This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Help, how would I pay for housing?
- Jobs
- Absolutely furious with the NHS
- Adult nursing (blended) anyone on this course?
- Bursery or student finance
- Should nurses be paid more?
- Just £1K in your Final Year?
- NHS are a joke
- Rolled My ankle and it hurtsss
- How fast do you progress up the pay scale? (NHS)
- Pharmacy bands
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- Should the royal family exist?
- Student funding
- Psychology or Law?
- Nursing Financial Support
- NHS learning support fund
- Counselling. A good career?
- Student finance for second degree and NHS LSF
- Nurse band 5 Salary
How can I stop paying for the NHS?
Scroll to see replies
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.
I'd call it an uphill struggle away from the far right rather than a downward slide towards the far left... but what does me being a moderator have to do with this discussion?
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
Democracy doesn't necessarily ensure individual freedom, I am all for democracy but not at the cost of individual freedom.
An unlimited democracy is tyranny of the majority.
Original post by jesusandtequila
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.
Oh, and you have an alternative system at hand? Total anarchy and resulting disorder?
Original post by TulipFields
Victorian voluntary hospitals were better? 
They were better in the sense that they were a true demonstration of community, much more so than the NHS. OBviously the standard of health is somewhat different from the 19th to the 21st century due to technological advancements.
Almost any civilised country collects taxes from it's citizens, wouldn't you know
So? If this was 500 years ago I could have said: almost every civilised country is ruled by a monarchy, wouldn't you know? Just because it happens a lot doesn't mean it's good.
Original post by dring
Would you give 40%?
And if not, where would the money come from to maintain your current lifestyle?
And if not, where would the money come from to maintain your current lifestyle?
No, I wouldn't need to, since the state would be moved out of the role of provider and into one of an enabler. Surely you can see that if we only need to help the poorest through charity it is cheaper than providing it for everyone?
Original post by WelshBluebird
Somehow, I doubt you would willingly give away 40% of your wages.
It is bizarre that you'd think I'd need to. Providing education and health for the poorest is cheaper than providing it for everyone.
Ever seen a private A+E? I think there's one in London. It's okay, you'll just die before you get there. Oh WAIT, the ambulance, the people on the end of 999, now who funds them? Idiot 
Go move out the country if you're that bothere
Go move out the country if you're that bothereOriginal post by TulipFields
Oh, and you have an alternative system at hand? Total anarchy and resulting disorder?
Democracy which doesn't infringe on individual freedom.
Similar to what the USA has, a bill of rights (government doesn't respect it in reality, according to Bush it was just a piece of paper).
Original post by jesusandtequila
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.
And yet compare all that to the profits made. Its still nothing.
Some rich people will do that. But the majority do not.
Original post by jesusandtequila
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.
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.
Oh come on. The banks were making huge profits. The only reason problems occurred is because they decided to take the risks they did to make even greater profits. It was their decision to take those risks.
Original post by jesusandtequila
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.
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.
FFS. Can you please shut up about Victorian times. It is not relevant.
1 - You would need a lot more now due to illnesses and conditions that would not have existing or been common then (especially those that are associated with old age).
2 - Many people did suffer and die because of having to rely on charity.
3 - We have much better healthcare now, treatments for more illnesses etc etc.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by TulipFields
Oh, and you have an alternative system at hand? Total anarchy and resulting disorder?
Yes, having a government that is constitutionally limited, such that it doesn't infringe on the natural rights of others, to life, liberty and property. The majority can't vote away the rights of the minority.
Original post by otester
Democracy doesn't necessarily ensure individual freedom, I am all for democracy but not at the cost of individual freedom.
An unlimited democracy is tyranny of the majority.
An unlimited democracy is tyranny of the majority.
How would you limit democracy? If you were the majority ( i.e if most people wanted to scrape NHS) would you count that as a tyranny of the majority? Would you give a **** about some individual who thinks you screwed him over?
Original post by dring
US: Discover you have chronic illness, inform insurance company, have insurance withdrawn on dubious grounds to protect insurance company's profit, go bankrupt trying to finance treatment.
UK: Discover you have chronic illness, get treatment.
I like living in the UK.
UK: Discover you have chronic illness, get treatment.
I like living in the UK.
UK: wait ages to get an operation, develop MRSA in hospital, get murdered by Harold Shipman.
US: get access to world-class technology, no waiting times.
Original post by RightSaidJames
I'd call it an uphill struggle away from the far right rather than a downward slide towards the far left... but what does me being a moderator have to do with this discussion?
Moderators are always factually correct, weren't you aware of that?
Heaven help us if you were to ever post a paradox.
Original post by isaqyi
I am considering getting private health insurance, but no longer wish to contribute to the NHS as it is the worst healthcare system in Western Europe. I do not see it as my responsibility to pay for other peoples' healthcare, when I am more than willing to pay for my own.
Is there any way I can stop the British public stealing my money to pay for their healthcare?
