Anyone would think that you are against the BBC and the TV licence too, with your hatred of social institutions...
There is 1 merit to Intrepid's argument, but he hasn't raised it, and that is that under Labour Britain has become over taxed. The number of civil servants has risen dramatically to ludicrous levels. Yes we do have high tax and yes we do have too many civil servants.
The NHS, the worlds second largest employer, is equally to blame in this. There are far too many middle managers and administrators soaking up cash faster than it can be shovelled in.
However, as a healthcare organisation, it offers a healthcare service that is amongst the best in the world. It is admittedly not the best, infact we've quite a way to go to catch up with the service offered in France and Italy.
What it is, however, is substantially better than America, a country where literally tens of thousands of people flock to Canada every year for medical aid.
In any other part of the world they would be called refugee's.
I know America is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world and all that, but in my mind until it developes a social healthcare system it cannot have that crown. If us lesser nations have any reason at all to look down on America, it is because of how they treat their sick.
Many years ago I had a bike crash, and it was a passing stranger who came to my assistance and called an ambulance. That doesn't sound like an odd or unusual story does it? Health care is a social responsibility - this person stopped their taxi, came to my assistance, and for his efforts had to walk the rest of the way home. It's called having a conscionce. This is the same principle as social healthcare.
By comparison, the existing American system suggests that a good American would have left me by the side of the road, yet i'm sure most Americans would have come to my aid. Despite this their medical system would have me die anyway for not being able to get treatment once I got to the hospital. This is not social consciounce. This is murder by proxy.
America generates refugees because it's healthcare is so poor.
I've repeatedly been through A&E at Airedale General in the UK and I've been through ER at Lake Forest, IL many times in the US. The wait in the US was on average approx. 2x as long as in the UK.
My experiences may be subjective, but they are the experiences of a patient (and the parent of a patient).
The only time I've jhad to go to hospital was when I dislocated my collar bone a few years ago, and while it popped staright back in, I had a nasty sprain there for about 2 months. When I went into A & E I was very low down on the criticality (as it wasn't particularly life-threatening), and still got seen within the hour. I was impressed.
So Becky you recognise the NHS is over-sized, fat, and wastes huge resources.
You also have to recognise that while you say it offers the best healthcare in the world, the consequence of having a state-funded system means young people become dependent on it, and thus you get a bunch of yobs every Friday and Saturday night getting completely wasted without a care int he world coz if they collapse the NHS will come and pick them up.
Binge drinking is a major health problem in the UK, even the NHS recognise that. But what they don't recognise is they themselves, and their very existence doesn't help. swings and roundddaaabouts
Social healthcare is nothing like your example. The person who helped you made their own decision to invest their time in helping you. Social healthcare doesn't allow them the choice. They are forced to help you whether they like it or not.
State organisations, whether they are well-minded, always grow too big. Always put a bigger drain on resources than first intended. Because they are not motivated by profit these organisations just get lazy and fat.
We have a welfare system that just can't sustain itself any more, we have an NHS system that is complaining it can't cope, and we have a BBC that is just about as useless as anything I know. Even the banking system is centrally controlled and look how that has ended up!
Do you ever read back what you type? This is the biggest sack of horseshyt I have read from you in a long time. Sort yourself out, and stop arguing for arguments sake.
I'll elaborate on my previous post, for fear of being a victim of my own suggestion.
Compare the two possible situations that Becky mentioned, and put yourself in a first person perspective;
UK:
"Ohnoes, teh person has fallen off their bike, I'll run over, check they are OK, and call an ambulance if they need one. That way, they can get better in hospital."
USA:
"Ohnoes, teh person has fallen off their bike. However, I can't be sure that they have insurance, so instead of getting myself involved in some sort of potential scam or putting myself in a situation where someone needs healthcare to live but isn't covered, thus making me feel like a lesser human, it'd be best for me to not get involved."
OK, the so the dialogue isn't the best, but it's pretty much what I was shooting for.
You are not seeing the wider picture, and it's quite a typical viewpoint. I'd help someone if they fell off a bike without question. If they don't have insurance that's their problem. Sounds harsh, but the greater consequence of having a national healthcare system is very great. To place your whole reliance upon the state for all your needs is not a road I want to go down.
The country is being bankrupted and we simply can't afford these MASSIVE national institutions. High unemployment generally means an increase in depression and suicide. I care about the people I do not see as much as the biker in front of me!
We are taxing people to freakin' poverty. A consequence of high tax is that people are less motivated to earn money, and be entrepreneurial. Without these types of people genuine jobs aren't created and mass poverty follows = LOWER HEALTH.
People need to look at the bigger picture and not flawed hypotheticals.
Though I would like to add the yank system is afr from perfect even thought it may sound that way !