Why? Do you think people will stay at the hospital for fun just because it’s free?
Even if it were the case, doctors would remember them it’s not a vacation resort.
Interesting question.
Both. You treat diseases people already have, and you spend resources on preventing their future occurrence in others. It’s not either/or.
Huh? I meant to say that an well-designed plan could save money by relying on tax funds and thus not charging patients. It’s more efficient because you don’t have to have a billing staff. (OK, I should have put that sentence in the original post.)
Is this a difference between French and English idiom?
Countries like Switzerland and Singapore also get better healthcare outcomes due to their harsh conscription regimes. Turns out that forcing large segments of the population into a lifestyle of long walks through the jungles/mountains during the day followed by ditch digging at night, on a diet of water and limited rations really does wonders for your national statistics on obesity and related health problems! :eek:
Not really. People who are actually obese tend to receive deferments as they’re unfit for service (at least in Switzerland). Not sure how that works in Singapore.
A better way of ensuring the populace isn’t too fat is having daily physical education in public schools.
After reading again your post, I think the difference is between literacy and illiteracy. I’ve no clue how I interpreted what you wrote as meaning what I read.
Not really. People who haven’t been in the Army tend to seriously overestimate how much physical activity it involves, in my experience.
The amount of time we spent being physically active was pretty low. Certainly less than in school, where there were a couple of hours gym class each week, in addition to football. You may have more authority to impose a physical regimein armies made up of volunteers. They, after all signed up for it and get paid for it.
But the amount of activity we had in the army, most of which was during booth camp, isn’t really going to have any measurable effect on public health. Another year of school would lead to more activity, and still not be measurable.
Reputable cites that people ‘overtax’ the NHS compared to, for instance, the ‘overtaxing’ of Emergency Roomsor of diagnostic testing in the US system please?
You assert plenty in these debates. Let’s see some beef.
Now, I’m a bit bored. Time for another hip replacement to pass the time. 
The poster above you
polar bear “If you’re sick, you’re sick… a country with UHC isn’t going to let you die of lungcancer (or leave it untreated), because it was your choice to light up a cigarette.”
Treating lung cancer =/= no line, guy. We’ll leave aside the fact that the post above mine was after yours.
I didn’t know we were going to have to wait for someone to post in this thread (and I actually never figured someone would) Regardless, I knew it was a common thread of thought that people who are sick need to just get treatment no matter how they got there.
To me, this line of thinking excuses bad individual choices.
And yes, lung cancer because you chose to smoke cigarettes qualifies. As does type 2 diabetes, liver disease due to alcohol consumption etc
Now is there a line there somewhere, most assuredly as it is not as cut and dried as I make it seem. But the fact that the line exists and some don’t want there to be a line, is a problem.
Why should it matter? Everybody eventually becomes ill and dies.
Let’s assume a smoker gets a lung cancer, say at 50. He’s treated, recover, and dies from a heart attack say ten years lated at 60. The same guy doesn’t smoke. He gets a bladder cancer at 70, is treated, recovers and dies from a heart attack at 80.
What difference does it makes exactly? It’s not like if he never had smoked, we wouldn’t have to cover those famous end of life medical expenses that often are the major part of the total expenses incurred during one’s life.
According to a study made in Czech republic in the 90s (nope, no link nor cite…it’s out of my head) smokers costed less than non-smokers because they died earlier hence received less retirement benefits and age-related medical care. So, if expenses are your concern, you should probably thank smokers or hand them a check for the difference.
Clairobscur,
It only matters if you are talking about finite resources (which we are)
Money, doctors etc
Yes, and clairobscur’s point is, those finite resources are actually made less expensive the earlier people die. So, if you want to lower healthcare costs, let’s get rid of vaccination, safety belts, helmet laws, and encourage people to drink and smoke. After all, a drunk driver who kills a couple of families just saved the country the healthcare expenses of almost a dozen people.
Thing is, taking both his tongue and mine out of our respective cheeks, national healthcare isn’t about lowering expenses. It needs to be as cost-effective as possible, but lowering costs isn’t its raison d’être; ensuring that people have access to healthcare is.
But my point was that since we all age and die, those finite ressources will eventually be used anyway. If not when you’re treated at 50 for lung cancer, then when you’re treated at 75 for some other cancer. So it doesn’t change anything. Smoker or not, you’ll consume those ressources sooner or later.