Free Healthcare for lawbreakers?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh come now, if we're going into sensationalist terms at least make it an accurate assessment of the situation you're proposing. No-one to date has turned up to an NHS-run Emergency Department and been told that because they lived in E2 rather than E5, they were not eligible to receive care which they have, by right through National Insurance contributions, already paid for. What you're proposing is that when a paramedic turns up to potentially rescue someone from life-threatening burns, they should be considering whether they're worthy of being taken to hospital or not for no other reason other than they may (key word) have committed a crime in sustaining the burns.

 

You can attempt to deflect the sheer lunacy, some would say inhumanity, of the criteria you're proposing by pointing out that our care system has flaws elsewhere, and you'd be right to point out that those flaws exist, but it doesn't take anything away from the fact that what you're saying makes no sense, would lead to a poorer prognosis for the casualties concerned, and runs contrary to just about every professional guideline set out by the GMC and the RCN. Just so you can sit on a high horse.

 

And then you have the audacity to accuse us of being "trendy".

[Guest jrhairychest]

Oh come now, if we're going into sensationalist terms at least make it an accurate assessment of the situation you're proposing. No-one to date has turned up to an NHS-run Emergency Department and been told that because they lived in E2 rather than E5, they were not eligible to receive care which they have, by right through National Insurance contributions, already paid for. What you're proposing is that when a paramedic turns up to potentially rescue someone from life-threatening burns, they should be considering whether they're worthy of being taken to hospital or not for no other reason other than they may (key word) have committed a crime in sustaining the burns.

 

Now youre changing the argument to suit. Have I said not to give life-saving treatment to criminals? Try again.

 

You can attempt to deflect the sheer lunacy, some would say inhumanity, of the criteria you're proposing by pointing out that our care system has flaws elsewhere, and you'd be right to point out that those flaws exist, but it doesn't take anything away from the fact that what you're saying makes no sense, would lead to a poorer prognosis for the casualties concerned, and runs contrary to just about every professional guideline set out by the GMC and the RCN. Just so you can sit on a high horse.

 

And then you have the audacity to accuse us of being "trendy".

 

Lunacy? Lets look at that shall we? Youre defending the likes of murderers, rapists, wife beaters, muggers, paedophiles and all other such manner of societies garbage to have treatment other than life-saving. These are the same people who at some point didnt care about the rights of someone else and in many cases harmed or destroyed innocent peoples lives. But that doesnt matter does it, as long as theyre looked after? Thats what crime does. Have you figured that out yet or are you still complaining it is their right? I suppose itd give them serious psychological problems if we also removed their Playstations, TVs and other toys? Perhaps wed better not offend them by using harsh language too? Perhaps some Andrex wet roll loo paper in case they chafe themselves on poo duty?

 

Do yourself a favour Ginger, go volunteer for victim support, go see what crime really does to people and get some real world experience. Come back and tell me that you still believe in all this equality in medical care crap.

[The Dark Lord]

You know you're arguing with someone who actually went to medical school to become a doctor, correct? I'd wager that he at least knows a lot more than you do about this subject, so it's sort of pointless for you to act smug about everything. It makes yourself look like a blithering idiot.

[Randox]

Something I'd like to point out...

 

Jrhairrychest, what I see you as advocating is a retribution based justice system, where substandard health care is part of the retribution (whether that's your line of thought is irrelevant, all that's relevant to my point is the result). This would be in contrast to a rehabilitation based justice system like Norway.

 

Here is an article on Norwegian Justice system.

Here is one on one of their prisions, which notes the Recidivisim rate of criminals. According to the article, the recidivisim rate for the US and the UK is around 50 to 60%. A couple years after that prision was built in Norway, they are looking at a recidivisim rate of about 20%.

 

My point is, that counter to intuition, rehabilitating criminals and trying to make them productive members of society seems to work a lot better then throwing them in Jail for as long as possible (the deterrent system). The problem with substandard healthcare is twofold the way I see it. First, your alienating them from the society you want them to integrate into, by making them into second class citizens. Your strait up telling them they are worth less than someone else because of the choices they made, even though I figure there is a pretty good chance those choices were driven by circumstance (this is why poverty leads to a higher crime rate), and I bet that does wonders for any effort to try and turn them into something other than a criminal so that they aren't back in jail in a couple years after being released.

 

The other problem is if you leave them with injuries, especially visible ones, your making it harder for them to integrate into society, even if they are trying. Things like excessive scarring that could have been prevented with better treatment.

 

Even from a money standpoint, if rehabilitation is the goal, then if you succeed in turning them into non criminals, the money saved by not paying for them in jail will almost certainly pay for their medical care.

[Jaffy1]

The other problem is if you leave them with injuries, especially visible ones, your making it harder for them to integrate into society, even if they are trying. Things like excessive scarring that could have been prevented with better treatment.

 

Even from a money standpoint, if rehabilitation is the goal, then if you succeed in turning them into non criminals, the money saved by not paying for them in jail will almost certainly pay for their medical care.

