How do you UK citizens feel about Taxes contributing to health care?
I'm from the US and we're having this debate about health care and taxes. Conservatives (disclaimer: I'm pretty "liberal") believe that "socialized" medicine = poorer medicine and that people shouldn't have their taxes raised to pay for a one-payer system. But how do you feel about paying more taxes for a health care system? Do you think that the health care that you receive is bad? and How do you feel about people who are getting good care while not contributing as much to the system? (i.e. poor people getting "better" coverage than they "deserve")
Thanks. Sincere answers please.
Answers:
The welfare state, including the NHS was created to ensure that everyone received health care. Everyone pays in when they can and likewise everyone receives healthcare when they need it. The only people who do not contribute at all are generally the very sick and disabled. To deny them health care would go against the very principles the NHS was built upon.
The medical and nursing care and indeed the drugs and other treatment given by the NHS are generally first class. The system is stretched by the sheer volume of people needing to use it.
The NHS is perhaps the greatest idea conceived by a truly socialist labour government, based upon need and not ability to pay. Poorer people and the long term sick and disabled would be dependant upon charity for health care or, worse still, be left to die. Few things stand as such a lasting testament to the ideas of any politician. William Beveridge was in my opiniion a great man.
It is often the case that wealthy people have clever tax advisors and avoid paying tax where possible. Perhaps more attention should be given to ensuring these people pay their fair share before criticising those unable to do so
You should cull the answerers who are on the dole...don't you think?
We should keep in mind that the “nearly 50 million” without health insurance is an intentionally misleading number: Most of the uninsured are either uninsured by choice (mostly young and healthy people, 40% of the uninsured), eligible for public health programs but haven’t signed up (30% of the “uninsured”), or simply between jobs and likely to have insurance again within months. And, believe it or not, 20% of people the Census Bureau counts as uninsured are not American citizens. The number of truly, involuntarily, and permanently uninsured is a small fraction of what socialized medicine proponents claim.
The primary reason that medical costs are rising so rapidly is the disconnect between the consumer (patient) and the supplier, namely that the consumer does not feel enough of the cost and therefore has little incentive to be careful how much he uses. (Imagine auto insurance that covered minor scratches and oil changes.) Creating a “single payer” system will only make that problem worse. ..
it depends where the money goes, it doesn't usually filter down to the frontline, where needed. seems most of the money is used for red tape, to avoid litigation. oh and the top brass
I don't mind paying taxes for healthcare for us. It's when the sponging bast*ards from overseas come here and strain our systems to the core with their thieving and then go home once treated without paying a penny back into the pot!
Its a good question to ask but unfortunatly as in most of europe the people in the UK do have a strong serf/servent mentality. Its because of their long long history of Kings & Queens running things. They will tend to do what they are told to do by the government
i already pay health care through my income tax.should the u.k.go private then i will not have the need to pay out of income tax.they cannot have it both ways.that is the problem with capatlism it only looks after the few.
Poor people are not usually in that situation by choice. A fare and caring society, cares for those less fortunate, other wise we would have people starving and in ill health on our door steps. Is that what we want in our "civilised" countries.
personally I feel happy knowing that if I ever need to, i can get full and "free" treatment, without having to worry about insurance.
Disease spreads, what is the implication of living among sick people, who don't have access to healthcare?
I'm proud that they do, we have had that since 1949, and even Thatcher hasn't managed to dismantle the NHS.
But our taxes paying for a war we didn't ask for? Why not ask a question about that?
Its something that we have been brought up with so don't really realise how much of general taxation is going to the health service. It is not individually identified on your tax return it just all goes to the Govt and they decided how much of the National 'cake' goes towards Health. I have had a number of major operations at both local Hospitals and National Specialist Hospitals and I personally have nothing but praise for the system. I dread to think how much it would have cost me if I had had to pay for all my treatment myself. I do have Private Health care insurance which costs almost £1500 a year, but I keep this going for any routine, non emergency treatment I may need, where there is a long national waiting list, which is usually for non urgent treatment eg. varicose veins.
