pink poodle
気が狂っている男
Its not quite that clear cut some times. Plenty of those doctors working between both systems use the public to access clients, providing primary care in the public setting and then referring the patient to their private practice for ongoing treatment. To make a long bow comparison, if I was working in the tax office (say conducting tax audits) and some of my clients needed extra assistance to understand the complexities of what was happening and I referred them to my own private taxation advisory firm...I'd be in a lot of trouble.Another example - the surgeon I use (hypothetically)makes around $500k, he does 2 days public, 3 days private, he would only be paid 1/5th income for those 2 days. In my experience the vast majority of specialists do this sort of balance. They work the public system because that's just what you do, you train others, you do trauma etc - so is the private subsidising the public in that situation?
Sure our system is good, but that doesn't mean we should cease striving for a better system. How we define that is something our whole society should be deciding. While I personally agree with Haakon's sentiment that health should be free and equitable for all, I don't mind people choosing to pay more. I view education in a similar fashion. What I don't support is the bullshit that goes with it - private health companies not forking out the cash, the government coercing people to use private system at great cost while shunning the public system, and fear mongering the electorate come policy time that any change isn't an improvement but an attack on their freedoms or access to better health etc.
Add electricity, roads, trains, ports, and water supply/treatment to the list of shit that shouldn't be in private hands and I'll start to cheer up a little.