Who should pay for the BBC?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by jameswhughes
If they're so good, then why does payment have to be enforced by law? Let people have a choice.
Because human nature would mean that nobody would end up paying for a service that they use if given a choice.
It's a bit like going to the pub or a shop and making payment optional
If it is going to be funded by tax it should be funded the normal way. From the giant tax pot.
As it stands the license fee is a poor mans tax.
Do you have the same view of the NHS?
As it stands the license fee is a poor mans tax.
Original post by jameswhughes
If they're so good, then why does payment have to be enforced by law? Let people have a choice.
Do you have the same view of the NHS?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
Because human nature would mean that nobody would end up paying for a service that they use if given a choice.
It's a bit like going to the pub or a shop and making payment optional
It's a bit like going to the pub or a shop and making payment optional
I'm proposing a free market, not shoplifting. If people don't want something then why should they have to be forced with criminal prosecution to pay for it - if I don't want Sky Sports for example, I don't have to have it.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Do you have the same view of the NHS?
Do you have the same view of the NHS?
Yes, to an extent.
Original post by jameswhughes
I'm proposing a free market, not shoplifting. If people don't want something then why should they have to be forced with criminal prosecution to pay for it - if I don't want Sky Sports for example, I don't have to have it.
Yes, to an extent.
Yes, to an extent.
But the BBC provides a service that everybody has access to.
Original post by jameswhughes
Yes, to an extent.
Yes, to an extent.
What about the army and police force?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
Can't take the initials "BBC" seriously 
I know this is an old post but thanks for that.
I'm never going to be able to not see that now
Original post by MatureStudent36
But the BBC provides a service that everybody has access to.
So do loads of other organizations, what about paying a tax to everyone who runs a website?
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
What about the army and police force?
Policing is a separate matter as it can't be run by the private sector for obvious reasons. The private sector can provide competition and improve the service of healthcare, and like in other countries there could be a range of insurance and benefits to help people pay for it, I don't think anyone should lose out because they're poor. As for the army, I don't see how that is comprable to the NHS.
Original post by jameswhughes
Policing is a separate matter as it can't be run by the private sector for obvious reasons. The private sector can provide competition and improve the service of healthcare, and like in other countries there could be a range of insurance and benefits to help people pay for it, I don't think anyone should lose out because they're poor. As for the army, I don't see how that is comprable to the NHS.
Policing is a separate matter as it can't be run by the private sector for obvious reasons. The private sector can provide competition and improve the service of healthcare, and like in other countries there could be a range of insurance and benefits to help people pay for it, I don't think anyone should lose out because they're poor. As for the army, I don't see how that is comprable to the NHS.
The NHS is more cost efficient and has better outcomes than America's market based insurance system. It obviously isn't as simple as private = efficient, public ran = inefficient. That is just some neoliberal nonsense. As with the police there are plenty of reasons why private health care is not a good idea. Why are you against private police? Surely introducing privatization into the police force will stimulate competition and as a result provide better policing.
Why would I want to pay for someone elses health benefits that I gain nothing out of? I would rather pay into a health service that I actually benefit from as well. I would much rather pay for universal health care than for some poor person's private based care.
The army is funded by tax payers is why I brought it up. I am trying to bring to light the idea that not everything needs to be run via private markets. Or should be run like that. The BBC isn't like these examples. It wouldn't really bother me if it was scrapped (in its current form it has sold out anyway) but I don't see why a public funded broadcast station is fundamentally a bad idea. Also since we are talking about the army some of tech reasoning behind the NHS was that if we can find the money and the willpower to mobilize and pay for armies in wartime then we can mobilize and find the money to build hospitals and treat people in peace time.
Funny how army and police (both things that insure the status quo and protect the mega rich's wealth) are perfecty fine to be funded and ran by the public sector but health care must not (something which benefits the plebs and not the mega rich.)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
The NHS is more cost efficient and has better outcomes than America's market based insurance system. It obviously isn't as simple as private = efficient, public ran = inefficient. That is just some neoliberal nonsense. As with the police there are plenty of reasons why private health care is not a good idea. Why are you against private police? Surely introducing privatization into the police force will stimulate copmpetiotion and as a result provide better policing.
Why would I want to pay for someone elses health benefits that I gain nothing out of? I would rather pay into a health service that I actually benefit from as well. I would much rather pay for universal health care than for some poor person's private based care.
The army is funded by tax payers is why I brought it up. I am trying to bring to light the idea that not everything needs to be run via private markets. Or should be run like that. The BBC isn't like these examples. It wouldn't really bother me if it was scrapped (in its current form it has sold out anyway) but I don't see why a public funded broadcast station is fundamentally a bad idea.
Funny how army and police (both things that insure the status quo and protect the mega rich's wealth) are perfecty fine to be funded and ran by the public sector but health care must not (something which benefits the plebs and not the mega rich.)
Why would I want to pay for someone elses health benefits that I gain nothing out of? I would rather pay into a health service that I actually benefit from as well. I would much rather pay for universal health care than for some poor person's private based care.
