Derek,
Nationalized Health care is not free. It is paid for in the taxes levied on citizens of a particular country, sometimes with subsidies from the Government in certain situations.
Does the government have some source of income other than taxes?
No, but it can divert allocated funds from taxes collected for one purpose and use for it for a purpose not intended, as I noted in my reply to Jeff. The Government is also a major investor in real estate and stocks, bonds etc. Though tax money is used to buy investments, the increase in these investements does not come directly from taxation.
The reason that it tends to work in a far superior manner that the US Insured system is that it is a communal service which is available to all, regardless of their wealth or lack of it.
That is also the main cause of its problems.
No health system is without its problems, that is a given. One must weight what is a "problem" under one system and judge it against what is a "problem" under another system. What did you have in mind Derek?
It does not judge a person due to social position or way of life.
Of course it does. The amount someone pays for healthcare under such a system is based almost entirely on their social position and way of life
.
That a richer person pays more taxes than a poorer person, is this what you have in mind?
I was speaking of the healthcare system and its service to the sick, not the taxes levied in order to make the system work for the good of all.
If you turn up sick in any hospital in the UK, Canada, France, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, etc. etc. you will not be turned away. As a rich person, poor person, junkie, or aristocrat you will receive the same level of treatment. This is what I mean by national healthcare not being a "judge" of people.
The junkie and the aristocrat have available to them the same level of medical care should they chose the Nationalised Health route.
Which the aristocrat pays for but doesn't use, and the junkie uses but doesn't pay for.
Both can avail of its use, equally and without judgement. Yes, perhaps the more unfortunate in society cannot afford to pay for what they get in the way of healthcare and those whose lives are better placed do pay. I see nothing wrong with this. In fact I see it as the morally superior route.
Of course, the aristocrat or the rich man who falls into wealth by inheritance may be able to pay for a much better health service than those who helped create his wealth. Whether he is morally justified in expecting to do this is a point for another thread, which I would be interested in discussing.
As such it is imo the pinnacle of achievement for a civilized society.
That's a rather depressing thought. I think a better society would be one where everybody could afford to pay for all the healthcare and other services they require themselves. But nobody's quite managed to crack that one yet.
Nobody has managed to crack it, that is the point Derek. Until someone does achieve the ideal, the national healthcare enjoyed and respected by millions of Europeans is imo far superior to its US counterpart. People die in the US because they cannot afford the level of treatment that they need. Imo this can never be morally justified.
Cheers - HS
