h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Does anyone else out there feel that the money we are forced to contribute from our earnings should be an optional rather than an enforced contribution.
The same amount would probably buy in a better health care plan where a person could actually choose the place, date, time , doctor etc. etc

for a start, national insurance contributions supposedly go toward paying for pensions, healthcare, and the entire benefit system.

I say supposedly, because it is woefully insufficient to the task.

As to private medicine, if you are busy enough to need it (as opposed to being forced to it due to inefficiencies in the nhs) then you have no problem affording it.

The rest of the "benefits" of choosing doctors, hospitals, etc are mainly a problem with an overworked nhs not allowing you these things when they are available combined with an overly beurocratic payment system which limits them artificially.

Hi Countrysider!

I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more. I think opponents of publicly funded health systems generally have a very odd view about what healthcare is, and the implications of a poor healthcare system has for *everyone*. I'll post more later, possibly as a link to a separate article.

Otto

The problem with having optional health care contributions is that there will always be a signicant section of the population that will not exercise the option.

What happens when one of those is involved in a traffic accident and breaks a leg. Do you leave them in the road to bleed to death if they dont have health insurance. No, of course you dont. But the ambulance, nurses, doctors and other facilities still have to be paid for.

Not every adult in the country pays NI Contributions. There is a lower income limit, but they are still entitled to the same health care as someone paying at the higher rate.

The NHS-NI contribution system is far from perfect. It does have its problems - but it is far better than any of the alternatives I can think of.

Stuart