A special thank you to one of our members for suggesting this for a SURVEY topic. 

 

In your opinion, do you think Universal Health Care  should be considered a necessity and right for everyone to have access?

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.   The topic is not restricted to only Thailand.

 

 

"...In your opinion, do you think Universal Health Care  should be considered a necessity and right for everyone to have access?"

 

Respectfully, this is a very badly-worded/formulated question (sorry, but...).

 

Is Universal Health Care a good idea?

 

Yes, it is. It is often said, in one form or another, that the function of a society is to do what can't be done better/more effectively by the family unit. The provision of health care, a task which requires a great deal of investment in a large variety of machines, medicines, equipment, personal training, etc is a classic case of this. Simply put, it is better to share the costs of health care among all citizens as all citizens will require its services sooner or later.

 

Is Universal Health Care free? No. It is paid for by society at large. People can argue regarding the amount that each person should pay; my view is each should pay according to their means. And yes, if that means that some poor people end up receiving medical care without directly paying for it, that is fine by me. The alternative is that poor people either die on the streets or they end up in emergency rooms (the LEAST effective means of delivering care).

 

This is a subject for which numerous Doctoral thesis' can and have been written, so it won't be solved on TVF.

 

My basic view is that Universal health care delivers the best coverage to the highest number of users for the best price/cost, and the research backs up that position (do your own research if you do not agree). Further, there is a moral dimension to the provision of health care; a country is simply a family writ large, and when a family member needs help, you should do what you can. End of. Finally, I will simply say that illness does not discriminate, so neither should health care provisions.

 

Enough of these debates. In the battle between Economics and Humanity, I choose Humanity; Universal health care for all. It is difficult to deliver, it is expensive, it requires hard choices, it requires compassion.

 

It is the most human thing to do...

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 20187 yr by Samui Bodoh

I voted for Yes health care for everyone but limits to essential, preventative care. My reasoning is that healthcare is expensive, there is no free healthcare so it is paid by the people anyway. To make sure it does not take up too much of a budget there must be limits to what is done. Because with modern medicine advancing all the time and some treatments real expensive it would swallow up the whole budget. 

 

If people want more care they can insure extra or self fund whatever extra they need. This way the system helps everyone and stays affordable. 

Healthcare should be treated as a human right. I'm from a rich country and I'm glad that it is treated that way there. In fact if anything defines my country in the minds of our citizens it is our single payer, universal health care system. Not even our most capitalistic, bluest Tory would ever suggest getting rid of it. It would be the end of their political career. Living next door to another rich country that turns its back on so many in ill health by choosing munitions as its first priority has only bought clarity to the issue for us.

2 minutes ago, pegman said:

Healthcare should be treated as a human right. I'm from a rich country and I'm glad that it is treated that way there. In fact if anything defines my country in the minds of our citizens it is our single payer, universal health care system. Not even our most capitalistic, bluest Tory would ever suggest getting rid of it. It would be the end of their political career. Living next door to another rich country that turns its back on so many in ill health by choosing munitions as its first priority has only bought clarity to the issue for us.

Healthcare without limits will only burden the state. All nice up until they have to raise the taxes then everyone starts to complain. Everyone wants "free" healthcare but nobody wants to pay for it all by taxes.

 

In my country most medical things are free, but not everything and not everything is done either. I doubt it is different in the UK. Many real costly experimental treatments are not done nor are all medicine always paid for. You just have to limit it because with the ever advancing healthcare options it get more and more expensive. You just can't expect a government (and by extension the working people) to pay for every thing. 

 

Sometimes they have to choose, why give a 77 year old a new hip when you can also use that money on young children. Its not nice.. but as money is not unlimited (as nobody wants high taxes) choices have to be made as to what is sensible and what is not. I would not like that job but I really understand that limits have to be set to what is done and paid for to not break the system.

