There is know reason why you couldn't go to abroad to a Private hospital in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Although all the doctors training would still have been with the NHS.
Printable View
There is know reason why you couldn't go to abroad to a Private hospital in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Although all the doctors training would still have been with the NHS.
The key word in that is "stealing", and no you aren't. It is impossible to steal something which is provided to you out of duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
In the UK, the National Health Service Act 1946 and it's replacement in 2006 (as well as equivalent Acts in Scotland) explicitly state that is the "Secretary of State’s duty to promote the health service".
In Australia section 51 of the Constitution provides that the Federal Government has the power to enact laws with regards "The provision of medical and dental services" and even the National Health Act 1953 states that "the duty is encumbant on the Federal Government to ensure the provision of healthcare services".
Duty in common law extends from a moral commitment, which in this case is by the government to look after its people.
Besides which other than Accident and Emergency departments you'd still be liable as a US Citizen to charges for services.
Ok so it's not really stealing. But aren't the costs lower, at least in part, because the government (through taxpayer money) is subsidizing the services?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I'd hazard a guess that the overall costs are lower because:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
1. The Government actually owns the hospitals and doesn't therefore need to charge expenses like rent, or rates.
2. The level of bureaucracy and management isn't duplicated nearly to the degree it is in America because there is a single blanket organisation.
3. A single blanket organisation has bigger purchasing power through economies of scale both in terms of hardware and labour costs.
The government for the most part doesn't subsidise the sector, it owns it. Is actually possible for the government subsidise an industry if it owns it?
How does the government own anything? Answer, it doesn't. The taxpayers do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
1. The government doesn't own the hospitals, the taxpayers do. Therefore the taxpayers are paying to build, maintain, etc. the buildings. In effect, the taxpayers are paying the rent.
2. You don't think there is a high level of bureaucracy involved in government work? What planet are you on?
3. Ah, so the the government has "buying power". Is that why toilet seats cost $600?
The government does own the system, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't still cost something. That appears to be the dirty little secret here. Sure medical costs (when looked at in isolation) are lower in countries like Canada and the UK than they are in the US. But when you add in the tax burdon associated with the medical industry I would bet the TOTAL costs are close to the same.
Wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The Government DOES own the hospitals, specifically through the legal person of the Crown, via the NHS. Not only is the Crown the legal owner of the hospitals but it also owns the land upon which it sits, and the buildings themselves.
There is zero rent because as the owner of the land, buildings and the services inside, the Crown doesn't pay rent, rates or taxes to itself.
In the UK there is ONE NHS which runs and overseas the lot. Sure, there is a level of bureaucracy but again I wager that the total number of administrators and managers on a per capita basis is far less than the great swathe of HMOs and hospital owners in the US, which as separate entities certainly do not share the same administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?a ... egories%3C{9372171}&fh_refview=search&fh_search=toilet+seat& fh_refpath=facet_159016185&fh_secondid=10246484&fh _eds=%C3%9F&ts=1265251670419Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I could get a whole toilet for 130 quid. $600 for just the seat? You're getting done.
According to the OECD the average spending per person (USD):Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
US - 7290
Can - 3895
Oz - 3137
UK - 2992
By rights if the costs were the same, the Dept of Health in Britain running on a US cost basis should be £240bn instead of the £98.7 billion which it currently costs.
So the Crown has some magical pile of money somewhere that hasn't been taken or "earned" from sources, that it uses to pay people to build and maintain the buildings? That's cool, you'll have to explain how that works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
So you are honestly telling me that the government is run more effeciently than private industry? Wow, I've never seen that before, how does that work? You're really going to have to put up some sort of numbers to prove that one to me. Not that I'm saying that insurance companies are some sort of beacon of efficency, far from it, but the government? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Your link doesn't work for me, but I'm assuming that you are giving me a link to some sort of do it yourself, go buy a toilet and put it in your house type of deal? That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about the government buying things at outragous prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/Page...etinv_gotwaste
"Since our founding in 1984, CAGW has helped expose such high-profile symbols of federal profligacy as the Department of Defense's $640 toilet seat and $436 hammer and the National Park Service's $797,400 outhouse."
I have no idea what the OECD is, can you give me some info on them, or a link to where you got these numbers? I am highly sceptical of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
But even if these numbers are correct, does it take into account quantity and quality of care? I mean does the US number throw in all the plastic surgury, and other elective surguries that Americans have? Or how about the cost of quality? I can probably get somebody to cut out my appendix with a knife making a big insision and yanking the thing out. Or I can do it with a scope, no scar, and little recovery time. Which do you think is more expensive?
Chuck, the OECD number is interesting...but I do think there is a bit of a controversay how those numbers per capita are arrived at.
My contention is that some of the cost of publilc healthcare systems is hidden when those numbers are calculated. As you illustrated, the US Gov't has overspent wildly at times for things like Toilet seats, and I can tell you that the Canadian gov't isn't that stupid.....but god knows they can be close.
I have through this thread wavered one way or the other on the merits of public/private care, but I do know that public healthcare isn't the pancea for all ills, but it isn't leeches and amputations either....the Danny Williams going to the US controversay up here had some of the top Cardiac doctors in Canada up in arms. He isn't getting anything done that Mt. Sinai hospital in Toronto isn't doing or any number of top flight Cardiac hospitals.
The one thing people do have to realize tho is this Premier is coming from a sparsely populated and remote part of Canada. For any major specialists, he almost has to get on a plane, and if a poor father in St. John's needed the same care, he too would have to leave home...but in the poor father's case, it would be to Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa and NOT Florida..
The Crown is technically a corporation sole, that is, it is a separate legal enitity consisting of one office and one officer. The person who operates both the office and the corporation is the Crown*.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
It is the Crown who owns both the NHS and the land and the buildings etc for which the institution sits inside.
Obviously if the Crown operates and owns the NHS, it isn't going to assess itself for land taxes, rates, income tax, payrol tax etc, which every private entity ergo the company which owns a private hospital would be liable for.
So no. The Crown does not have "some magical pile of money somewhere", and not does it need to because the expenses which it would need to pay out of this magical pile of money never exist either.
You've presented a converse error which is a formal fallacy.
People are still paid and buildings are still maintained because these are "real" events arising from "real" circumstances.
*NB: The Crown operates itself. The Monarch is a separate legal person.
Does the Crown generate no income? Who actually forks out real money to pay for real building and land maintainence?