The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by WelshBluebird
The problem is that you don't seem to understand that most people actually care about others. We don't want to see suffering, or people having to get into debt to treat their kids cancer.

So if this is the case, why do we need to force people to pay then?

If I didn't have 40% of my income appropriated, I'd sure as hell be much more inclined (and more able) to give voluntarily.
Original post by isaqyi
One of the first posts on this thread by a moderator demonstrates that Britain is on the downward slide towards far-left politics.


So? Because a moderator said that? Do you agree with every moderator? I know I don't
NHS is great. You wouldn't be so quick to call it piss poor if you needed it. Which you may one day (if not by now)
I wonder why you fail to reply to rational comments from
other users, instead repeating the same argument over and over.
Reply 222
Original post by hypocriticaljap
NOt true. NYU will not admit medicaid patients under any circumstances and actively turn them away.


That's one hospital out of hundreds of thousands.

My argument is that if you don't pay your insurance, then **** off. Harsh but fair.
Original post by jesusandtequila
So if this is the case, why do we need to force people to pay then?

If I didn't have 40% of my income appropriated, I'd sure as hell be much more inclined (and more able) to give voluntarily.


Because most of the time, the people who can most afford to pay the most are the ones who don't want to (because they are greedy). We have already seen that the rich in this country are willing to risk the countries stability and future on getting even richer. They only care about themselves. Which is exactly the reason why charity will not work. The rich however, are a minority in this country. Most people are "normal" working people who are happy to ensure that there isn't suffering because of private healthcare.

Original post by isaqyi
That's one hospital out of hundreds of thousands.

My argument is that if you don't pay your insurance, then **** off. Harsh but fair.


So if someone cannot afford to pay insurance (and cannot get "charity" because there isn't enough to go around) then they should suffer and die?

If that is your beliefs, then please **** off out of this country. We do not want you.
Original post by TulipFields
Like oteaster said, private charity :rolleyes: because people who don't want to pay taxes ( a minimal amount, considering the value of service), they'd be falling over themselves to pay thousands for your friend. The rest, like Isaqy don't give a **** and are invincible and would never use NHS

The average taxpayer pays over £3K in tax, just for the NHS. That's hardly a minimal amount, indeed it's about 12% of the median wage.
Original post by jesusandtequila
Except that the State doesn't create communities, it divides them into recipients and contributors. It breeds resentment, and involves forcible taking of property. Far greater than the NHS were the voluntary hospitals of Victorian times, based upon actual community - rather than forcible appropriation of other's property.


Victorian voluntary hospitals were better? :lolwut:
Almost any civilised country collects taxes from it's citizens, wouldn't you know
Reply 226
Original post by jesusandtequila
So if this is the case, why do we need to force people to pay then?

If I didn't have 40% of my income appropriated, I'd sure as hell be much more inclined (and more able) to give voluntarily.


Would you give 40%?

And if not, where would the money come from to maintain your current lifestyle?
Reply 227
Original post by WelshBluebird
Because most of the time, the people who can most afford to pay the most are the ones who don't want to (because they are greedy). We have already seen that the rich in this country are willing to risk the countries stability and future on getting even richer. They only care about themselves. Which is exactly the reason why charity will not work. The rich however, are a minority in this country. Most people are "normal" working people who are happy to ensure that there isn't suffering because of private healthcare.



So if someone cannot afford to pay insurance (and cannot get "charity" because there isn't enough to go around) then they should suffer and die?

If that is your beliefs, then please **** off out of this country. We do not want you.


No, I believe in state-funded support for the most vulnerable of individuals.
Original post by kopite493
theft is someone forcing you to hand over money against your will

you CHOOSE to stay in this country
you CHOOSE to occupy british soil
you CHOOSE to use bristish services

therefore you choose to pay taxes to fund those services and yes at some point he uses the nhs everyone does


The government does use force, you either pay or face a heavy fine/jail, only other option is resistance which from an individual point of view just isn't realistic (probably wouldn't last longer than a day).

I only use the amount of services that covers the tax that I am forced to pay, I am more than happy to pay my own way and do where the option is available.

Regarding the soil, my land isn't paid for by the state.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by isaqyi
Emigration is not as easy as one would believe. Also, why on earth should someone leave their birthplace simply because some poor socialists are desperate to get their hands on their hard-earned money?