The army is funded by tax payers is why I brought it up. I am trying to bring to light the idea that not everything needs to be run via private markets. Or should be run like that. The BBC isn't like these examples. It wouldn't really bother me if it was scrapped (in its current form it has sold out anyway) but I don't see why a public funded broadcast station is fundamentally a bad idea.
Funny how army and police (both things that insure the status quo and protect the mega rich's wealth) are perfecty fine to be funded and ran by the public sector but health care must not (something which benefits the plebs and not the mega rich.)
This happens every time in a healthcare debate, someone instantly says "oh look at the USA", but why not compare to other Western European nations like France and Germany instead? Their mixed systems give better results than in the UK.
Have a look at this - (http://www.cityam.com/article/why-french-model-may-have-answer-nhs-s-many-challenges)
Private police wouldn't work for obvious corruption reasons, and a police investigation is not the same as healthcare so it makes little sense to keep bringing them up together. Some things should be run by the private sector and some shouldn't, but you can't just equate any two - what next, state run supermarkets?
Also what's the difference between paying for universal health care and other people's benefits? You're effectively doing that anyway, unless you're getting taking more out than you're putting in, in which case it would be the other way round.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jameswhughes
This happens every time in a healthcare debate, someone instantly says "oh look at the USA", but why not compare to other Western European nations like France and Germany instead? Their mixed systems give better results than in the UK.
Have a look at this - (http://www.cityam.com/article/why-french-model-may-have-answer-nhs-s-many-challenges)
Private police wouldn't work for obvious corruption reasons, and a police investigation is not the same as healthcare so it makes little sense to keep bringing them up together. Some things should be run by the private sector and some shouldn't, but you can't just equate any two - what next, state run supermarkets?
Also what's the difference between paying for universal health care and other people's benefits? You're effectively doing that anyway, unless you're getting taking more out than you're putting in, in which case it would be the other way round.
Have a look at this - (http://www.cityam.com/article/why-french-model-may-have-answer-nhs-s-many-challenges)
Private police wouldn't work for obvious corruption reasons, and a police investigation is not the same as healthcare so it makes little sense to keep bringing them up together. Some things should be run by the private sector and some shouldn't, but you can't just equate any two - what next, state run supermarkets?
Also what's the difference between paying for universal health care and other people's benefits? You're effectively doing that anyway, unless you're getting taking more out than you're putting in, in which case it would be the other way round.
I'm glad that somebody else is saying to look at the European health model where everybody still has to have private healthcare insurance but the state picks up the bulk of the tab.
It's called tyranny. Pay for your own propaganda.
Who is actually watching ,listening to or entering the BBC?
UK citizens or non-UK citizens?
The BBC has clear policies? What are they?
To spread false or accurate info or to promote someone or something...or to brainwash the world?
I don't think the BBC affects my life. There are so many news agencies in the world. Really, I have too many choices. Competition is such a natural selection! Lol.
Posted from TSR Mobile
UK citizens or non-UK citizens?
The BBC has clear policies? What are they?
To spread false or accurate info or to promote someone or something...or to brainwash the world?
I don't think the BBC affects my life. There are so many news agencies in the world. Really, I have too many choices. Competition is such a natural selection! Lol.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MatureStudent36
Why not? The BBC provides a a service in a similar vain to the NHS.
If payement becomes optional with no form of penalty then there's no incentive to pay.
If payement becomes optional with no form of penalty then there's no incentive to pay.
People will pay when they feel it is worth it. They don't need to be forced to at gunpoint.
Also, comparing the BBC with the NHS??? Health, and a minority of people's entertainment...which would I rather be forced to pay for? NO-BRAINER....
Seriously, do some people THINK?
Original post by The Dictator
People will pay when they feel it is worth it. They don't need to be forced to at gunpoint.
Also, comparing the BBC with the NHS??? Health, and a minority of people's entertainment...which would I rather be forced to pay for? NO-BRAINER....
Seriously, do some people THINK?
Also, comparing the BBC with the NHS??? Health, and a minority of people's entertainment...which would I rather be forced to pay for? NO-BRAINER....
Seriously, do some people THINK?
I feel the NHS is worth it. But given an option of paying for it or not, I wouldn't. Why? Human nature is to get something for nothing.
The same goes for the Emergency services, education etc.
The other option is to go down the US model of television which is quite frankly appalling.
Live a little, open your eyes and you'll see some good in life.
Original post by MatureStudent36
I feel the NHS is worth it. But given an option of paying for it or not, I wouldn't. Why? Human nature is to get something for nothing.
The same goes for the Emergency services, education etc.
The other option is to go down the US model of television which is quite frankly appalling.
Live a little, open your eyes and you'll see some good in life.
The same goes for the Emergency services, education etc.
The other option is to go down the US model of television which is quite frankly appalling.
Live a little, open your eyes and you'll see some good in life.
I don't care about the BBC or anything that is on it. There are very few programs I find interesting. Why should I pay for a minority of people who think that the BBC is "value for money"?
