Cambridge Offer Holders 2015 thread
Scroll to see replies
First exam tomorrow... was anyone else super confident when they got their offer, but slowly lost hope as exams approached?
I felt quite invincible to exams when I got my offer, but now it's very apparent that I have to consistently perform well in each one.
I felt quite invincible to exams when I got my offer, but now it's very apparent that I have to consistently perform well in each one.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Elcor
First exam tomorrow... was anyone else super confident when they got their offer, but slowly lost hope as exams approached?
I felt quite invincible to exams when I got my offer, but now it's very apparent that I have to consistently perform well in every exam.
I felt quite invincible to exams when I got my offer, but now it's very apparent that I have to consistently perform well in every exam.
Dw were gona 100 ums in M3 and nothing less.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tomfailinghelp
Everything. All of it. Make it all private. Problem solved!
That's ridiculous.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
Original post by L'Evil Fish
That's ridiculous.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
tomfailinghelp must be rich/very well off. Lol privatise everything is the stupidest thing One could suggest,
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by physicsmaths
tomfailinghelp must be rich/very well off. Lol privatise everything is the stupidest thing One could suggest,
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'm not very rich at all. Obviously I'm not going to post my household income on here, but it is quite considerably below average.
Original post by L'Evil Fish
That's ridiculous.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
As I said, that statement was not without an element of irony.
I do not suggest that you should not receive healthcare or education because you cannot afford it. I suggest that the state should not provide it - these are different things.
You say you should have a right to a home, this is an interesting point. Should poor individuals not have a right to use their money to pay for nicer housing if they would like? As it stands, it is often the case that poorer people live in less pleasant housing than they might do, because the state forces them to pay for things they do not necessarily want or need. For instance, I could perhaps live in a nicer house if my parents were not taxed to pay for Sex Reassignment Surgery/Schizophrenia Medicines/Insulin injections, which are all things we would not choose to pay for, were we not forced to do so. I think before we consider whether each person has a right to healthcare or housing or whatever, we should consider whether they should have a right to choose what their money is used for.
Like I said, I'm not so sure I want everything to be privatized. It is totally bizarre to call the position 'selfish', though. Particularly since, under the current system, the poor are paying disproportionately for the healthcare of people who collectively live far, far longer than they do. I do not think it is necessarily selfish to release them from that burden.
Original post by Elcor
First exam tomorrow... was anyone else super confident when they got their offer, but slowly lost hope as exams approached?
I felt quite invincible to exams when I got my offer, but now it's very apparent that I have to consistently perform well in each one.
I felt quite invincible to exams when I got my offer, but now it's very apparent that I have to consistently perform well in each one.
Yeah, I think I may have under-revised just a liiiittle bit.
Original post by tomfailinghelp
...As it stands, it is often the case that poorer people live in less pleasant housing than they might do, because the state forces them to pay for things they do not necessarily want or need. For instance, I could perhaps live in a nicer house if my parents were not taxed to pay for Sex Reassignment Surgery/Schizophrenia Medicines/Insulin injections, which are all things we would not choose to pay for, were we not forced to do so. I think before we consider whether each person has a right to healthcare or housing or whatever, we should consider whether they should have a right to choose what their money is used for.
...As it stands, it is often the case that poorer people live in less pleasant housing than they might do, because the state forces them to pay for things they do not necessarily want or need. For instance, I could perhaps live in a nicer house if my parents were not taxed to pay for Sex Reassignment Surgery/Schizophrenia Medicines/Insulin injections, which are all things we would not choose to pay for, were we not forced to do so. I think before we consider whether each person has a right to healthcare or housing or whatever, we should consider whether they should have a right to choose what their money is used for.
Private health care plans also cover these. Well perhaps not gender reassignment, but certainly insulin and mental health conditions.
You can't opt out of life.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jneill
Private health care plans also cover these. Well perhaps not gender reassignment, but certainly insulin and mental health conditions.
You can't opt out of life.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You can't opt out of life.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well then, if there were any demand for ones without those provisions, I do not see why someone would not fill the gap? Besides, the gender reassignment example - I feel - is enough to make the case in itself.