The budget constraints between High Speed trains and Submarines might strain the health budget, generally the government covers anybody, however if you take out personal private health care you are placed first and are treated at private hospitals and depending of cover choice of hospital wards or first in line at public hospitals where there are no private, a study of Australia's Medicare system is worth looking at even though the spiffs in Canberra try their very best, they haven't quite ruined it yet. 

Have never agreed that higher taxes to make top quality healthcare available for all is an issue for the taxpayer. An increase in tax to be delivered direct into the healthcare funds providing an improved healthcare system for all would be accepted by many.

So why do governments not increase 'health tax'. I think it is the fear of failing to meet expectation. Hence the farming out of healthcare services.

 

 

 

Although I'm over here in Thailand I keep in touch with friends back home in the UK.
The NHS in the Glasgow area is slowly getting worse..longer waiting lists for non urgent ops. ... nurses "chucking it" due to pressure/stress..many wards in new Queen Elizabeth Hospital under-staffed etc etc.
You can throw as much money as you like at any nhs in the world but as long as the population increases and people live longer due to advances in medical science..new medication etc.. the problem will be ongoing.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Although I'm over here in Thailand I keep in touch with friends back home in the UK.
The NHS in the Glasgow area is slowly getting worse..longer waiting lists for non urgent ops. ... nurses "chucking it" due to pressure/stress..many wards in new Queen Elizabeth Hospital under-staffed etc etc.
You can throw as much money as you like at any nhs in the world but as long as the population increases and people live longer due to advances in medical science..new medication etc.. the problem will be ongoing.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Quote

Yes, Health Care for everyone and funded by the gov't.

Yes healthcare is a basic human right and, within any developed economy, should be free at the point of use for all citizens. However, whilst the government is paying the bills, it does so with taxpayer's money.

 

Healthcare is never free, you pay one way or the other, but leaving it to the private sector and the insurance industry is just giving them a licence to print money; it's shareholders first, patients second.

 

.

Edited October 21, 20187 yr by Stocky

I think the question really is whether the healthcare expenditure is efficiently spent. A bloated ministry and corruption meant less money for the sick and poor. I also don’t think that spending 4.2% of the budget is a strain. That’s the average spending of healthcare in most countries and Thailand is not a poor country. The current system of UHC is part funded by the civil servant funds and social security. Only the portion of those poor and don’t have excess and ability to be part of the funded portion. Proportionately, this group of 48 million spend less than the funded portions. It is the social contract of the government to assist the poor and the grotesque income inequality which UHC can help provide some relief. 

I am sick and tired (no pun intended) of hearing how 'expensive' health care is. When I see what governments are willing to pay to kill people (military) compared to what it would actually cost to take care of the people (a government's primary responsibility, IMHO), it makes me sick to my stomach. Food, shelter, and medical care should be inalienable human rights.

Eric makes a good point.

 

We need safety nets in social welfare. Not all can afford essential treatment costs. Together with medicines. The cost should be absorbed by the tax payer. 

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

I think the question really is whether the healthcare expenditure is efficiently spent. A bloated ministry and corruption meant less money for the sick and poor. I also don’t think that spending 4.2% of the budget is a strain. That’s the average spending of healthcare in most countries and Thailand is not a poor country. The current system of UHC is part funded by the civil servant funds and social security. Only the portion of those poor and don’t have excess and ability to be part of the funded portion. Proportionately, this group of 48 million spend less than the funded portions. It is the social contract of the government to assist the poor and the grotesque income inequality which UHC can help provide some relief. 

Eric,

 

Your numbers are wrong its 10% of the budget your 4,2% comes from the health department but money is added from other sources too. I found your 4% in the budget but its not correct als not all allocation are made from there. This comes from the Thai fiscal budget 2013-2014

I am all in favour of free medical care, but it should be "means tested".  In that way, the poor are provided for, but the more affluent in society would pay some, or all, of the cost of their medical care on a scale, and depending upon their "relative" wealth.  Government funds are not unlimited.  It would also be a self-policing way of constraining (affluent) individuals who may otherwise abuse the system.  They would think twice before going to a doctor's rooms or out patients' (ER) facilities for a trivial medical complaint which they could effectively treat themselves and easily afford.  I believe this is one of the problems with the British NHS system.  People (many of them hypochondriacs)  are tying it up with minor illnesses;  binge drinkers and other abusers, who should not be able to access the largesse of the system.

