The National Health Service of the UK. Is it the perfect institution displayed in the Olympics Opening Ceremony?
Well, they do provide the people of England with some of the most advanced medical services in the world free of charge...
I would think that if it were the perfect institution, it would have no need to employ coercion to be able to financially provide its services.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Give me a free lunch.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
"I would think that if it were the perfect institution, it would have no need to employ coercion to be able to financially provide its services."
The NHS never employs coercion. It's just the state which funds it that does. Ergo, the NHS achieves perfection :P
Very well, but would the NHS have been created without the State? Was it not always the intention to fund the NHS through the coercion of the State? Or do the bureaucrats in charge of the NHS and it's policies not request more funding from time to time, knowing that it can only provided by the employment of coercion?
And for a whole two posts the NHS enjoyed perfection. :(
At any rate, I thought that it was understandable and yet comic that they showed the NHS like that.
Can you (or anyone else) describe how they portrayed the NHS? I haven't watched the Olympics, and don't have any interest to. It wasn't part of the over the top opening ceremony, was it? The one with Bond and Mary Poppins and Voldemort, etc? I heard a little about that, but there was no mention of the NHS in what I read.
So, aside from "state coercion", do you guys have any other objections regarding the NHS?
There is nothing about an organization that seeks to provide medical services and goods to people that I object to. I do object to an entity, existing only through coercion or the threat of coercion, forming an organization that receives its funding, not through voluntary means, but coersive means, to provide a service to individuals not in proportion to their (extorted) payments. If the NHS were funded only through voluntary payment, then I would be A-OK with it.
Sphairon:So, aside from "state coercion", do you guys have any other objections regarding the NHS?
Do you think state coercion is justified for something like the NHS? Why or why not?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Don't coerce my will to respond to this by voluntarily discussing the coercive means of a forceful entity that funds it's program through coercion.
"So, aside from "state coercion", do you guys have any other objections regarding the NHS?"
Well, all the economic and moral arguments against it basically stem from the fact that it is coercive (aggressive actually).
I have wrote some lengthy posts on the NHS on this forum a while back.
The main problems with NHS is the distortion of incentives and the medical industry as a whole.
My work colleague summarises it best. He had a back problem and went to the NHS, the response from the doctor was that it was not a problem and that he should take it easy and take some tablets if it hurts. He was not happy with the diagnosis so he went to a private doctor at a relatively high cost. The private doctor said that he knew exactly what it was and wanted to send him for xray immediately and that he may have to operate. The point being that the NHS have less incentive to solve your problem and are more happy to get your out of the door than the private sector. The private sector is the opposite and is far too happy too get you too spend money on all different types of tests and procedures. He still suffers from the occasional back pain but that is irrelevant.
The nhs does not come cheap the nhs uses up £100 billion per year. If you take the health care system in South Africa for example they spend £6-12bn (converted) per year. But as SA is the only health care system that I can compare it to I have to favour the South African health care system. My mother for example had cosmetic surgery on her face a few years ago and the NHS do not do cosmetic surgery and in some cases use the "its cosmetic" card when people have problematic health problems, another problem of nhs. It was actually more cost effective for my mom to travel to south africa and pay for private health insurance for the surgery than use private health care in the UK, including all costs.
The idea that the NHS is actually free is incorrect because everyone pays for it through taxes, not only that but everyone pays a high price for subscriptions £7.65 per item. Even if the item can be bought at retail at a lower cost. Often you can end up paying more for subscriptions for minor ailments of course people with very expensive subscriptions benefit. Then there is the time cost that is involved in seeing the doctor that is often over looked. You don't make appointments at the NHS, you tell the NHS that you want an appointment then the NHS will tell you when the appointment is and you have to arrange your life around the appointment. You sometimes have the option of choosing whether it will be a morning or afternoon appointment. My local GP is a complete nightmare to get an appointment and they are hardly open. They have no incentive to be open because the less patients the doctors see the less work they have to do. My local GP has a wait time of about 2 weeks for an appointment. There is also great difficulty in signing up for doctors often having to prove where you live and get turned away if you are one street too far away. There is also no incentive for the NHS to get new customers and this obviously affects the entire attitude of all the staff and the entire practice.
As the NHS GP offer the so called "free" service this leads to people using it more often that they would if there was a small cost involved. As you would expect this pushes up demand to unnatural levels and causes the long wait times and contributes to a lot of the problems. People then waste the doctors time and when you do go to the GP with a valid problem they are less likely to take you seriously because they get so many time wasters. As it is "free" this also takes the bottom end out of the market as there is no reason for private doctors to offer their services at very low prices because that market just goes to the NHS instead. So the private healthcare has very high and overpriced prices completely out of the range of most people, unless you are fortunate to have private healthcare through work benefits.
The nhs also does not include dentists, cosmetic surgery (as i explained), any sorts of non serious health related injuries (physiotherapy etc), It is also a battle to convince the GP that your problem is serious enough to take to a specialist, you literally have to argue with the GP.
I have not even gone in to specialists or hospitals that is another discussion. I also have not realy compared it to south africa private GP which is relatively very affordable and far more effective to use.
wtf is with you and free lunches... Go get welfare. xD
Autolykos:Do you think state coercion is justified for something like the NHS? Why or why not?
If it could be conclusively proven that something like the NHS is more effective than the market solution at improving people's health and longevity with no expected long-term distortions in the supply of medical services, then I'd say those benefits would mitigate the negative aspects of the implied coercion of taxation.