I agree that there is some bad feeling to immigrants coming to the Country and immediatly receiving free Health care having not contributed to the system, but either you have a National Health Service or not. The same argument could apply to providing health care to the unemployed or indeed children, who also at the time are not contributing to the system. The Govt is trying to introduce an element of competition between Hospitals not only to keep standards high, but to keep a lid on overall costs. This results in top heavy organisations at Hospitals with Chief executives and heaps of admin staff. Many Hospitals are running a defeceit financially and some services are being cut. Personally I think a free service for all.a social health system...is the ideal, but would cost a fortune to set up from scratch.
Edit
Eye R is mistaken...Health care in the Private sector is not always the best...Ok you may have private rooms and a wine list, but few have intensive care units, and it is not unknown for Private patients to be rushed to NHS Hospitals for intensive care. They are good for routine surgery, but not major specialist surgery...that is a myth.
Hmm.
how do i feel about taxes contributing to healthcare...
lets see..
our(last) govmnt took four point summinx Bn in taxes from ciggeretts and tobbacco alone last year. This tax is to suffuse the NHS with funds, to replace the inevitble increased strain by smokers.
The NHS where given summinx like 1 Bn. My math aint the best in the world, but I thinx there a few billion short somewhere...
I beleive anyone and everyone shoud be entitled to healthcare, but NHS treatment is not in the same league as private healthcare. The peeps who can afford to pay for healthcare will. And true, they probally will recieve a better service, but the NHS system is overstretched, understaffed and under funded. But thousands use such a service daily, even if it is through no other choice. I personally see it is an essential founding stone of a civilisation prepared to take care of its own problems, as opposed to 'sweeping them under the carpet'
It really isn't a case of those that have paying for those that dont. We all pay national insurance. Part of this is also (supposedly) funneled into the NHS. But Govmnts will use this as an excuse. Just to extort more money from those with not enough to start with.(Just as their using 'terrorism' as an excuse to errode our civil rights even further, whilst pretending its for our own good.)
Pretty good. I love the NHS. I've just had my first baby and the care I received was fantastic. I could never have paid for it privately.
Firstly that is utter CRAP to say poor people would be "getting better help than they deserve!" - everything might be up for a price in America but here in the UK we do not put a price on human life. The poorest man, woman and child's life is a valuable as the richest, how could you even think otherwise?
The poor are not poor through choice.
Secondly so what if the rich do pay more in taxes, life has been kind to them and now they have to give something back. Plus the NHS is there for EVERYONE so they can benefit as much as the poor can. In a capitalist society, the rich can easily become the poor through bad luck (companies going bust, bankruptcy, job loss, illness, desertion by spouse etc) and they will be needing the NHS if that happens! So its worth everyone paying their bit!
We also have a private healthcare system so that those who can afford it can "choose" their provider, "buy" their healthcare (or get insurance for it) etc and never have to bother with the NHS if they don't want it, why do you Yanks assume that socialised Healthcare means you have no opther choice? The UK is full of lovely expensive private clinics, doctors and hospitals ready to help those whose bank balance is big enough (which is course is the major deciding factor when saving a life isn't it *rolls eyes*).
I'm quite happy to pay my taxes if they go to help the NHS, its our right to have healthcare when we need it however poor we are. I could never live in America because you don't have this right and to me its a fundamental one.
And our taxes are nowhere near as high as Americans think they are. What you save on taxes you pay out in private health insurance so where is the gain?
Edit: Tim T is talking so much crap I won't even dignify his bilge with an answer!
Candy g - in Wales ALL drugs prescribed by a doctor are free (The Welsh Assembly abolished the prescription charge recently) and in the rest of the UK (I expect the prescription charge will be abolished in England and Scotland eventually) all children, disabled people, the poor and the elderly get them free while everyone else (the rich included) only pay a flat charge of just £4 (about $7) for any prescripton. Pretty good eh? Better than what that poor woman you saw was having to pay!
We have one of the best health care systems much admired by the rest of the world.In this country it doesnt matter wether your rich or poor you will still get treatment.So all the old age people all the people on the dole all our new immiigrants all our oversea visitors can rest assured they will receive treatment of which the British workers have contributed in paying national insurance over our working lives.The Conservatives have never wanted the National Insurance because it was not their idea.What a fantastic country this is
While I believe in state funded health care, the UK system fails because the users have little choice and the providers have little incentive to give good service.
