UK: Tories want to deny the ‘unhealthy’ free NHS treatments
Posted on September 4th, 2007 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, health insurance, healthcare, healthcare system, Miles Cards, nanny state, NHS, payer systems, politics, public services, regulation, UK, United Kingdom, your rightshttp://www.thisislondon.co.uk/…
Failing to follow a healthy lifestyle could lead to free NHS treatment being denied under the Tory plans.
Patients would be handed “NHS Health Miles Cards” allowing them to earn reward points for losing weight, giving up smoking, receiving immunisations or attending regular health screenings.
Like a supermarket loyalty card, the points could be redeemed as discounts on gym membership and fresh fruit and vegetables, or even give priority for other public services - such as jumping the queue for council housing.
But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.
This is sad yet in no way surprising. The UK has already started putting the ‘unhealthy’ at the end of queues for healthcare. This is a perfect example as to why single payer systems are flawed. The government’s role is not to be our keepers. If people want to live unhealthy then so be it. If they want health insurance let them handle the bill. Let the market decide what smoking and obesity costs. Waiting in lines and forcing people to pay for a healthcare system they can’t use unless they fit the governments requirements is not healthcare. It’s fraud and theft.
10 Responses to “UK: Tories want to deny the ‘unhealthy’ free NHS treatments”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Right, and private insurance companies absolutely love the people that actually need to use them. Same story, different means.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:19 am
It is is no way the same story. Socialist healthcare forces people to do things because the government restricts choice. Canada banning private healthcare, NHS placing smokers at the end of the line or denying service outright, John Edwards’ plan to force people to get checkups. In a free market the overweight smoker with history of heart disease can make the choice as to when, where and how much to spend. As can the insurance companies. Nothing would stop the person from not even bothering with insurance and paying out of pocket. In these socialist systems all that choice goes away. The government doesn’t care about your health… they care about your money and they monopolize the system so you can’t purchase the care at a fair market value.
The US Healthcare system according to the same WHO report Michael Moore used to trash it and praise Cuba, UK and Canada is number 1 in responsiveness. That would seem to imply that people get the care they need when they need it. You can not say the same about those socialist systems making people wait several weeks for an MRI and months for cancer care.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Who says a British citizen can’t purchase his own insurance?
September 5th, 2007 at 11:20 am
But they have to purchase it on top of their current forced NHS payment. They would then be double paying for insurance and possibly getting less than half the service. It may not be feasible to stay in business if you compete directly with the practically monopoly government system as your potential clients would all be already paying for the government system. Would you be happy paying your car insurance if they wouldn’t provide you the service? I’d imagine not.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Interesting that you bring up car insurance.. if I want to drive a car I’m forced to purchase it from companies who apply the same discrimination. Now sure, car insurance is not compulsory (so I’m not suggesting this is a perfect analogy), but I bring it up to highlight the fact that you are complaining about a socialist program acting like a private company. My question to you: should all tax payer programs be forced treat its participants equally?
September 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
They aren’t acting like a private company. A private company optionally joins into a contract with you to provide a service. You have the option, the freedom to not use that company. That company has no obligation to you, nor you to it besides what you agree on. The socialist program is forced upon the public. At the threat of fines, imprisonment and worse I have to pay the taxes that fund this program regardless of their service. It’s very existence is an unfair actor in the market and makes other businesses have a more difficult time competing. You could make everything voluntary but in practice it never works that way. Government does nothing but grow and consume. And if you did make it voluntary what would be the point of the government being a player besides it’s ability to disrupt the market at will? You can say I could leave or subvert the system but that doesn’t make the system right. They are still initiating the threat force against my person and property. These socialist systems don’t even work. Look at the data. The US’s system is heavily regulated at all levels but still far freer than other developed nations and we have the best response times and there is no drought in foreigners coming to the States for care. The high costs per capita are not because of the greedy HMOs and doctors… it’s because of government regulation artificially increasing scarcity and our unhealthy American lifestyles.
1. There shouldn’t be these socialist programs in the first place.
2. Why shouldn’t they? We expect equal treatment under the law in all other cases. If you want the government to provide this service it should be provided equally. Isn’t that what the socialist idea is about? I’ve read some in government justify making people wait longer or denying healthcare for these ‘unhealthy’ people because “well, why should the taxpayer be required to pay for someone who causes their own unhealthyness?” Well why should anyone be forced to pay for the care of another?
September 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
So acting less socialist wouldn’t be more similar to a private company?
September 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
hypocrisy. tyranny. authoritarian.
Not socialist enough doesn’t mean more freedom. Politics is at least 2 dimensional.
You changed the question…. no… less socialist doesn’t mean they are more like a private company. Private companies provide voluntary services and have to compete for market share. The company and the customer have the freedom to choose who and how they interact. Governments providing the same service do not follow those rules. They can rewrite the rules. They are a monopoly and force their service on the public. No private company can act that way. You’re fishing to get me to say that being selective in who and how they provide service is acting like a private company… it’s not because their is no freedom for the ‘customer.’ They aren’t like a private company at all and therefore their actions must be judged differently.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:44 am
So a social program can never exhibit a trait found in a privately operating business? You could say I’m fishing or changing the question, but I feel like you’re taking my point out of context in order to continue complaining about the program in general. Which is fine, but you could have just said something like “Sure, this program is being selective, just like private insurance companies are — however, because it is a compulsory social program, this is actually a disservice to its participants.” And that is what I would rather discuss, if a social program has to exist (hypothetically), how would a libertarian want it to be run?
September 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Sure it can. Obviously it would have to in some regards as it’s emulating a monopolistic version of a business in that industry. That means nothing however. The reason they need to be selective is scarcity. Scarcity is not something the government can make go away and in fact always causes more of. It is not simply a disservice to it’s participants… it’s an affront to freedom.
There is no hypothetical situation here. No social program has to exist and a real libertarian would never ever support a program run by a group that uses coercive force as a means to achieve personal, social, political or economic ends.