Maybe because your values and opinions are in discord with the majority of people who were also born here and contribute to the country? Why should they change their life so that few selfish people like you would have your taxes back?
Original post by jesusandtequila
So if this is the case, why do we need to force people to pay then?

If I didn't have 40% of my income appropriated, I'd sure as hell be much more inclined (and more able) to give voluntarily.


Somehow, I doubt you would willingly give away 40% of your wages.

Original post by isaqyi
No, I believe in state-funded support for the most vulnerable of individuals.


Which would need to be funded by tax, which is exactly what you seem to be so against.
Original post by TulipFields
Maybe because your values and opinions are in discord with the majority of people who were also born here and contribute to the country? Why should they change their life so that few selfish people like you would have your taxes back?


So what your saying is regardless of whether it is right or wrong we should do what the majority wants?
Original post by jesusandtequila
The average taxpayer pays over £3K in tax, just for the NHS. That's hardly a minimal amount, indeed it's about 12% of the median wage.


Proof? Where did you pluck that figure?
Do you know the cost of training at least one doctor? Even if he chooses to become private later? Cost of a single ambulance car? Cost of pharmaceutical contributions?
Reply 233
Original post by otester
So what your saying is regardless of whether it is right or wrong we should do what the majority wants?


I think the point is regardless of what you personally think is right or wrong a country governed by democracy is based on the idea of doing what the majority would like.
Reply 234
Original post by WelshBluebird
Somehow, I doubt you would willingly give away 40% of your wages.



Which would need to be funded by tax, which is exactly what you seem to be so against.


I'm in favour of a very minimal level of taxation. Not at the current level, where my taxes are buying crystal meths for people on JSA.
Original post by WelshBluebird
Because most of the time, the people who can most afford to pay the most are the ones who don't want to (because they are greedy).

Of course, the rich are greedy - yet we see huge acts of philanthropy such as Bill Gates setting up the Gates foundation, and Warren Buffett giving over $31bn to the Gates Trust. We see many companies giving a portion of profits to social causes, and this is despite the state already being a vehicle which claims to solve social problems, and charging the richest accordingly.

We have already seen that the rich in this country are willing to risk the countries stability and future on getting even richer.

Oh really? I saw rational agents responding to perverse incentives, such as artificially low interest rates, socialising the losses and privatising the profits, and a hugely skewed regulatory system which drove banks into more and more risky activities in order to make a profit.

They only care about themselves. Which is exactly the reason why charity will not work. The rich however, are a minority in this country. Most people are "normal" working people who are happy to ensure that there isn't suffering because of private healthcare.

So we don't see charity because it's only the poor that are charitable? What a characterisation - I'd love to see any evidence for it. We saw in Victorian times the voluntary hospitals, we saw the same in the education system (with grammars being set up to provide education to the masses), we saw friendly societies as a form of welfare in order to help those that had fallen on hard times. All set up, and mostly funded by the rich. It's wrong to argue that the rich are greedy and wouldn't give - it's much more accurate to argue that because the State aims to solve all social problems, and forcibly takes the means to do so (an ever increasing amount, and yet we still have the same problems as before), that people do not see the need, or have the means to give, given the state of the State.
Original post by otester
So what your saying is regardless of whether it is right or wrong we should do what the majority wants?


Sorry, but isn't this how democracy works? I didn't choose Coalition government , but the majority of people voted for Conservatives and Lib Dems. We all have our own preferences, but a country can't run according to how every Tom, Dick and Harry want it to be run
Original post by TulipFields
Proof? Where did you pluck that figure?
Do you know the cost of training at least one doctor? Even if he chooses to become private later? Cost of a single ambulance car? Cost of pharmaceutical contributions?

Spending on Health in the UK is just over £120bn. There's 40 million taxpayers. Do the maths.

Median wage is £25K.
Original post by isaqyi
I'm in favour of a very minimal level of taxation. Not at the current level, where my taxes are buying crystal meths for people on JSA.


For the most part, they aren't though.
Only a tiny fraction of your taxes would be going to that.
And if that is your problem, then why don't you go on about that, rather than the NHS?

Also, the taxation needed to support the people in society who do really need it would still be more than "minimal".
Original post by TulipFields
Sorry, but isn't this how democracy works? I didn't choose Coalition government , but the majority of people voted for Conservatives and Lib Dems. We all have our own preferences, but a country can't run according to how every Tom, Dick and Harry want it to be run

Indeed, and democracy is tyranny of the majority. The more power that's pushed to the lowest level possible (where possible the individual), the better.