I will emphasize again that I am not so sure what I think myself on this issue. However, I do know that I am uncomfortable with the state telling the poor what to do with their money, particularly when so much of it seems to be wasted, and could quite plausibly be better spent by them. To say 'you can't opt out of life' does not really solve the issue. Life and health are not infinitely valuable, and there are many situations in which we would sacrifice them even for minor things elsewhere. I don't see any reason why it should be the state's role to tell the poor (and everyone else) how much they should value these things, and consequently how much money they should spend on them.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by L'Evil Fish
That's ridiculous.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
Privatisation = not provided by the state =/= not free/heavily subsidised for people with low income.
Fwiw the Singaporean healthcare system - a universal one - is the most efficient in the world (http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//most-efficient-health-care-2014-countries) and manages to achieve this with a top-rate tax of 20%. Hong Kong is second on the list and does so with 13% top-tax rate I think. The UK is hopelessly inefficient in budget management by comparison; increased spending and higher tax rates is not the way forward.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by L'Evil Fish
That's ridiculous.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
Why should I not receive healthcare or an education because my parents can't afford it? That's not my fault, and I should have the right to healthcare, an education and a home.
I say I, I mean we, as humans.
I think it's an extremely selfish stance to privatise EVERYTHING.
Privatising doesnt mean you have to pay, actually.
Original post by tomfailinghelp
Well then, if there were any demand for ones without those provisions, I do not see why someone would not fill the gap? Besides, the gender reassignment example - I feel - is enough to make the case in itself.
I will emphasize again that I am not so sure what I think myself on this issue. However, I do know that I am uncomfortable with the state telling the poor what to do with their money, particularly when so much of it seems to be wasted, and could quite plausibly be better spent by them. To say 'you can't opt out of life' does not really solve the issue. Life and health are not infinitely valuable, and there are many situations in which we would sacrifice them even for minor things elsewhere. I don't see any reason why it should be the state's role to tell the poor (and everyone else) how much they should value these things, and consequently how much money they should spend on them.
I will emphasize again that I am not so sure what I think myself on this issue. However, I do know that I am uncomfortable with the state telling the poor what to do with their money, particularly when so much of it seems to be wasted, and could quite plausibly be better spent by them. To say 'you can't opt out of life' does not really solve the issue. Life and health are not infinitely valuable, and there are many situations in which we would sacrifice them even for minor things elsewhere. I don't see any reason why it should be the state's role to tell the poor (and everyone else) how much they should value these things, and consequently how much money they should spend on them.
If a person hadn't made the provisions to be able to pay for their healthcare and needed medical treatment, where would you suggest the money needed to pay for treatment came from?
Original post by cerlohee
If a person hadn't made the provisions to be able to pay for their healthcare and needed medical treatment, where would you suggest the money needed to pay for treatment came from?
Ideally, charity. I do not suspect that the number of people entirely unable to afford healthcare would be overwhelmingly large, if the NHS was privatized. Consequently, I'm not sure there is a reason to suppose that would be a tremendous task. Even if it was a very large sum, considering the entire electorate this year voted for parties which loudly and proudly advocate socialized healthcare, I think it would be a very unusual state of affairs if - in England - there were not very many people very willing to sign up to some sort of scheme which could provide healthcare for the poor. This would especially be the case if privatization made healthcare cheaper and/or more efficient generally. Perhaps some healthcare providers would include some charitable element as part of their service?
If that was not possible for whatever reason, I suppose I would consider the suggestion that the state should provide funding for the healthcare of the poor. Still, I would think it would be preferable that the state should pay for it, but not provide it directly. I haven't though that issue through in any real detail though.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Elcor
First exam tomorrow... was anyone else super confident when they got their offer, but slowly lost hope as exams approached?
I felt quite invincible to exams when I got my offer, but now it's very apparent that I have to consistently perform well in each one.
I felt quite invincible to exams when I got my offer, but now it's very apparent that I have to consistently perform well in each one.
Halfway through my exams and getting worried that I missed my offer.... although despite under-revising they weren't that bad, but there's always that nagging lack of self-confidence and inferiority complex.
Good luck on your exams! I'm sure you'll do great!
