Common Sense, & The Lack Of.............


Reading some of the comments here, project fear ref the NHS is working well.
Much as I dislike the idea, the time of 'free at the point of delivery' for the NHS is passing.

As long as it's not done like the system in the USA and more like the system in Germany then it may not be a massive loss

In Germany everyone gets a (free) annual check up. This actually saves money as issues are caught earlier.
If you don't turn up for your annual check up then you have a sum deducted from your salary. (in effect, taxed)

You also pay a fixed sum to visit a GP, again if you don't turn up, you pay the bill.

I can see that the NHS will turn into the health system of last resort, anyone with a remotely decent job will get private health insurance.

My one proviso is people with issues that they were born with or developed through no fault of their own should be treated the best possible way, free of charge, for ever.

However something that is self inflicted, then a charge should be made, ideally by taxing the person either by either increased NI or IHT
What you describe is exactly what we want to avoid. A lot of German healthcare is still publicly funded, the NHS is cheaper. The German system has some advantages and disadvantages, however no private health care system will cover palliative care, which is arguably the most expensive care you need at a stage of life when you really can't afford to do without.

And once you start making judgements on lifestyle, well you're on the slippery slope to nowhere, far better to tackle those issues in a different way and not have the NHS as judge and jury.
Why the arbitrary figure of 70mph?
I used to regularly race bikes at over 150mph with no problems.
I've come off a bike at over 100mph on a couple of occasions and walked away.
I've also seen someone high side at 30mph and get killed by the impact. Speed is not the only factor

Because that's the maximum limit on the roads and thus, imo, the rider is putting them at a risk beyond that which the law expects.
If you were doing 100mph on a public road and injured, personally my sympathy would be more limited than if you were doing 70 on a motorway or DC or 30 in a 30 limit

If doing it on a track, then you have chosen to take that risk and presumably are insured to be riding at that speed on that track... in which case, maybe your insurance should cover the cost of your care if injured and not the NHS (maybe you did have insurance to cover full private HC). Just a musing. We expect the NHS to patch us up whether there was heightened risk or not. whether something was avoidable or not. Unfortunately, those finite resources may mean that in the future, this is no longer the case. Controversial perhaps, but it's the reality as we live longer and the population grows
Plus, on a track, there's generally a lot of run-off area; grass/gravel
Public roads don't tend to have them, just kerbs/walls/lamp-posts/etc....

Hence one reason why riders die at the TT, & not normally on race-tracks
(Nürburgring exepted!)
It's definitely a slippery slope of where you draw the line.... Though living in the States* and seeing more of the costs involved I'd certainly be more keen on passing on part of the bill to people who display stupidity. I really don't see why the NHS should pay for destructive behaviour, and sadly I think some people in the UK take the NHS far, far, far too much for granted for what it is. Of course, it's how you determine what's stupid and destructive behaviour, and how you measure when you think it is appropriate to charge, and how much?

However, I see the other side to the argument, and I do feel an unease that medical or emergency responses are liable to be billed. I also completely take the point of where do you draw the line? As others have mentioned, charge someone who has cancer who smoked? But I can't help feel the model of providing care with absolutely no strings attached does bring up some questions: is it implicitly encouraging irresponsible behaviour? ("I don't care if I get pissed up and fall over, I can just go to hospital anyway") or since health and emergency care are finite limited resources, would you be OK with a close relative not being able to get a much needed operation or not getting a prescription because the budget has been blown on treating people who get drunk every weekend and require attention? Or that person walking up Snowden in flip flops who wasn't made to think twice about their choice means the rescue helicopter can't get to your kid?

*some states can and will bill you for a rescue:
You no longer grow old!!

Hell no. I tried growing up once and found it grossly overrated.
Top Bottom