Come on now, I'm saying that people who don't have UK citizenship or a visa, etc, should only be given NHS care in an emergency. It's not racist, it would apply to everyone not eligible. I mention "foreigners", and that triggers an automatic response of "racist"? It's common sense. I am by no means racist... perhaps "foreigners" was an ill-chosen word, though. Apologies if anyone was offended.
No, I don't pay tax, but I will do pretty soon.
Someone may be old, but they still have a family. However, if someone is so old or so ill that they're going to die very soon anyway, they're more likely to give up and just decline the operation, or something.

Yes, the US has some way to go, especially with there being a huge gap between rich and poor, but it's still possible to implement. Makes you wonder why it has such a big gap in the first place.

I know full well how public services are funded. There are other ways of raising money for the treasury than official government revenues, too. For another thread.

As for people who abuse themselves, naturally, government policy should include initiatives to cut down on that sort of crap. However, I don't think that people should be denied healthcare because of their lifestyle choices. That said, there could be some sort of national health insurance system for the UK to help reduce the tax burden.

I hope nobody did a thread about this D:, I don't want the same thing happening to this thread.

Anyway, I have a mixed opinion on this topic, which I will get into once i see what some of my fellow peers think ^^.

Feel free to speak your mind within reason, and note I won't try and change your opinion on this topic, or condemn you in any way, as im accepting of all opinions. Explain your point I dont wanna hear "Becuz then every 1 gets healthcare", if thats a reason why you support it, explain what the truth behind it.

- Kuja

A term used by American conservatives to associate Universal Healthcare with Socialism.

I fully support Universal Healthcare, so long as a regulated private sector is allowed to run as well.
Not only should it be a staple of any developed state to provide affordable healthcare to its citizens in some form, but it is also more efficient and cheaper anyway, so long as it is not a crude system which only pays private companies, which are out for profit. That is why the US spends a larger percentage of its overall budget on healthcare than anywhere else.
Overall costs here are much lower for public health trusts at least, as they don't need to make a profit.
As for those who aren't insured in the US, and are slowly dying of some horrible terminal illness, they'll only be given emergency treatment.
I don't buy the "natural selection" crap, either. It is anti-human to deny someone healthcare because they cannot afford it.
If their healthcare costs too much for the state, why does it cost so much? Probably because either the ingredients to a particular medicine are rare, or because a company is keeping its price high. To do away with such extra costs, medical research and development companies should be paid fees for their patented medicines to be produced by a much cheaper public medical company. If ingredients are rare, if they are plants, they can be grown in the lab. Frankly, the economic arguments against universal healthcare are laughable.

Im against Socialized Healthcare(as of now) in Puerto Rico, I pay enough taxes as it is right now, and the system wouldn't work, at least not here. In the U.S its my understanding some citizins face the same problem, while i agree natural selection doesnt apply to this matter, I think we should change the tax system.

Australia has a flat tax system in which everyone pays a flat rate, 1% of everyones income goes to healthcare, and hey thats fine. Why? Because they all pay less in taxes. The question truly remains is the quality of the healthcare good? Free isn't an excuse for good, some nations with healthcare thats socialized like France ,(which ill get into later) are going bankrupt supporting this system, and as such they do whatever they can to save $$, some canadians escape to the U.S to be treated since the waiting lists dont allow them to get healthcare right away(although these canadians fall into the minority). I wouldn't say Cuba has better healthcare than the U.S just because its "free" and because Micheal Moore said so, in fact one of the things i found incredolous is the choices of word these people use to describe it "Under this system the government pays for your medical coverage", such language deceives some into thinking "yay I don't have to pay for it" when in reality the government has no money...That being said I saw his movie, and will list some of the lies or exaggerations told by him:

1. Most european citizens pay for health care coverage every week, some require people to buy coverage in health care insurance similiar to what we have here in Puerto Rico. Moore claimed it was done like Canadas Single Payer system, which is lies.

