Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,796
I disagree. Done properly, it can work. I wouldn't argue that the Australian system is perfect, but it is a system that works and it does incorporate elements of means testing. It's been a long time since I was directly exposed to it, but it doesn't result in people avoiding health care and it doesn't price people out.
For starters, the example you provide of the means testing you experience: I absolutely agree with you that that is a load of BS. Means testing should always be based on an individuals' *current* ability to pay, not on some historical ability. It should also be based on current liquid assets - I disagree with including the notional on-paper value of a house (for example), which I believe the Aussie system does look at.
There are genuine flaws with the 100% taxation based funding system that the UK uses. For starters, it's far too easy for those with the funds to pay for clever accountants to (legally) avoid.
Ultimately, though ... I'm flexible. We all want the same end product: a robust, well run, efficient health service that ensures that everyone has affordable (ideally free at point of access), easy access to health care where everyone pays a fair share into making that happen. Whether that's done purely through taxation, or other means, I'm not that fussed. But on the evidence of the last 10 years or so (and having a wife who works in the NHS and seen it all from the inside) I very much doubt either party will have the political fortitude to do it purely through taxation - which means looking at alternative options.
There are genuine flaws with the 100% taxation based funding system that the UK uses. For starters, it's far too easy for those with the funds to pay for clever accountants to (legally) avoid. I don't think many would disagree with that statement but what we should do is fix that problem , not create another.