It’s interesting to see the view from the other side.

This is rambling and I don’t guarantee it properly summarizes my point, but I have 2 minutes so here goes.

An article from UK website The Telegraph: Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors.

Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.

I work hard every day to make sure that Nighthawk and I have adequate healthcare, and we’re still paying much more than I’d like to ideally, but we’re also the problem: the long-term expensive treatment for a degenerative condition.

In the States, it’s dog-eat-dog but easy — either you have a job or the money to pay for your healthcare, or you don’t. I don’t like deciding between medication and, say, electricity (though in my case it’s more like medication and extra video games) and I really don’t like the yearly rigamarole of determining which plan to choose and what it’s going to cost this year. On the other hand, there’s no question of who gets treated. Either you have the money or you don’t. It’s not a right, it’s a product you purchase.

This article (like so many others) reveals one of the little twists behind national healthcare: it’s a right — we think — maybe — if the taxes are high enough…. And when someone says, “wait, the government can’t afford all this either”, some moron comes along and says, “then we’ll cut treatment for the elderly and the smokers and the drinkers who are dying from age and cigarette damage and cirrhosis.” And believe you me, that’s a dangerous road to walk.

It’s a product. If the government can’t afford to buy it for everyone, they’ll decide who really has the “right” to free healthcare anyway.

I happen to have some spies over the pond who’ve mentioned that you can get insurance in England, and the purpose is to bump you to the front of the line. In the States, since generally health care is based on “we treat those who can pay and the rest we don’t”, then you usually have surgery, etc. in order of need. It’s a product. And your insurer actually becomes your advocate at that point, because whose company is going to buy a spot at the back of the line? No insurance company can afford that kind of treatment for their patients. Can you see the war that would break out here of Aetna found out BCBS’s patients were getting preferential treatment?

Despite the bashing insurance companies get and the instinctual hatred that comes with wading through red tape, I’ve had insurance companies bend over backwards to fix billing issues, provide services, and do everything possible to keep Nighthawk and I healthy. That’s the goal, right?

For now I think I’ll keep our products over the UK’s rights. Thanks.

4 responses to “It’s interesting to see the view from the other side.”

  1. jzimbert says:

    If only there was SOMETHING the federal government was spending tens of billions of dollars on every year, something that could be cancelled and then have its funding diverted to healthcare…

  2. jzimbert says:

    But that’s the one I love!

  3. peri_renna says:

    I’m horrified by this story, too. It’s the whole “deserving” idea again – it leaves me furious every time I see it.

Leave a Reply