Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Er... | |
Author: Ed Harris (London) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 17:16:54 01/24/05 Mon In reply to: Roberdin 's message, "Of course someone pays. But the point is, it's free at point of use. No silly insurance details to find, no begging the bank manager for the money to save my life." on 16:26:11 01/24/05 Mon Whether it costs you at point of issue or over the period of your working years, the principle is the same. One is more inconvenient, I grant you, but if you paid the NHS-portion of your taxes into a savings account every year instead of handing it over to G. Brown, there would be no mucking about with bank managers. And if you never have to draw on it for anything worse than flu medicine, you get all your money back at the end - or, rather, your children inherit it. Think of it this way: if you wanted to give money to charity, would you (a) pay it directly to the charity or charities of your choice, or (b) give it to the government to distribute it for you? I presume that you would choose the latter, because it is more efficient and suits your needs better. It would make sense to do the same with health. I'm with BUPA, and the service is always free at point of issue anyway (I've never heard of a doctor and his staf of nurses standing over a bloke, scalpel in hand, and declaring that he can't do anything until he writes a cheque in advance), and they bill you, and you fax the bill to BUPA, and they send a cheque to the private hospital or doctor or dentist or whatever. This involves a lot of mucking around, but not an unbearable amount. My conception of the welfare state is to serve as a cushion to prevent the standard of living of the very poorest people from falling below a certain level; the socialists seem to see it as a mechanism for organising various aspects of the national life centrally. This was the distinction which I was drawing. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |