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

[Martinus]

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

It's elective, though.

[garbon]

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/

Okay, thanks.

Though of course I do have to add the qualifier that I don't think speck of dirt in eye is exactly what I was thinking about on the healthcare front.

[DontSayBanana]

Given that the state seems to treat people as property and insist on its right to tax "citizens" who have no way to escape a given jurisdiction, I'd say ponying up for childbirth costs is the least they can do.

[garbon]

Given that the state seems to treat people as property and insist on its right to tax "citizens" who have no way to escape a given jurisdiction, I'd say ponying up for childbirth costs is the least they can do.

I don't really see how the state treats its citizens like property / you can freely escape taxation from your state. Just give up your citizenship.

[Agelastus]

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.

Most of the information required to run such a scheme is already collected and available - the database for tax credit payments (the unnecessary system Gordon Brown introduced) for example. Additional costs can be minimal with appropriate legislation.

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.

Drawing the line too high has no drawbacks (and, in fact, given that a number of very well off people do actually use the NHS would probably still provide a net benefit.)

Drawing it too low could be an issue, but since I was talking about both levying a charge as a proportion of the income and capping the maximum contribution possible, not so much of a one. People might be paying in full for smallscale treatments but never in full for expensive and longterm treatments.

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.

I fail to see why that would be so in a system which relies on one universal provider. Or, more precisely, in a system that relies on a universal price setter. Nobody in the actual system itself can directly benefit from providing a better service to a customer paying 5% of his costs compared to one paying 0% of his costs.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't really see how the state treats its citizens like property / you can freely escape taxation from your state. Just give up your citizenship.

The state's taxation kicks in way before that's an option.  Look at sales tax.  Not only are you taxed for the privilege of buying goods in your state, but sales tax follows you, as a citizen of that state, to other states, regardless of what their own tax policies are.  So for a minor, you're literally taxed with no choice in the matter no matter where you go.

Note, I'm not anti-tax, I'm against the state's practice of using its citizens to collect sales tax on purchases it has no jurisdiction over.  I get that it happened as a response to people hopping borders like PA or NJ to DE, but I think it was the wrong solution.

[garbon]

I don't really see how the state treats its citizens like property / you can freely escape taxation from your state. Just give up your citizenship.

The state's taxation kicks in way before that's an option.  Look at sales tax.  Not only are you taxed for the privilege of buying goods in your state, but sales tax follows you, as a citizen of that state, to other states, regardless of what their own tax policies are.  So for a minor, you're literally taxed with no choice in the matter no matter where you go.

Note, I'm not anti-tax, I'm against the state's practice of using its citizens to collect sales tax on purchases it has no jurisdiction over.  I get that it happened as a response to people hopping borders like PA or NJ to DE, but I think it was the wrong solution.

Are you talking about said "use taxes"? How many people ever pay those?

Also, who cares about minors? You pretty much have no control over most matters as a minor so seems irrelevant.

[Martinus]

The corollary question is who should pay if the state mistakenly delivers a baby to Otto's house and then refuses to collect it.

[Agelastus]

The corollary question is who should pay if the state mistakenly delivers a baby to Otto's house and then refuses to collect it.

[Tonitrus]

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
......   

When the health debate comes up here, people talk about "UK/NHS!  Canadian universal health care!"...sheesh, why not Japan?

[Agelastus]

When the health debate comes up here, people talk about "UK/NHS!  Canadian universal health care!"...sheesh, why not Japan?

Lack of knowledge? Misappreciation of how the system works due to the prevalence in anime and Japanese dramas of "family hospitals" with the son or daughter going to medical school because they are the heir and expected to inherit, an alien practise to the west? Bigotry? A belief that the Japanese have a longer life expectancy naturally so this discrepancy is not due to the health care system? A belief that the Japanese diet is healthier?

Could be for a lot of reasons - I've only just read the Wikipedia article to get a basic idea how it works myself. Now, from a costs perspective, I wish we had the same here (although we probably couldn't make it work as well.)

[Valmy]

Health Care systems in Asia are just never really looked at.  I suppose maybe it makes sense that you compare cultures more similar to yours maybe?  No idea.  I have certainly heard anybody ever say 'Nips just live longer because they are Asiatic savages' or a more PC version of such

[Eddie Teach]

Fish are healthier than Cheetos.

[Josquius]

In japan the life expectancy is definitely down to genetics, diet, etc... And not the health system
Healthcare in japan is a backwards mess

[Martinus]

Health Care systems in Asia are just never really looked at.  I suppose maybe it makes sense that you compare cultures more similar to yours maybe?  No idea.  I have certainly heard anybody ever say 'Nips just live longer because they are Asiatic savages' or a more PC version of such

I thought this is because they eat sushi and are post-Hiroschima mutants, not some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.