Originally Posted by
ragingpup
I've always thought that if something is worth having in principle (free at point of delivery through NI contributions, it doesn't seem to beyond wit and wisdom to just lead on making it not a shambles, shake it up, manage it better but keep the principle.
Is the real reason though that people have such strong objections to the NHS is that they disagree with the basic priciple pf everyone paying in through NI and whilst being healthy themselves resenting that their contributions are being used to support NHS users that don't pay in as much? And therefore do these folk mainly just want a system of private health insurance where you pay your own and not contribute to anyone else's/wider institution etc. If that is the case, best just say that, and not just keep going on about perceived NHS ineffiencies?
All for reviewing and shaking up to manage the inefficiencies better, but can't help but thinking that some of the passionate objections are more on the wider principle of the NHS. Not really seen a convincing alternative from other countries that do better at making health protection more financially viable whilst at the same time making it so that lack of money doesn't prevent many people having access to health protection. Open to reconsider though.
Hope all ok with missus Lol