Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

...

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ...
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    ...
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    tl:dr version?
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's pretty simple because these people are moderate capitalist and can recognize the efficiency of the markets over state-control but can also recognize their limitations and inefficiency. This is the position of the majority of economist. It's not hypocritical. For example, lets say you believe the car is the most efficient method of transport for most part but you're now in central London, is it still the most efficient method of transport? I'd say no and public transport is better. Was this hypocritical of you? No. This doesn't apply to private schools though. The arguments for private schools are generally based on morality than economic efficiency.

    Do you support state police? Or state courts? Or state armies? If yes, why? If I took your premise to be true (i.e. markets do better always), then I'd come to the conclusion that a anarcho-capitalism is the answer and everything should be privatized.

    If you want to have a debate as to the specifics as to why state-run healthcare is more efficient than private healthcare then can't really answer because I lack the knowledge. Although;

    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    ...
    seems to be someone who doesn't.
    • 32 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Some things are provided better by the government than the market.

    However education is something I think would be a million times better if a market mechanism was used over the current central plan. Educational school vouchers really are ****ing fantastic idea.

    Healthcare, mehhhh. Hard to say. When you put it in context, the NHS is pretty good. Not to say it is perfect. And it is nice that people in the UK do not live in fear of getting ill and being unable to pay for it.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cable)
    And some people say that private healthcare will lead to people not being treated properly so that they have to keep coming back to the hospitals for treatment and the hospitals make more profit. Well, let's look at the food industry. How do you know that every food/drink is not filled with undetectable substances that get you addicted to those particular foods/drinks and makes you keep buying more of said foods/drinks? Or who's to say that foods/drinks that you consume aren't or won't be filled with small undetectable amounts of free radicals and other substances that can deplete your anti-oxidant reserves and/or can make you age quicker so that you keep buying more fruits/vegs/fruity foods and drinks/beauty products to replenish your anti-oxidant and anti-ageing stores or mask your rapidly ageing face? Who's to say that all foods/drinks aren't filled with different mild poisons/toxic substances that slowly have bad effects in humans as the toxins build up over time and can lead to markets making more profits? For example, if better effective drugs against obesity are finally produced, what's to stop markets producing foods/drinks that contain susbtances that easily cause obesity in people born with mutant genes (coding for the person to become obese) or leading to people with normal genotypes becoming obese, which then leads to loads of people buying the anti-obesity drugs over and over again and then the drug companies passing on some of their profits to the food companies for colluding with them to deliberately cause consumers' to become obese and go to the drug companies for help? And funnily enough, if someone feels they're not being treated properly and/or are being taken for a ride in a hospital/clinic, then they can just go to another clinic/hospital for a better service.
    lol do you really believe the food industry operates in an unregulated free market and that left wingers would support this state of affairs? Did you even think before hitting 'submit'?
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You already do pay for other peoples food op, its what benefits are for so the poor can buy things they need to live, I can't see the government paying for health insurance for the poor if the nhs goes can you?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    So let me get this straight: You make a huge leap from "we should have government funded health care/ education"- a socialist concept- to "therefore socialists logically should be in favour of the government rationing food"- something that the farthest left would deem radical. Not only that, but you then continue to tell yourself why that is such a silly idea. You can't answer yourself why you're being silly here?

    I dunno if anyone has noticed this, but apparently food and health/ education are all different things. One attempts to give people knowledge, one increases your likelyhood to live a long and enjoyable life, and one you can eat. Food cannot work as a government- owned thing. There's leaps between whats cheapest and whats most desireable; what's economic and what's ethical to distribute. Before you were able to make an argument for government- rationed food, you'd have to disregard living in a capitalist society altogether.

    Private Business has only reason to exist, and that is for profit. You can be as tree hugging, ethically superior as you like, but you're not gunna get investers interested unless you make them happy. This is apparent in the food industry already, with processed foods playing a large role in lower/middle class lives. Now imagine how it would be when the people who are meant to educate and save lives are now playing the money game? Prepare for things such as cheaper equipment, layoffs, loss of service and a plethora of cut corners made in the race for the almighty dollar. Not to mention private education, with far higher costs for nothing more in return for being able to be inside a "prestigious" (code for rich) school. There was a point in history where getting an education was nowhere near a financial delemna, and people would enroll in the quest for bettering oneself. Nowadays when you sign up for any post- high school education you're essentially making yourself a debt slave for a large portion of your life. The differences between those days and now? Budget cuts and privatization.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Some things are provided better by the government than the market.