Also, what is wrong with US television exactly? All I hear is British people bashing it, but I bet none of you snobs have actually watched US television. What about the people that prefer US television? Should they be forced at gunpoint to pay for the BBC?
If you advocate rounding people up and throwing them into concentration camps because they won't pay for your favourite TV Show, you are well and truly a sick human being.
Original post by MatureStudent36
I feel the NHS is worth it. But given an option of paying for it or not, I wouldn't. Why? Human nature is to get something for nothing.
The same goes for the Emergency services, education etc.
The other option is to go down the US model of television which is quite frankly appalling.
Live a little, open your eyes and you'll see some good in life.
The same goes for the Emergency services, education etc.
The other option is to go down the US model of television which is quite frankly appalling.
Live a little, open your eyes and you'll see some good in life.
Why is the American system appalling? If you don't like something there then you don't have to buy it, without being bullied using scare tactics. Americans don't get threatened with fines and court appearances if they want to cut off their cable.
Original post by jameswhughes
Why is the American system appalling? If you don't like something there then you don't have to buy it, without being bullied using scare tactics. Americans don't get threatened with fines and court appearances if they want to cut off their cable.
The American system is appalling because it panders to market forces.
The BBC is there to provide access to news, current affairs, educational programmes as well as entertainment.
Ever wondered why Americans aren't that worldly wise? Their news tv channels all chase after market share and that isn't always after the dull stuff that's important.
If the BBC is so bad, why do so many countries comment on what a great system it is?
Original post by MatureStudent36
The American system is appalling because it panders to market forces.
The BBC is there to provide access to news, current affairs, educational programmes as well as entertainment.
Ever wondered why Americans aren't that worldly wise? Their news tv channels all chase after market share and that isn't always after the dull stuff that's important.
If the BBC is so bad, why do so many countries comment on what a great system it is?
The BBC is there to provide access to news, current affairs, educational programmes as well as entertainment.
Ever wondered why Americans aren't that worldly wise? Their news tv channels all chase after market share and that isn't always after the dull stuff that's important.
If the BBC is so bad, why do so many countries comment on what a great system it is?
I don't care what people from other countries think. They don't control our television.
The BBC is called the British Broadcasing Corporation for a reason. It is not a business venture, yet it acts like one. If it was streamlined, there might still be a justification for paying, but in its current state it definitely does not have any legitimate claims on the public purse.
Do you know the ridiculous amounts that BBC executives are paid? Is this what our money is supposed to go to?
If you think people should be rounded up and incarcerated because they won't pay for Match of the Day, you have problems.
Original post by MatureStudent36
The American system is appalling because it panders to market forces.
The BBC is there to provide access to news, current affairs, educational programmes as well as entertainment.
Ever wondered why Americans aren't that worldly wise? Their news tv channels all chase after market share and that isn't always after the dull stuff that's important.
The BBC is there to provide access to news, current affairs, educational programmes as well as entertainment.
Ever wondered why Americans aren't that worldly wise? Their news tv channels all chase after market share and that isn't always after the dull stuff that's important.
Those market forces conspire with the government to keep people ignorant.
Who picks the President? The 1% in America. They also happen to control the media and the news outlets. It's no surprise that Americans are dumb. Their government keeps them dumb. It's not a free market that is to blame for that. It's corporate fascism.
Don't blame something that's been dead for years now.
Original post by MatureStudent36
The American system is appalling because it panders to market forces.
The BBC is there to provide access to news, current affairs, educational programmes as well as entertainment.
Ever wondered why Americans aren't that worldly wise? Their news tv channels all chase after market share and that isn't always after the dull stuff that's important.
If the BBC is so bad, why do so many countries comment on what a great system it is?
The BBC is there to provide access to news, current affairs, educational programmes as well as entertainment.
Ever wondered why Americans aren't that worldly wise? Their news tv channels all chase after market share and that isn't always after the dull stuff that's important.
If the BBC is so bad, why do so many countries comment on what a great system it is?
Other channels do that too. Should someone be given a criminal record because they don't subscribe to the National Geographic channel? And if that was the case, would it actually make them watch it?
It's not like the BBC doesn't chase after market share itself. Look at "The Voice", that's just any other junk talent show that you'll find on another channel.
Which countries are these by the way?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
- how can i access moocs?
- 57 great titchfield street
- Sentencing Council to make changes for pregnant women / new mothers
- what degree should i do?
- Research Paper!
- Touchscreen card devices may prevent blind customers paying
- What’s your default streaming service?
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Are you offered accommodation as an apprentice?
- question for british girls
- Do banks look at your "First sitting" A level results?
- GovPol Reading
- Need help with RAF Officer filter interview preparation
- Would I be able to get an apprenticeship if I’m getting a degree
- De-banked for expressing alternative social views
- Year 9
- University Of Liverpool: Student Accommodation - TV License
- Aston Optometry 2023 ~ we’re in💃
- how important are predicted grades?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
