National Health Service? TINA?

[FredClogs]

CrutyRammers said:

Eric Mc said:

There are many drivers behind "entrpreneurial" activity and technological advancement A lot of "entrepreneur" type activity is/was driven by the needs of war - which is, in most cases a "government" activity.

It is highly unlikely that most modern technology would be at the stage it's at now if it hadn't been spurred on by government funding in times of political tension or war itself.

Some of these technologies MAY have been invented by idle dreamers or people wanting to make a buck for themselves - but there is no doubt that government intervention and funding has played a massive part in speeding such development along.

The Wright Brothers may be an example of a pair of chaps spending their own dosh on developing a device that took their fancy - but guess who their first customer was

Agree totally Eric. But our friend said "Everything that ever made money, created a job or increased scientific understanding in western society anyway started with tax payers money and government spending."

And none of the above did.

The Wirght brothers, in particular, didn't just wake up one morning and start building an airplane, people all over the world were experimenting in powered flight, since Da Vinci and a lot of the work that the Wright Brothers did was borrowed heavily from Orville's earlier work with the Smithsonian Institute...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Smit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithsonian_Institut...

There was a certain hyperbole to my original statement but you've yet to prove it wrong.

[piquet]

dazwalsh said:

I think everyone likes to piss and moan about the NHS and yes it does have its failings but its still a world class setup.

My little idea is £10 per GP visit for working age adults. This would also cover prescription costs if needed. Results are a bit of wonga for the NHS and less idiots seeing a gp over a headache or cold.

I personally wouldnt mind paying that,my GP is brilliant. If i ring up at 8am i can be seen within the hour most days.

Now A+E is a mess but not sure where i would go with that, needs a bit of a think.

£10 would hardly cover the admin costs to check if you should or shouldn't pay and to arrange collection, you'd be charging the people who under use the NHS, the very people we should be seeing more of (i.e. people who work and are too busy to look after themselves). The real users and abusers wouldn't be affected, in the same way that only 10-15% of prescriptions are paid for.

That and you'd transfer the load to the free a&e, which already is seeing a significant proportion of gp conditions

[maffski]

TransverseTight said:

Eat yourself to obesity, smoke, and drinking 5 pints a night in the local, don't do any exercise

Now that's doing your part for the common good - 20 or 30 years of paying tax and then keel over dead before you start costing money.

This study only looked at obesity, smoking and healthy living but I'd suspect the same is true for alcohol abuse. It found that whole adult life health care costs for smokers were about 20% lower than those for healthy-living people. And that's before the tax revenue is considered.

[FredClogs]

maffski said:

Now that's doing your part for the common good - 20 or 30 years of paying tax and then keel over dead before you start costing money.

This study only looked at obesity, smoking and healthy living but I'd suspect the same is true for alcohol abuse. It found that whole adult life health care costs for smokers were about 20% lower than those for healthy-living people. And that's before the tax revenue is considered.

Well that's the answer then, more people should smoke!

[Jockman]

maffski said:

TransverseTight said:

Eat yourself to obesity, smoke, and drinking 5 pints a night in the local, don't do any exercise

Now that's doing your part for the common good - 20 or 30 years of paying tax and then keel over dead before you start costing money.

This study only looked at obesity, smoking and healthy living but I'd suspect the same is true for alcohol abuse. It found that whole adult life health care costs for smokers were about 20% lower than those for healthy-living people. And that's before the tax revenue is considered.

Bizarre, isn't it? Unhealthy people passing away in their 50s and early 60s >could< be more profitable to the NHS than people who have crippled themselves by running in the park every day.

[TransverseTight]

CrutyRammers said:

A government-run insurance scheme would be hideously innefficient and I hate to think of all of the hoops you'd have to jump through. A fixed payment rate as we have now is not "fair" but it is at least simple, and you'll never find that you're not covered because you didn't read the small print.

Some good points... But isn't the government insurance scheme what we have now. Or at least that's what NI was originally meant for. Now it's just another tax that doesn't cover the costs of what it was set up for.


Regarding smoking... A few years back I came across figures that smokers pay about £8bn a year in tax, but treating smoking related diseases only costs about £800 million. Not sure if that's still true.... But if it is.... Feel free to have one on me Just not indoors (I used to be a smoker and even then hated the smoke in pubs!)

[CrutyRammers]

TransverseTight said:

CrutyRammers said:

A government-run insurance scheme would be hideously innefficient and I hate to think of all of the hoops you'd have to jump through. A fixed payment rate as we have now is not "fair" but it is at least simple, and you'll never find that you're not covered because you didn't read the small print.

Some good points... But isn't the government insurance scheme what we have now. Or at least that's what NI was originally meant for. Now it's just another tax that doesn't cover the costs of what it was set up for.

Yes, sorry if not clear. The current scheme is not risk-based scheme, it's (more or less) a straight percentage of income, which is obviously relatively easy to administer. The inefficient comment was aimed at the idea of the government doing something which attempted to calculate each person's risk.

[CrutyRammers]

FredClogs said:

The Wirght brothers, in particular, didn't just wake up one morning and start building an airplane, people all over the world were experimenting in powered flight, since Da Vinci and a lot of the work that the Wright Brothers did was borrowed heavily from Orville's earlier work with the Smithsonian Institute...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Smit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithsonian_Institut...

There was a certain hyperbole to my original statement but you've yet to prove it wrong.

Sorry what now? Because they got some documents from an organisation which the government ran, that counts as "started with government funding" does it? So anyone who borrows a book from a library counts as government funded in your world. Riiiiiiight.

Also a rather nice sideline that the Smithsonian was founded as a private bequest, only for the government to spend 8 years deciding what to do with it, before losing all of the money in a bad investment. Go government, you are truly the engine of innovation.