On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:55:01 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
All urban public transport systems in every country are subsidised.

Out of taxation in one form or another.

They are after all a public service. Or do you expect to pay the full
cost of any medical treatment?

It would be far more cost effective than letting the government
collect tax, add bureaucracy and deliver a third rate service.

Third rate?

The current NHS is nothing short of appalling in terms of the quality
of service delivered. It's a national disgrace from a bygone era.

Would this be the same as in the US where 1/3rd of the
population is without *any* medical cover? And there are plenty of moves
afoot to remove medical insurance as part of a salary package there as
it's simply becoming too expensive. Bit the same as final salary pensions
here.

Taxation in the U.S. is also much lower at around 25% vs. 35% in the
UK and even more elsewhere in Europe.



It's the same thing, whether public or private, a
form of insurance that levels out the costs to the individual.

The "levelling out" is taking from the haves to subsidise the have
nots in an extremely inefficient way.

And private insurance is always better? Some figures, please.


I didn't say that. I do think that it makes sense for the state to
run a financing system paid for out of taxation (general, NI or
whatever) to provide vouchers for people to spend on healthcare
regardless of their income. However, I don't think that the state
should be in the delivery business. Moreover, while I am perfectly
happy to contribute to the general fund to support those who need it,
I do object to being penalised by taxation four times over for making
my own healthcare arrangements and unburdening the state from having
to do so to a large extent.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com