 

Not providing free healthcare for lawbreakers does not equal providing no healthcare for them.

 

In a situation where it is a known that criminals injuring themselves whilst breaking the law (excluding minor offences as discussed previously) will not receive free healthcare- it may discourage them from behaving such a way. Of course they should be given healthcare when needed, but (in my opinion) that does not mean it should be free and paid for by the society they harmed by whichever criminal activity they were doing whilst getting injured.

[Furah]

The other problem is if you leave them with injuries, especially visible ones, your making it harder for them to integrate into society, even if they are trying. Things like excessive scarring that could have been prevented with better treatment.

 

Even from a money standpoint, if rehabilitation is the goal, then if you succeed in turning them into non criminals, the money saved by not paying for them in jail will almost certainly pay for their medical care.

 

Not providing free healthcare for lawbreakers does not equal providing no healthcare for them.

 

In a situation where it is a known that criminals injuring themselves whilst breaking the law (excluding minor offences as discussed previously) will not receive free healthcare- it may discourage them from behaving such a way. Of course they should be given healthcare when needed, but (in my opinion) that does not mean it should be free and paid for by the society they harmed by whichever criminal activity they were doing whilst getting injured.

That's like saying that if we were to put gun-free zones everywhere, criminals wouldn't use guns in those areas. Do you really think that the lack of free healthcare will stop criminals?

[Jaffy1]

That's like saying that if we were to put gun-free zones everywhere, criminals wouldn't use guns in those areas. Do you really think that the lack of free healthcare will stop criminals?

 

Of course not. It won't stop criminals, but it may get them to not to injure themselves as much. The point was, however, that I don't really see a reason for them to receive free healthcare, whereas it may cause certain criminals to reconsider certain dangerous acts, knowing it would come along with a nice medical bill if it goes wrong.

 

Of course I'm not saying it will, but I do reckon it may be possible.

[Kimberly]

Of course I'm not saying it will, but I do reckon it may be possible.

 

If it did, then this whole point of discussion (ie meth burn victims) would never have been a problem in the first place.

[obfuscator]

You honestly think that a criminal in an illegal meth lab is going to stop making meth because he knows he could be stuck with a medical bill?

[obfuscator]

Taking healthcare away from one group to help another is in no way an improvement. If anything we should be looking elsewhere for the funding, such as the failing war on drugs.

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least).

Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed.

[sees_all1]

Taking healthcare away from one group to help another is in no way an improvement. If anything we should be looking elsewhere for the funding, such as the failing war on drugs.

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least).

Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed.

You can never remove "profit," unless you want your system to suffer dramatically.

 

You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved.

[obfuscator]

Taking healthcare away from one group to help another is in no way an improvement. If anything we should be looking elsewhere for the funding, such as the failing war on drugs.

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least).

Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed.

You can never remove "profit," unless you want your system to suffer dramatically.

 

You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved.

 

The Canadian medical system is not "for profit", and it's just fine.

[Zierro]

Lunacy? Let’s look at that shall we? You’re defending the likes of murderers, rapists, wife beaters, muggers, paedophiles and all other such manner of societies garbage to have treatment other than life-saving. These are the same people who at some point didn’t care about the rights of someone else and in many cases harmed or destroyed innocent peoples lives. But that doesn’t matter does it, as long as they’re looked after? That’s what crime does. Have you figured that out yet or are you still complaining it is their right? I suppose it’d give them serious psychological problems if we also removed their Playstations, TV’s and other toys? Perhaps we’d better not offend them by using harsh language too? Perhaps some Andrex wet roll loo paper in case they chafe themselves on poo duty?

 

Do yourself a favour Ginger, go volunteer for victim support, go see what crime ‘really’ does to people and get some real world experience. Come back and tell me that you still believe in all this equality in medical care crap.

 

I agree to a point (those who wish to destroy the very foundation of society do not deserve the aid of the very thing they tried destroying - it's a kick in the face to the victims, and rather encouraging to twisted minds). However, we all know how muddled things like this can get. Maybe we don't know if he was guilty or not. Maybe there was more to the story. Maybe personal biases and emotions are becoming too involved. There's not enough time to cover all the legality and/or morality issues when literally every second counts. I really do think "act now, ask later" is the best system to go by.

[sees_all1]

Taking healthcare away from one group to help another is in no way an improvement. If anything we should be looking elsewhere for the funding, such as the failing war on drugs.

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least).

Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed.

You can never remove "profit," unless you want your system to suffer dramatically.

 

You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved.

 

The Canadian medical system is not "for profit", and it's just fine.

Just because something isn't labeled "for profit" doesn't mean it doesn't profit. If there really was no profit in the healthcare system, no one would waste their time with working there.

[obfuscator]

Taking healthcare away from one group to help another is in no way an improvement. If anything we should be looking elsewhere for the funding, such as the failing war on drugs.

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least).

Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed.

You can never remove "profit," unless you want your system to suffer dramatically.

 

You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved.

