Wooli

[idun]

I have tried several times to open that link about the all the perks of health care and it won't open.

And then I tried to write a post about it not opening and there is no reply button on it either. Which is why I am typing a separate thread.

If the post is about what I think it is about, then I knew that these things were available, and thought that in Germany there were even more of these things, like thermal respite etc.

I have mixed feelings about this. I have no idea how much such things actually do help, although I am sure that all who go to them find them rather pleasant.

[Patf]

Copy and paste works for me Idun.

I heard about these thermal treatments for french people who have a certain level of health cover from my hairdresser, ages ago. She had broken her ankle and part of her 're-education' was 2 weeks in a posh Spa. All expenses paid.

[NormanH]

I can read the link but not reply to the post.

It intrigues me to know why WB considers it a "racket".

As far as I know the 'treatment' is paid for but the " curistes" have to pay accommodation and food etc, so the spa towns provide employment and a boost to the local economy.

[woolybanana]

Given the far too long list of ailments that it they are supposed to ‘help’, I am pretty sure that the treatments on offer give very short term relief or are rather like homeopathy.

Their continuance as a reimbursed pseudo treatment, at least in this abundant form is something the taxpayer should not have to bear, unless the treatments are subjected to the same rigorous testing regime as drugs.

[mint]

It really is too simplistic to talk about rigorous testing and short term relief (quoting Wools here).

So what if these places do not "cure" or give you relief from your ailments forever?  Clearly, you have a very limited view of what might benefit patients.

Some illnesses are NEVER curable (some form of arthritis, lung conditions, some cancers), so are you suggesting that relief of symptoms, be they physical, psychological, mental, should be denied patients or only be available to patients with the ability to pay?

As an unqualified person, Wools, I would suggest that you are in no position to decide on what treatments are beneficial and which are "pseudo treatment".  Our health and wellbeing is a very complex matter, we are made up of skin, bones, organs, but also of spirit and attitude and all the intermingled elements of body and mind.

Many doctors in Western society are very good at treating illnesses and diseases but are less good at taking a holistic view of our health.  And that is entirely understandable:  you take out an appendix and the patient's pain is relieved and can be discharged from hospital, you treat someone for diabetes and voilà their disease is no longer a problem.  But what else might help someone to endure their maladies with more fortitude or acceptance? 

Some measures are simple:  give a poorly person the right diet to help them heal and increase their appetite, help a bed-bound man to shave or woman to put on some light make-up before accepting visitors.  Some require rather more input from the carers, for example, terminally ill people might be put in hospices.

From generalities, I will give you a particular example from my own experience.  Last year, when I was suffering daily from constant coughing and repeated infections as a result of chemotherapy, I considered going away from my home to a thermal cure centre near our previous home.  I looked up their programme for people like me and the lodgings available in that town.  I was desperate to get away and felt that a short stay would be really beneficial.  I decided against in the end because my spirits were so low that I couldn't face packing my stuff and travelling to the thermal place and staying away from my own home.  In the end, it took me over 9 months to get some relief from my symptoms and only after seeing more specialists and making several more trips to the hospital.  I reckon that all that going back and forth for consultations possibly cost the state more in the end.

What I say is, there are horses for courses and you need not fear the state (whichever state it is) would readily expend sums of money without evidence of positive outcomes.

[NormanH]

And it isn't 'the taxpayer' who pays. They are funded by the Sécurité Sociale out of the côtisations  for health which are clearly distinct from other areas such as pensions or unemployment.

This is very clear from the breakdown on payslips.

In any case people who  have been on S1s have paid nothing towards this.

[woolybanana]

Norman, I was not talking about myself or any specific group.

And cotisations for health are a tax, whichever way you look at it, being compulsory and however it is disguised.