Is there any way I can stop the British public stealing my money to pay for their healthcare?
there is the facility in place for you to opt out of paying tax towards the NHS if you want.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSlOZaYO1Rg
now please be quiet you insidious cretin!
Original post by WelshBluebird
And yet compare all that to the profits made. Its still nothing.
Some rich people will do that. But the majority do not.
Oh come on. The banks were making huge profits. The only reason problems occurred is because they decided to take the risks they did to make even greater profits. It was their decision to take those risks.
FFS. Can you please shut up about Victorian times. It is not relevant.
1 - You would need a lot more now due to illnesses and conditions that would not have existing or been common then (especially those that are associated with old age).
2 - Many people did suffer and die because of having to rely on charity.
3 - We have much better healthcare now, treatments for more illnesses etc etc.
Some rich people will do that. But the majority do not.
Oh come on. The banks were making huge profits. The only reason problems occurred is because they decided to take the risks they did to make even greater profits. It was their decision to take those risks.
FFS. Can you please shut up about Victorian times. It is not relevant.
1 - You would need a lot more now due to illnesses and conditions that would not have existing or been common then (especially those that are associated with old age).
2 - Many people did suffer and die because of having to rely on charity.
3 - We have much better healthcare now, treatments for more illnesses etc etc.
You reek of jealousy.
Original post by jesusandtequila
No, I wouldn't need to, since the state would be moved out of the role of provider and into one of an enabler. Surely you can see that if we only need to help the poorest through charity it is cheaper than providing it for everyone?
This is not obvious to me. The total cost is the same as before, and it has to come from somewhere...you, presumably, privately. But then you're presumably paying the same as before, ignoring effects like the possible higher price of equipment due to competition meaning it isn't used efficiently.
And I don't really understand the charity argument. What is the difference between charity and taxes, except that in the first case the selfish people can refuse to pay and put a greater burden on the nice people?
Original post by isaqyi
UK: wait ages to get an operation, develop MRSA in hospital, get murdered by Harold Shipman.
US: get access to world-class technology, no waiting times.
US: get access to world-class technology, no waiting times.
Oh ffs. Because everyone gets MRSA and gets killed by a single doctor.
And please, don't try to tell me you don't get similar problems in the US. Because I know that is not true.
Original post by jesusandtequila
No, I wouldn't need to, since the state would be moved out of the role of provider and into one of an enabler. Surely you can see that if we only need to help the poorest through charity it is cheaper than providing it for everyone?
And I will ask again. Do you actually have any proof that charity would provide the amount of money that is needed? No.
Original post by otester
You reek of jealousy.
And you reek of being a heartless bastard who only cares about himself.
Original post by WelshBluebird
And yet compare all that to the profits made. Its still nothing.
Some rich people will do that. But the majority do not.
Some rich people will do that. But the majority do not.
You seem to have ignored the relevant bits of my post:
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.
Oh come on. The banks were making huge profits. The only reason problems occurred is because they decided to take the risks they did to make even greater profits. It was their decision to take those risks.
They chose to take those risks because the risks were not borne by them. Like I said, when you privatise the profits and socialise the losses, decision makers only bear the upside of risk, and you get far more than the optimum level.
FFS. Can you please shut up about Victorian times. It is not relevant.
1 - You would need a lot more now due to illnesses and conditions that would not have existing or been common then.
2 - Many people did suffer and die because of having to rely on charity.
3 - We have much better healthcare now, treatments for more illnesses etc etc.
1 - You would need a lot more now due to illnesses and conditions that would not have existing or been common then.
2 - Many people did suffer and die because of having to rely on charity.
3 - We have much better healthcare now, treatments for more illnesses etc etc.
So? The point is that people gave such that they helped to alleviate many of the social problems. Yes, it would cost more, but equally people are much richer too, indeed even the poorest of today are better off than the richest in Victorian times (that's the miracle of compound growth). Oh, and you seem to have cut a bit out:
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 WelshBluebird
Oh ffs. Because everyone gets MRSA and gets killed by a single doctor.
And please, don't try to tell me you don't get similar problems in the US. Because I know that is not true.
And please, don't try to tell me you don't get similar problems in the US. Because I know that is not true.
Waiting times are much less than they are here. Access to MRI scanners is much higher than here.
Related discussions
- Help, how would I pay for housing?
- Jobs
- Absolutely furious with the NHS
- Adult nursing (blended) anyone on this course?
- Bursery or student finance
- Should nurses be paid more?
- Just £1K in your Final Year?
- NHS are a joke
- Rolled My ankle and it hurtsss
- How fast do you progress up the pay scale? (NHS)
- Pharmacy bands
- UK Medical School Debt is about £184.5k over 30 years
- Should the royal family exist?
- Student funding
- Psychology or Law?
- Nursing Financial Support
- NHS learning support fund
- Counselling. A good career?
- Student finance for second degree and NHS LSF
- Nurse band 5 Salary
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