Original post by tomfailinghelp
I'm not very rich at all. Obviously I'm not going to post my household income on here, but it is quite considerably below average.
As I said, that statement was not without an element of irony.
I do not suggest that you should not receive healthcare or education because you cannot afford it. I suggest that the state should not provide it - these are different things.
You say you should have a right to a home, this is an interesting point. Should poor individuals not have a right to use their money to pay for nicer housing if they would like? As it stands, it is often the case that poorer people live in less pleasant housing than they might do, because the state forces them to pay for things they do not necessarily want or need. For instance, I could perhaps live in a nicer house if my parents were not taxed to pay for Sex Reassignment Surgery/Schizophrenia Medicines/Insulin injections, which are all things we would not choose to pay for, were we not forced to do so. I think before we consider whether each person has a right to healthcare or housing or whatever, we should consider whether they should have a right to choose what their money is used for.
Like I said, I'm not so sure I want everything to be privatized. It is totally bizarre to call the position 'selfish', though. Particularly since, under the current system, the poor are paying disproportionately for the healthcare of people who collectively live far, far longer than they do. I do not think it is necessarily selfish to release them from that burden.
As I said, that statement was not without an element of irony.
I do not suggest that you should not receive healthcare or education because you cannot afford it. I suggest that the state should not provide it - these are different things.
You say you should have a right to a home, this is an interesting point. Should poor individuals not have a right to use their money to pay for nicer housing if they would like? As it stands, it is often the case that poorer people live in less pleasant housing than they might do, because the state forces them to pay for things they do not necessarily want or need. For instance, I could perhaps live in a nicer house if my parents were not taxed to pay for Sex Reassignment Surgery/Schizophrenia Medicines/Insulin injections, which are all things we would not choose to pay for, were we not forced to do so. I think before we consider whether each person has a right to healthcare or housing or whatever, we should consider whether they should have a right to choose what their money is used for.
Like I said, I'm not so sure I want everything to be privatized. It is totally bizarre to call the position 'selfish', though. Particularly since, under the current system, the poor are paying disproportionately for the healthcare of people who collectively live far, far longer than they do. I do not think it is necessarily selfish to release them from that burden.
Original post by ClickItBack
Privatisation = not provided by the state =/= not free/heavily subsidised for people with low income.
Fwiw the Singaporean healthcare system - a universal one - is the most efficient in the world (http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//most-efficient-health-care-2014-countries) and manages to achieve this with a top-rate tax of 20%. Hong Kong is second on the list and does so with 13% top-tax rate I think. The UK is hopelessly inefficient in budget management by comparison; increased spending and higher tax rates is not the way forward.
Fwiw the Singaporean healthcare system - a universal one - is the most efficient in the world (http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//most-efficient-health-care-2014-countries) and manages to achieve this with a top-rate tax of 20%. Hong Kong is second on the list and does so with 13% top-tax rate I think. The UK is hopelessly inefficient in budget management by comparison; increased spending and higher tax rates is not the way forward.
Original post by HeavisideDelts
Privatising doesnt mean you have to pay, actually.
Gonna ask the stupid question, if the state aren't providing it, and it's all privately run. Who will be paying for it? If the government pays or subsidises then surely they might as well just provide it in the first place.
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Gonna ask the stupid question, if the state aren't providing it, and it's all privately run. Who will be paying for it? If the government pays or subsidises then surely they might as well just provide it in the first place.
The idea is that the service provision tends to become more efficient/cheaper if it's done by the private sector.
E.g. food is an even more essential human need than healthcare but we leave food provision to the private sector (i.e. supermarkets) and as a result we get much, much cheaper and better quality food than when food distribution and production was centralised and state-run.
If you're OK with the idea that food is not provided by the state and that the poorest in society have their food bills subsidised (benefits), then I don't see why you'd treat healthcare differently.
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Gonna ask the stupid question, if the state aren't providing it, and it's all privately run. Who will be paying for it? If the government pays or subsidises then surely they might as well just provide it in the first place.