    However education is something I think would be a million times better if a market mechanism was used over the current central plan. Educational school vouchers really are ****ing fantastic idea.

    Healthcare, mehhhh. Hard to say. When you put it in context, the NHS is pretty good. Not to say it is perfect. And it is nice that people in the UK do not live in fear of getting ill and being unable to pay for it.
    and then every good ex state school massively hikes its prices leaving the poor with even worse schools than they have now, brilliant idea

    edit:would my negger like to explain why i am wrong?

    oh wait im not there is not competition in education, every child needs a place, schools have limited places, so can charge what they like, similar to healtchare and why these industries should never be private
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    would someone care to answer me?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cable)
    There are many people who are suffering malnutrition as a result because they can't afford much food after paying other bills.
    In Britain, not really. Unless you count obesity as malnutrition, which technically you could, but that's not due to a lack of money.

    Ultimately people don't care about this because the government gives cash transfers that let people buy food. They could do this for health and education but it isn't as easy for a few reasons I won't get into now. Essentially you can't give a fixed-ish sum to each adult and have it work out - health costs are highly variable and education would require giving a child benefit of like £5k/year.

    That said there are ways to make these systems a lot more private than now and keep them universal.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    would someone care to answer me?
    You won't get one. People who are pro- privitization don't support it for any moral good, they just want the best price for the best procedures while the rest of the population is **** outta luck.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well there're always alternatives, if you don't trust the NHS (a beautiful thing, come the privatization of healthcare and - as in America - the poor will be hit), there's private healthcare, if you don't like state schools, you can send your children off to mingle with the financial elite (private schools).

    However you've made an error in your way of thinking I'm afraid, Healthcare and education are both services whereas food is a resource. You're basically assuming that if somebody wants one thing to be state-run they should want all things to be state-run, which is a poor assumption to make.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    lol do you really believe the food industry operates in an unregulated free market and that left wingers would support this state of affairs? Did you even think before hitting 'submit'?
    Yes I did think before "hitting submit". Shame you didn't do the same.

    You see...if you care to read that part of my OP that you quoted again, you would see that I mentioned "undetectable" a few times. What I was trying to say was that the private companies could have come up with methods of making their dangerous substances undetectable. And of course, this can lead to harmful effects on the masses.

    But if you really read my post properly and understood what I was saying, what I was trying to bring across is that private hospitals colluding together to make patients ill in a slightly free market system is just as unlikely as private food companies colluding to make the masses ill so that they can make more profit. The fact is that sooner or later, someone is going to suspect something is wrong with the service they're getting from the hospital and leave, try and sue the hospitals if possible and ruin the image of the hospital, putting them out of business. Unless of course, the patient is a bit dim and can't realise when he's been taken advantage of.

    So for anti-private hospitals people to keep using the hypothetical situation of hospitals deliberately keeping patients ill as one of the reasons to prevent the privatisation of the NHS is just silly.

    And btw, surely you know the governments/governing bodies don't provide perfect regulation of whether substances that can be consumed are safe? Haven't you heard of drugs that had been advocated by the gov't that were later removed from the market after several harmful effects of the drugs were discovered later?
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    You already do pay for other peoples food op, its what benefits are for so the poor can buy things they need to live, I can't see the government paying for health insurance for the poor if the nhs goes can you?
    Not everyone can get housing benefits to cover all their rent. Obviously, if they're on JSA, then they're not employed. Now, do you really think JSA and housing benefits (which might not be a lot) are enough to pay for all the rent and bills and food? The fact is that after the rent and bills are paid, they wouldn't have much left over for food.

    And what about homeless people? They don't get any benefits at all. Surely it would be nice for them to get free food from any supermarket?