The National Health Service (NHS) is very inefficient, mainly due to the incompetence, laziness and ineffectiveness of its senior managers.
If the funding was linked to treatment actually provided, patients' choice of hospital, clinic, nursing service etc. would reward the competent and effective while allowing those not fit to be in the medical profession to cease trading. The NHS is characterised by cancelled and very late appointments, long waiting lists and a quality of service that is best described as pot luck.
A good concept poorly executed.
Hi, i am 47yrs old, unemployed after industrial accident. My wife is in full time employment. I have worked for the vast majority of my adult life. I don't begrudge anyone care under the national health system. The unemployed have their stamp money skimmed from their benefit!
There is a problem with treatment according to where you live. We are lucky living in the south-west where it's less populated we tend to get a much better service than say the midlands or south-east.
I had testicular cancer 9yrs ago and the NHS was wonderful, it certainly didn't let me down! My father is 77 and Mum 68 they have never 'gone private' and are looked after very well with various age related problems.
I wouldn't swap our system for any other!
Tim t, talk about servile nations! You swallowed a criminal election! Long live President Gore!
I am 75 years old and paid National Health Insurance from the age of 14 and I am happy to have to done so. My parents were cared for in their final years I was treated for industrial injuries and I was saved from blindness by cataract operations. I reckon I have had bloody good value for my contributions ( taxes ). I firmly believe that medical care should be above financial considerations in any civilised society. I have always received excellent care our health service may not be perfect (is anything ) but it is the best in the world.
I believe in a society where everyone has access to medical care and I am grateful to belong to a country where that is the case, particularly as I have two sons who were admitted to hospital so many times that I lost count (at twenty something). I think that everybody would accept that it is a good thing for people to be assisted in this way. However, what does make one's hackles rise is the way in which our system is abused by people from abroad. There are well documented cases of people travelling from Continental Europe to the UK simply because they could receive free treatment. I heard of one case where a very rich Arab who needed treatment for leukaemia and had entered hospital as a private patient simply refused to pay and got away with it, as the staff were afraid of the consequences of simply putting him onto the street. It is a notorious fact that many immigrants from overseas come to our country just because they cannot afford (or do not choose to afford) health care in their home country. When one realises that people who have not paid into the system at all are forcing people who have contributed further down the queue for treatment, then it is rather hard to come to terms with. I have never met anyone sufficiently socialist not to have recourse to private medicine if it meant getting speedy treatment for one's child. However, where a child's health and development are at stake, economics shouldn't be a factor.
There are a lot of US students who cannot afford to study medicine at home and are studying medicine in Cuba which, like the UK, has a health care system paid for by taxes.
Hopefully they will see the benefits of such a system and promote it when they return to the US.
OK been on both sides of the coin here.am a Brit that has had both UK and USA medicine...the system of paying taxes for our medical has been in for as long as my parents can recall, so its a moot point....the same taxes [of sorts] also go towards the pension schemes] Whilst our NHS [national health service] has flaws etc etc on the whole it works fairly well at least at NO point will your child be turned away cos you can NOT afford medical.
I personally think that for a country such as the USA the state of the have's and the have not's when it comes to basic medical is almost shameful...luckily we are in the position to be able to afford medical for the whole family but I shudder to think what it would be like if we could not.
regards and suggest that IF such a system was implemented here in the USA that you looked to the UK, France and Canada and take the good from all those 3 systems and see if it could work.....for instance, I was at the hospital the other day and the lady in front of me paid $178.00 for a 3 month supply of meds she MUST have to live and she has medicare..yet any one over the age of 65 in the UK gets free meds, as do all children under the age of 16...
People should be given the choice to opt out of the NHS poll tax if they also pay for good private health care, or at least be able to contribute less.
Why should I have to pay excessively for a service I don't use, yet others pay nothing and reap the benefits my hard earned cash has provided?
The system by default is open to abuse.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: