Although it would cost less if these people were covered by the government in the first place.
How?
Treatments cost the same either way.
No they don't; this is privatised. That is, everything is inflated due to competition and business conditions. For example, (in the UK) any loans taken out by a private business come at a higher rate than the preferential ones given to public industries; also, there's no external source of funding or subsidisation as with public funded - not to mention the desire for profit. In essence, public funded health needs to provide adequate treatment (not always the best, albeit that's why people can go Bupa if they have the spare cash etc) for as cheap as possible, whereas the business interest of private health means they need to provide the most
profitable treatment.
Also, consider the normal response of business to money loss - to slash the budget through raising prices and sacking people. That means that (unlike where treatment is funded and paid for you by the state, with the price regulated accordingly by a rather bigger fish than the patient) any sort of loss by a private hospital is likely to lead to less quality (staff) and less availability (price). I mean, the statistics stand alone anyways - americans pay twice as much yet don't get a proportional return.
which is just one reason why anyone who smokes is a dumb****, but you have an inlienable right to be a dumb**** if you so desire
And the responsibility to accept the damn consequences.
People are always quick to assert their rights, but rarely accept the responsibilities that go with them. My problem with the UK government is the way it seems determined to protect people from the consequences of their stupidity.
People have a right to live; we can't exactly take a cancer patient and say "ooh, we
think this might be caused by you smoking, so you should go and die now". It's in the national interest to keep people healthy, anyways - when people get sick, it's not in isolation; family, friends, co-workers, etc all get affected. If you can't work, then you can't pay income tax.
The truth is that the British government isn't, IMO, any more of a nanny state than the US, it just does it in a different way. I've lost count of the number of times that I've seen criticism of the more reprehensible acts (desired to be) taken by our government, only to see the same thing being criticised has been silently inacted in the US. But at least I can console myself with the fact that not only is it very unlikely I'll be shot going down to by my morning paper, if I do I won't need to drag out my credit card to get the holes plugged up.