    I don't want the gov't to pay for health insurance. And yes, I would be able to pay for my health bills if the nhs goes, provided that I find cheap prices and only go when I need to. Don't forget that there'll likely be more jobs (and wealth-creating jobs) in a slightly/completely free market system compared to the one we have today where there are a lot of jobs in the public sector which don't create much real wealth/GDP and drain our national GDP to fund those jobs. Due to more jobs in the free market system, due to lower prices generally in a free market system, due to more people keeping more of their money from lower taxes which can encourage donations to charity and any firends/relatives/neighbours willing to donate some money, a lot of people should be able to afford healthcare.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex5455)
    and then every good ex state school massively hikes its prices leaving the poor with even worse schools than they have now, brilliant idea

    edit:would my negger like to explain why i am wrong?

    oh wait im not there is not competition in education, every child needs a place, schools have limited places, so can charge what they like, similar to healtchare and why these industries should never be private
    Yes, the supply of education is lower than the demand so prices will set that can lead to a good profit. But at the same time, they can't just charge whatever they like because if they charge unaffordable prices, parents will sent their children to a cheaper but good quality school or pay for a private teacher to home-school their kids.

    What you have to understand is that if prices are not affordable, no-one will buy their services and that business/service provider will eventually go out of business due to no income. It's really simple.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harolinho)
    However you've made an error in your way of thinking I'm afraid, Healthcare and education are both services whereas food is a resource. You're basically assuming that if somebody wants one thing to be state-run they should want all things to be state-run, which is a poor assumption to make.
    In the context of my OP, it is a good assumption. In fact, it's a logical conclusion to make.

    P1. I don't like private healthcare because some hospitals can deliberately keep patients ill to make more profit and the healthcare might not be affordable for everyone.

    P2. As a result of a P1, I support a state-owned health service.

    P3. Many people starve (homeless people and people of very low incomes) because they can't afford food and drinks. Also, however unlikely it may be, it's not impossible for several food and drugs companies to collude together to make the masses ill to make more profit.

    C. If P1 and P3 are similar situations and P2 was the response to P1, then it is a logical conclusion to also want food and drink production and import to be gov't-owned.

    You can't have your cake and eat it. It's absurd to want public healthcare for a set of reasons but not want public food production, even though the reasons for supporting public healthcare are exactly applicable to supporting public food production and imports.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    Healthcare, mehhhh. Hard to say. When you put it in context, the NHS is pretty good. Not to say it is perfect. And it is nice that people in the UK do not live in fear of getting ill and being unable to pay for it.
    If we must have some form of public healthcare, the only thing I can support is a public A & E. That's as far as I'm willing to go personally.

    I agree that NHS has its advantages. But if there are so many people that are so supportive of it on the grounds that poor should be able to get free healthcare even if it comes out of taxpayers' pockets, then surely these people should be so eager to donate a lot of their money to charities to help the poor afford healthcare and education in a free market system? It would be interesting to see how many of these "morally good" people stick to their word and pay as much money as they can to support the poor in a free market system.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cable)
    Not everyone can get housing benefits to cover all their rent. Obviously, if they're on JSA, then they're not employed. Now, do you really think JSA and housing benefits (which might not be a lot) are enough to pay for all the rent and bills and food? The fact is that after the rent and bills are paid, they wouldn't have much left over for food.

    And what about homeless people? They don't get any benefits at all. Surely it would be nice for them to get free food from any supermarket?

    I don't want the gov't to pay for health insurance. And yes, I would be able to pay for my health bills if the nhs goes, provided that I find cheap prices and only go when I need to. Don't forget that there'll likely be more jobs (and wealth-creating jobs) in a slightly/completely free market system compared to the one we have today where there are a lot of jobs in the public sector which don't create much real wealth/GDP and drain our national GDP to fund those jobs. Due to more jobs in the free market system, due to lower prices generally in a free market system, due to more people keeping more of their money from lower taxes which can encourage donations to charity and any firends/relatives/neighbours willing to donate some money, a lot of people should be able to afford healthcare.
    thats a problem with the benefit system not a reason to take over the food supply. homeless people can get benefits now, its a new scheme i dont know much about and it might only be in certain areas but job centre give them an address to use

    so you want to leave those who cant afford health insurance to die from preventable diseases, you have no proof jobs would be created or that charities would spring up, if people are so charitable they wouldnt complain about the current system, and your belief in the free market is sadly misplaced, there is a huge knowledge gap between patient and doctor and the patient will generally do what the doctor says even if it is overcomplicated and overpriced

    so i dont have to do 2 posts with regards to schools, so once again under your proposed system the poor suffer, cant afford decent schooling so stay poor no decent school will stay at the voucher price or whatever system stays in place, education is about improving peoples lives not profit
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cable)
    ...
    I got what a came for.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: August 1, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.