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Eric,

 

Your numbers are wrong its 10% of the budget your 4,2% comes from the health department but money is added from other sources too. I found your 4% in the budget but its not correct als not all allocation are made from there. This comes from the Thai fiscal budget 2013-2014

Sorry you right. What I meant to represent is GDP not budget. As a percentage of GDP, the spending is in line with most countries. 

It should be for the citizens of that particular country and be strictly enforced by the Government, however the once great NHS is overwhelmed with foreigners using it for free, shit Nigerians with HIV or ready to give birth to triplets and more fly in and cost millions. I always visit my GP on my returns and the waiting room always has about 70% of foreigners in there. 

Depends if the healthcare system is throughly corrupted or the money actually goes to taking care of the patients. No system is better than a corrupted one.

5 hours ago, 473geo said:

Have never agreed that higher taxes to make top quality healthcare available for all is an issue for the taxpayer. An increase in tax to be delivered direct into the healthcare funds providing an improved healthcare system for all would be accepted by many.

So why do governments not increase 'health tax'. I think it is the fear of failing to meet expectation. Hence the farming out of healthcare services.

 

 

 

The billions collected in cigarette and alcohol  tax doesn't find its way to the NHS, yet the reasoning  behind high taxation on these products is the extra cost the users burden on the system 

If there was a simple answer to get equal top notch medical care under any kind of progrann run by a government successfully, most countries would have implemented it. 

The best privately insured individuals will always have faster and better access and get the most expensive medical options with less hassle. A top notch international, private and full coverage insurance for a 70 year old cost anywhere from 12,000 to 18,000 Euros per year. Not something most people can afford. With that kind of insurance you can have immediate access to top medical specialists, scans, treatments etc. in country and hospitals of your choice. How can Universal Healthcare level the playing field ever? Even countries with mandatory basic full insurance and a social net that pays for the underprivileged have 2 or 3 tier systems. 

Sad, but reality and who will come up with workable longterm solution will certainly be a future Nobel laureate. MS>

I think it is pretty easy to figure this stuff out looking at case examples. There was a shark attack victim not too long ago. She was airlifted to the hospital. Doctors trying to save her leg. 

 

We just have to ask ourselves if we think this woman should be having to worry about losing her apartment, losing her son, losing her job and her entire life... just because she had a terrible accident. 

 

The answer is so terribly clear, I am sorry but I think it is a joke. That could be any one of us. Things like this happen everyday, and people's lives go down the tubes even with insurance. The govt acts like it has a lot to do. As far as I can tell they mainly seem to just be taking care of themselves. I believe govt provided healthcare should be the number one role of govt, perhaps even coming before building roads, but DEFINITELY before doing things like going into unnecessary wars. 

Edited October 21, 20187 yr by utalkin2me

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Sorry you right. What I meant to represent is GDP not budget. As a percentage of GDP, the spending is in line with most countries. 

Still 10% of budget is not a little thing, problem is not only the cost.. but the small taxpayer base in Thailand.

My wife is a lifelong gov hospital nurse here in thailand soon to retire. The problem here isnt the budget amount allocated to the hospitals its where it ends up, and with most ministries budgets here you can guess where the lions share of it goes.

4 hours ago, baansgr said:

The billions collected in cigarette and alcohol  tax doesn't find its way to the NHS, yet the reasoning  behind high taxation on these products is the extra cost the users burden on the system 

It is possible some of the revenue is diverted elsewhere that the 'investment' level in the NHS is maintained, perhaps some of the less obvious effects of smoking and drinking, like the fire service, street cleaners sweeping up the cigarette butts, mental issues caused by alcohol, burglaries, theft, assault, emergency services for drink drive incidents.....if you get my drift

As I stated a higher tax directly into healthcare service would probably be accepted if there was delivered a top class service.

