Should The State Pay All The Costs Of Delivering A Baby?

[Martinus]

Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.

That's a bit harsh.

I was about to say that, too.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.

That's a bit harsh.

It is the NHS way 

[Josquius]

Of course they should, just like they should any other medical condition

[Agelastus]

Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.

Breaking the British Unity here, but I think it should depend on wealth. Above a certain income you should be expected to contribute to your treatment up to a capped proportion of your income. And giving birth is still, obviously enough, a form of treatment.

But since that's not an option in this poll, I'm one of the "yes" men.

[crazy canuck]

Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.

Breaking the British Unity here, but I think it should depend on wealth. Above a certain income you should be expected to contribute to your treatment up to a capped proportion of your income. And giving birth is still, obviously enough, a form of treatment.

But since that's not an option in this poll, I'm one of the "yes" men.

We do pay according to wealth.  It is called a progressive tax system.

[Agelastus]

Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.

Breaking the British Unity here, but I think it should depend on wealth. Above a certain income you should be expected to contribute to your treatment up to a capped proportion of your income. And giving birth is still, obviously enough, a form of treatment.

But since that's not an option in this poll, I'm one of the "yes" men.

We do pay according to wealth.  It is called a progressive tax system.

Then double everyone's tax rates instead; as it is, with permanent "protection" (thanks to politics) and permanent cost increase (due to population growth and improving care increasing lifespans) the NHS as currently funded and constituted is a millstone around the country's finances negatively affecting every other department.

As the tax system is now either people above a certain income are going to have to start directly contributing (rather than indirectly via a progressive taxation system) or the rates levied have to increase generally. I know which I'd prefer, but the "cradle to grave" mantra stifles debate.

There's no reason why the NHS shouldn't be means tested the way other benefits funded from general taxation are. And, in fact, in some aspects already is. Prescriptions are not free save for certain designated categories. Nor are eye tests and the associated expense of spectacles. Nor even is dentistry.

[Josquius]

But the UK spends less on health care than most western countries.

[garbon]

I've never heard great testimonials about the NHS.

[crazy canuck]

There's no reason why the NHS shouldn't be means tested the way other benefits funded from general taxation are. And, in fact, in some aspects already is. Prescriptions are not free save for certain designated categories. Nor are eye tests and the associated expense of spectacles. Nor even is dentistry.

You are conflating two concepts.  One is the determination of what should be covered under universal coverage.  That is an important aspect of controlling costs.  The other concept is whether there should be a means test for coverage of those services which are covered under universal coverage.

Means testing isn't a panacea.  My problems with it are:

1) a new level of red tape is created which must assess who is in what categorie and who must pay what - I am not convinced the costs and inefficiencies associated with such a system result in a net benefit.

2) Where does one draw the line between those who obtain free care and those who must pay.  Draw that line too low and you do real harm in terms of people not being able to afford health care which in the long run results in even more costs as people who may have been easily treated or proactively dealt with don't seek medical attention until their condition becomes more serious.  Draw the line too high and you receive no real benefit because the people who are caught are probably already seeking out private health care options.

3) Perhaps most significantly I think you run the risk of creating a tiered system within what is supposed to be a universal system.  People who pay directly for medical services will come to demand more for that payment and I think it is inevitable that people who do not pay directly will receive lesser treatment.

[mongers]

I've never heard great testimonials about the NHS.

No point, as you'd dismiss them as anecdotal evidence anyway.

What about this metric?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

List by the World Health Organization (2012)
Overall rank Country Overall.exp Male exp. Female exp.

1    Japan           84.6   85   87.3
2    Andorra           84.2   80.8   87.6
3    Singapore         84   82   87
.......
11    Canada           82.5   80.4   84.6
12    Spain           82.5   79.5   85
....
17    France           81.5   78   85
.....
22    Germany          81   78.5       83.5
28    United Kingdom 81   79.5   82.5
......
32    Lebanon             80.5   78.9   82.5   
.......
36    United States    79.8   77.4   82.2
......   

[OttoVonBismarck]

I vote no, to me it depends on the national healthcare scheme. Not all countries use one where the State is the sole payer, I think that the laws should be structured such that no parent is out significant out of pocket money for delivery of a baby. In a system without say, the sickness funds ala Germany but more of an NHS style system, then yes the State should pay the full costs.

[garbon]

No point, as you'd dismiss them as anecdotal evidence anyway.

You'd be wrong on that. That's what qualitative research is darling and it is something that I get paid to do.

List by the World Health Organization (2012)
Overall rank Country Overall.exp Male exp. Female exp.

1    Japan           84.6   85   87.3
2    Andorra           84.2   80.8   87.6
3    Singapore         84   82   87
.......
11    Canada           82.5   80.4   84.6
12    Spain           82.5   79.5   85
....
17    France           81.5   78   85
.....
22    Germany          81   78.5       83.5
28    United Kingdom 81   79.5   82.5
......
32    Lebanon             80.5   78.9   82.5   
.......
36    United States    79.8   77.4   82.2
......   

I guess that's good though I'm not sure that's the best measure / certainly not one that I would use personally to think about healthcare for myself.

[garbon]

3) Perhaps most significantly I think you run the risk of creating a tiered system within what is supposed to be a universal system.  People who pay directly for medical services will come to demand more for that payment and I think it is inevitable that people who do not pay directly will receive lesser treatment.

Isn't that what often happens anyway? Those with money find a way to get better care?

[Agelastus]

But the UK spends less on health care than most western countries.

Given the deficits many of them are running, is that surprising?

Funding Healthcare is just another part of the general benefits crisis the west seems to be facing - how to pay for an increasingly costly population.

I may have exaggerated the "doubling" bit, but something has to give. Particularly if we are in a long term depression akin to the one of the late nineteenth century and can't hope for high economic growth to paper over the cracks.

[crazy canuck]

I've never heard great testimonials about the NHS.

You can tick that one off your bucket list.

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/an-american-doctor-experiences-an-nhs-emergency-room/