive of the government into a persons life....my interest arises because there are some US congress people who are currently looking to the UK for ideas on a US national health care system.

Im hoping to get some thoughts on this issue from people from various places, as I think Canada may be looking at this as well...what do people think?
In one aspect I can see it as reasonable, but if you deny a person coverage...what about all their tax dollars that were put into the system?

[harleyquinn]

Here's my problem with it. How does that government determine what's a "healthy lifestyle"? I'm sorry, but a lot of modern medicine is not healthy (no offense to any Dr.s, I have nothing but respect for you). There's a lot of Chinese medicine out there that has worked for centuries, but the US gov't consider's them to be "alternative". This also includes things like Tai-Chi and acupuncture.
Then there's the whole thing of HELLO!!! Those people that aren't living well are the ones that need the health care more!!! DUH! Sorry, but if I had cancer, I wouldn't want to first have to prove that I got it from something that was not within my control (like smoking for example). Never mind that people that smoke might need help from a doc to quit, people that over eat might need help from a doc to diet, and that the poor are more likely to live less than healthy lifestyles then the rich, therefore, they need that free health care, and can't afford good care otherwise.

Thanks for sharing, Magik (even if you are a repug, [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] kidding [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

[Donut]

It's an interesting thought, one of those things that the Labour Government floats from time to time to guage reaction.

Healthcare rationing already exists in the NHS, heart transplants are not given unless the patient stops smoking. Nicotine patches are witheld unless a patient agrees to smoking cessation counselling and obesity drugs are not given until the patient has demonstrated the ability to lose weight initially without the drugs.

Costly drugs such as statins (to reduce cholesterol) are not given to all at risk patients. A new wonder drug for bowel cancer is too expensive to use.

But I don't think it will happen - it's just Blair's mob trying to set more targets, and this time it's for the patients.

[Epona]

Magik - good post, and an interesting subject.

It is a common misconception that the NHS is funded solely by taxes and is otherwise free in the UK. When the NHS was first introduced, an insurance called 'National Insurance' (know colloquially as the 'stamp') was introduced. Everyone pays national insurance, and it can be thought of as being like a big government regulated insurance policy that pays for healthcare. We pay on top of that for prescriptions, and routine dental and optical charges also. Anyone who wants additional private insurance is free to take out a policy and pay for it.

As far as unhealthy lifestyles go, the proposals are outrageous. We pay huge taxes on cigarettes and beer, part of which goes to fund healthcare. A pack of 20 cigarettes costs around £4.60 (about $7) and a pint of beer in London costs between £2.50 and £3.

I smoke, and every time I buy a pack of cigarettes, the tax I pay on those cigarettes goes at least in part towards any healthcare I may need as a result of smoking! The tax contribution to the NHS from duty on cigarettes, iirc, usually exceeds expenditure on healthcare for smoking related illness. I am already paying for any healthcare I may need as a result of being a smoker!

The government can either butt out of my life, or stop charging me extra on top of a pack of cigarettes.

Umm Harley... I only resemble a repug. Im actually a Conservative Libertarian

So, this is not a done deal, it is just one of those issues a political party sends up the flag pole now and then to test the waters...that is an interesting thing to know.

Epona, now you just hit on something that made me sit up and say "WTF!!!" You know you are absolutely right.. Smokers are already paying exorbitant taxes on the product ostensibly for the increased health care costs AND here in the states, many state Governments received millions and millions of dollars from the tobacco companies for just those reasons too...to defray the cost of health care and educate kids not to smoke.....but where did all that money go? the states seem to have squandered or stolen all those millions already...hmmmm makes you not want to trust the government with your money...

I listend to an american Congress person this morning discussing this on the radio..and some one called in and asked "Where in teh constitution does it say that congress shall provide a national health care system" and he replied, that "It doesn't but also that many of the things congress does are not in the constitution." he when on to say. "This will only fly if there are enough people who say We want national health care and we are willing to pay for it."

In actuality here in the US what he means is..."We want national Health care and we want to force someone else to pay for it" seeing as how the only people who do not have formal health insurance are people who cannot pay for it.

While I am not happy that there are people who cannot find a way to make a living and earn enough to have some form of health care....this idea of "enough people calling for Nationalized health care" seems very close to what is called "The Tyranny of the Masses"....such a tough subject.

[Timber Loftis]

Taking off a bit on what Epona said, I'll note you pay a higher health insurance in the US if you check the "smoker" box.

And, yes, this combined with the increase cigarette sin tax IS a double-tax on smoking, in effect, even though 1/2 of it goes to a private insurer.

MagiK, a national health care would likely, like in the UK, only provide *basic* services, and lots of extras would cost, well, extra. I think maybe having a governmental basic healthcare for all would not only be generally a good thing, but also might encourage insurers to offer more creative policies, like "skin and beauty" and "homeopathy" add-ons to policies so people can buy policies and really go get the medical services they want (whether or not you, Penn, or Teller think they are "worthwhile" or "bullshit").

*Shrugs* Doesn't matter to me, though. As the husband of a government employee I pay $8/mo. for really wonderful healthcare.

Speaking of which, if the gummint can take our tax dollars and dole 'em out to all government employees and their spouses, and if the gummint is 7 of the 10 largest employers in Chicago (which it is), then aren't your tax dollars already funding a wonderful free health care system for a hefty chunk of the population anyway?? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

I know, it's maddening isn't it. Don't break your computer screen over that one. But, as a high wage earner in the US, I'd like to thank all you taxpayers for covering the difference between the $8/mo. I pay and the real value of my medical coverage, which is likely at least $200/mo. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

The most infurriating thing about health care, at least in the US, is that those that can most afford it, rarely pay for it. This isn't a jibe at you Timber. This is more at the extreme wage "earners" - like insureance co executives! You know the ones that dictate to doctors what treatment should or not be done, all in the intrest of driving up profit margins "saving costs". Insurance Co CEOs are the highest payed CEOs of any industry, yet you can bet that they never have to worry about insurance claims. Of course they can more than afford it out of pocket, but hey - just another perk.

No worries TL, while I agree the system is "maddening" I don't blame you for taking advantages of any legal opportunity that you have...you would be foolish not to...heck having to pay only $8 asllows you to save that other $200 and put it back into the economy in other areas [img]smile.gif[/img] Perhaps to allow some college kid to work his way through college as a waiter/waitress earning tips

[Timber Loftis]

No offense taken, Night Stalker. Heck, I'm making fun of the situation myself. Wanna see it get funnier?? I haven't been to the Doctor in over a decade.