Yes, mental insurance for such silly posts. 

27 minutes ago, 473geo said:

It is possible some of the revenue is diverted elsewhere that the 'investment' level in the NHS is maintained, perhaps some of the less obvious effects of smoking and drinking, like the fire service, street cleaners sweeping up the cigarette butts, mental issues caused by alcohol, burglaries, theft, assault, emergency services for drink drive incidents.....if you get my drift

As I stated a higher tax directly into healthcare service would probably be accepted if there was delivered a top class service.

Im all for extra taxation to fund the NHS as you stated I dont think its an issue, its the Government not directing the funds and making best use of them

19 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Yes, mental insurance for such silly posts. 

Go on have another beer ????????

No-one should ever be allowed to die from an easily treatable disease or injury just because they do not have money. That is just immoral. But, on the other hand, there has to be an upper limit. It is wrong to spend one million dollars to save one person if that money could alleviate the suffering of 10 others.

 

Governments should allocate a set amount of money (as a percentage of GDP, or government income, whatever) and then needs to decide what is and isn't covered, or maybe partially covered. Spending money on treating  self inflicted health issues like obesity, alcoholism etc. needs to be capped - you may get some treatment but only if it is cost effective. 

 

The money raised should come from direct taxation (VAT or income tax) so that if more money is needed it can be voted on (by referendum?) and people know exactly how much more it would cost them before they vote.

I think the poll options are inadequate.

 

Some level of universal healthcare is obviously necessary for any nation.

For example it doesn't make sense to invest in education if there are no efforts to improve health of students.

 

The question is how much national resources should be spent on healthcare.

 

There should also be mechanisms to ensure:

- citizens use healthcare resources responsibly

- the full range of healthcare treatments are available to some degree so future doctors can be trained in all specialities

- national healthcare resources are spent in the most effective way for the collective benefit of the nation, meaning priorization of available treatments but also of patients (triage)

- a balance between costs and tax burden is maintained

- a system of private insurances complement what the government provides

 

 

18 hours ago, robblok said:

Healthcare without limits will only burden the state. All nice up until they have to raise the taxes then everyone starts to complain. Everyone wants "free" healthcare but nobody wants to pay for it all by taxes.

 

In my country most medical things are free, but not everything and not everything is done either. I doubt it is different in the UK. Many real costly experimental treatments are not done nor are all medicine always paid for. You just have to limit it because with the ever advancing healthcare options it get more and more expensive. You just can't expect a government (and by extension the working people) to pay for every thing. 

 

Sometimes they have to choose, why give a 77 year old a new hip when you can also use that money on young children. Its not nice.. but as money is not unlimited (as nobody wants high taxes) choices have to be made as to what is sensible and what is not. I would not like that job but I really understand that limits have to be set to what is done and paid for to not break the system.

the patent is a problem its set the price on medicals and equipment 

the most if not all research is governmental supported by up 80 or 90 % if not 100% 

the private there donate money get tax reduction and others are not private partly or fully own by the government which is you and me 

why you want to give patent to somebody so they can make big money on you and your family on human basic right

you can in private technology there by far outmach any medicals or equipment in develop price and functionality find cheap prices 

a example from me i use eyedrops the one brand from hospital is 1600 bath for20 pieces i pay 280 bath different brand 40 pieces

the same goes for a hip too if he is 77 years give him might be a cheap model same quality (in my case the eyedrops is better not only cheap)

the price is shown threw the lack of transparency in the way until it reach the consumer 

so yes from me and a big no for any patent or any lack of competition

and move leading doctors around every second year and the politican in charge every year and always one from the opposition in the seat

problems yes but transparency and competition outside and inside 

i will say that will be good for a starter and after that a discussion into the depth of how far the free medical shall go in comparison to the tax we are willing to pay is more accurate

for now we dont know what is going on in our home countries but i assume we all like the idea of public medical where all get a chance