2. Every European nation has a different healthcare system, as such to round them all up and say they all use a Single Payer system is either misleading or a big fat lie.

3. Coverage in Europe isn't free either, again its either missleading or a lie.

For example: Switzerland has no health care program, instead everyone must purchase healh care insurance from one of 100's competeting companies.

4. Micheal Moore described France as the "eden" of healthcare, again this is a lie, as France can only afford health-coverage for only 80% of its citizens, the other 20 are forced to buy private insurance, in either case its not free, and isnt handled through a single payer system, again misleading or a lie?

5. Mr Moore claims the canadians handle drug coverage better, which again is false, about 7/8 provinces do not cover non-hospital drug coverage for low income seniors, the federal government in fact doesn't cover anyone, I'm not saying canadian Socialized healthcare sucks, im merely stating Michael Moore has again either tried to mislead us or lied completely.

6. Michael Moore offered $10,000 to whoever could prove him wrong, rumors say quite a few have done so, and Mr Moore has not paid them. Again pure speculation

Simply put Socialized Healthcare is free in the sense that when you go into the emergency room you dont pay, its naive to think its free all over and out. Besides costs, it also doesn't guarantee you get healthcare when you need it most.

In the end such a system isn't realistic, but it does warm your heart, and mine also to know that everyone around you is getting healthcare. Note, I'm not claiming countries with socialized healthcare suck, or are hellholes to live in.

Also if you want a taste of socialized healthcare, go to a free health clinic in the U.S, those places are packed almost everyday, and as such they can't see everyody whos in line, plus they refer most of the people there to a hospital anyway. I know my arguement isn't perfect but its just my opinion :)


Feel free to comment :)

Oh and Doctors work alot less, On my vacation to Spain i saw a sign that said in spanish to english "Were on vacation we'll be back in two months" I couldn't believe it, as such doctors are paid less under this system but don't have to work as hard.

Fair enough your beliefs are that of a liberal person, and hey thats fine! I believe people should be repsonsible for themselves, the goverment has no money anyway, and as such collects it from us, so I don't see how that works...thanks for sharing your opinion though. :)

I think the government should give coverage to whoever needs it most, the question is who qualifies for needing it most? Plus...oh...wait Medic-Aid!! I'm claiming medic-aid to be the solution to lifes problems, but its a step in the right direction, as medic-aid gives coverage(note i said IT GIVES coverage to those who qualify or it).

- Kuja

Firstly, I have not watched Sicko, nor do I base my arguments on any such film.

Secondly, the NHS in the UK is top-rate. It does very well on its budget, though excessive bureaucracy should be removed to make it more efficient. Its service is normally excellent, bar the waiting lists, which are to be expected. Such can be reduced and prioritised. I can say that UK healthcare coverage is much better than in the US, in which an obscene amount of people are uninsured.

Naturally, the richest citizens can afford private healthcare, which will have shorter waiting lists as fewer people will be using it. Why pay for the richest 20% when they can easily afford their own private care?

Also, if there are problems with healthcare funding, a not-for-profit national health insurance system can be introduced.

As I have said, the US government actually pays a larger percentage of its budget on healthcare, as far as I am aware, meaning that you pay more taxes because of the way it pays for healthcare! Sure, if it didn't cover citizens at all, those expenses would be completely gone, but national health would go even further down the drain.

You're right, the tax system needs to change. Currently, the richest US citizens have lower tax rates than the middle-income citizens, I think. Insane. Gradually increasing tax rates would be much more logical.

Even compulsory health insurance is better than being refused health insurance.

Nothing's free. However, overheads are greatly reduced in a state-run, public healthcare system, as it won't be out to make a profit. A public healthcare system running alongside a private healthcare system is much more realistic.

I think that doctors here work just as much as US doctors, and local general practices(not hospitals) charge for certain services anyway.

Why don't YOU come to the UK and get a taste of our healthcare system?