 

The Canadian medical system is not "for profit", and it's just fine.

Just because something isn't labeled "for profit" doesn't mean it doesn't profit. If there really was no profit in the healthcare system, no one would waste their time with working there.

 

People get paid, and paid well. It's a job. But there aren't owners and shareholders desperate to squeeze ever ounce of money out of people, and there aren't customers in the traditional sense.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Something I'd like to point out...

 

Jrhairrychest, what I see you as advocating is a retribution based justice system, where substandard health care is part of the retribution (whether that's your line of thought is irrelevant, all that's relevant to my point is the result). This would be in contrast to a rehabilitation based justice system like Norway.

 

Here is an article on Norwegian Justice system.

Here is one on one of their prisions, which notes the Recidivisim rate of criminals. According to the article, the recidivisim rate for the US and the UK is around 50 to 60%. A couple years after that prision was built in Norway, they are looking at a recidivisim rate of about 20%.

 

My point is, that counter to intuition, rehabilitating criminals and trying to make them productive members of society seems to work a lot better then throwing them in Jail for as long as possible (the deterrent system). The problem with substandard healthcare is twofold the way I see it. First, your alienating them from the society you want them to integrate into, by making them into second class citizens. Your strait up telling them they are worth less than someone else because of the choices they made, even though I figure there is a pretty good chance those choices were driven by circumstance (this is why poverty leads to a higher crime rate), and I bet that does wonders for any effort to try and turn them into something other than a criminal so that they aren't back in jail in a couple years after being released.

 

The other problem is if you leave them with injuries, especially visible ones, your making it harder for them to integrate into society, even if they are trying. Things like excessive scarring that could have been prevented with better treatment.

 

Even from a money standpoint, if rehabilitation is the goal, then if you succeed in turning them into non criminals, the money saved by not paying for them in jail will almost certainly pay for their medical care.

 

The article has to be put into context. The same article admits that Norway already has a low crime rate. It also has a much lower population than the UK (4.8m against 60m+ in two countries of roughly equal size). Norway also has different values to countries like the UK and seems more community spirited. That went the way of the Dodo years ago in the UK thanks to the labour government and its mass immigration policies, its softness on crime and its inability to organise a pissup in a brewery. That shows no signs of improvement yet. Norway is also not hamstrung by the decisions on its policy by the EU, as its not a member so it doesnt have the same issues. It can deal with things how it sees fit. Its apples and oranges.

 

Rehabilitation costs money and it isnt guaranteed to work. Then what? You rehabilitate them again? A simple bit of maths could say what is the offending rate of a criminal in prison on the rest of society? 0%. Rehabilitation sounds all well and good but in reality its the cheaper option to prison. Ask those people whose lives have been made a misery by the dregs of society what they want to happen to offenders - Theyd choose prison Ill guarantee you. The UK is a retributive society. It always will be. Polls as recent as 2010 shows that at least half the UK population supports the death penalty, more in specific murder crimes. That should say quite a lot. It is not the attitude by our liberal politicians simply because theyve never really understood what society has to put up with. Most are wealthy and live away from the undesirable elements.

 

I was on the understanding that people made their own decisions, so if theyre alienated from society they took that step via their own actions so it is their responsibility. Most could drag themselves out of the mire if they REALLY want to. Im also a believer that you make your own choices in life. No-one needs to turn to crime in the UK. Its a choice that people make. I dont give excuses such as circumstance. Unfortunately both the criminal and society looks for every excuse in the book (home, education, money, my mum turned out to be a man etc.) not to place responsibility on the criminals shoulders. Poverty in the UK is relative. Living and social standards in the UK have improved a great deal in many areas in the last 40 years. No adult in the UK, for example, needs to steal to eat. There are social safeguards, benefits, exclusions from certain rates, housing support etc. Real poverty exists in places like Africa where you may have no other choice.

 

Im not sure where youre going with the visible injury thing. Theres plenty of people who do just fine with visible injuries not inflicted in prison so why would that matter?

 

I agree to a point (those who wish to destroy the very foundation of society do not deserve the aid of the very thing they tried destroying - it's a kick in the face to the victims, and rather encouraging to twisted minds). However, we all know how muddled things like this can get. Maybe we don't know if he was guilty or not. Maybe there was more to the story. Maybe personal biases and emotions are becoming too involved. There's not enough time to cover all the legality and/or morality issues when literally every second counts. I really do think "act now, ask later" is the best system to go by.

I don't disgaree with life-saving treatment. I assume that's what you're saying.

[Alg]

Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed.

You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved.

I was just thinking that with the way healthcare is in the US, you'd need some huge overhaul of both/either the healthcare industry and/or government... If healthcare remains as expensive as it currently is and gets nationalized, we won't be able to afford it, and with the way the government's been behaving recently they won't be willing to manage it. Unlike other countries, the US has 300 million people or so, that might have an affect on what we can and can't do with healthcare.

 

Of course, I'm uninformed and uninterested in politics, so take the above with a grain of salt.