The government still. It's easier to imagine with education. Friedman suggested that the government might give each person education 'vouchers', which they then use to pay for education at a private institution. The reason for this, as opposed to public ownership of the institution, is that the latter tends to be inefficient. For example, if someone suggests a new policy that doesn't work, instead of failing (as would a private enterprise), the school just digs deeper into the pockets of the tax payer (often the poor)
EDIT: Looks like I was beaten to it
Original post by L'Evil Fish
Gonna ask the stupid question, if the state aren't providing it, and it's all privately run. Who will be paying for it? If the government pays or subsidises then surely they might as well just provide it in the first place.
I know a few people in the NHS. And the current management is horrific, they say money is being badly wasted and the current system is very inefficient.
The services will likely still be free, as they are, since the government will be sourcing it, but the management transfer to private is allowing for better and far more efficient use of money. At the moment a hell of a lot of money is being wasted.
Original post by HeavisideDelts
I know a few people in the NHS. And the current management is horrific, they say money is being badly wasted and the current system is very inefficient.
The services will likely still be free, as they are, since the government will be sourcing it, but the management transfer to private is allowing for better and far more efficient use of money. At the moment a hell of a lot of money is being wasted.
The services will likely still be free, as they are, since the government will be sourcing it, but the management transfer to private is allowing for better and far more efficient use of money. At the moment a hell of a lot of money is being wasted.
I don't understand why people can't manage and budget efficiently and well. Are the people intelligent enough to do so, the ones who make a profit out of it?
Original post by L'Evil Fish
I don't understand why people can't manage and budget efficiently and well. Are the people intelligent enough to do so, the ones who make a profit out of it?
If your aim is to make a profit, then you're going to be far less wasteful with your own money, than with a bucketload from the taxpayers whose use doesn't directly affect you. Aren't you?
Private sector is more efficient?
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/mythbusters-the-private-sector-is-more-efficient-than-the-public-sector
And a commentary on US healthcare. 43% can't afford it (that's way too big a % for charitable donations to cover it.)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/health-care-cost/
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/mythbusters-the-private-sector-is-more-efficient-than-the-public-sector
And a commentary on US healthcare. 43% can't afford it (that's way too big a % for charitable donations to cover it.)
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/health-care-cost/
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- is my BMAT low or average?
- Fitzwilliam College Cambridge Offer Holders 2023
- Official University of Cambridge offer-holders thread for 2024 entry
- Downing College Offer Holders Thread 2023
- Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)
- Fitzwilliam College Cambridge 2024 offer-holders
- Official Cambridge Parents of Applicants thread 2023
- University of Cambridge PhD in Law 2023
- Summer Pool Cambridge 2022
- ESRC decision timelines?
- Trinity College Cambridge 2024 offer-holders
- Murray Edwards College 2022 Offer Holders Thread
- Getting pooled to a different college
- Cambridge History 2024 offer-holders
- MPhil Criminology Cambridge 2020/2021
- Applying for History at Cambridge
- Cambridge HSPS 2024 offer-holders
- Official University of Southampton Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- Bristol maths still on hold
- Medicine Community Feedback and Suggestions
Latest
Last reply 10 minutes ago
AQA A Level Sociology Paper 2 (7192/2) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 10 minutes ago
R u 18-25 & studying in a England Uni, spare a few mins to fill my survey. 1 wk left.Last reply 13 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Posted 20 minutes ago
st. andrews sixth form in cambridgeLast reply 38 minutes ago
Anyone else applying/has applied to UCL's Robotics and AI MEng course??Last reply 51 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LAWYERS: Can I bring an action against my old schoolLast reply 1 hour ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 1 hour ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsTrending
Last reply 13 hours ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 20 hours ago
March 2024 Cambridge Mature Colleges Round - Anybody?Last reply 1 week ago
Easy Colleges in Cambridge to get in - should this be allowedLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Machine Learning and Machine Intelligence at Cambridge 2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
How likely will Cambridge allow me in if I miss my subject specific offer?Last reply 2 weeks ago
What to do for a competitive application for Mathematics at top universities.Trending
Last reply 13 hours ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 20 hours ago
March 2024 Cambridge Mature Colleges Round - Anybody?Last reply 1 week ago
Easy Colleges in Cambridge to get in - should this be allowedLast reply 1 week ago
MPhil in Machine Learning and Machine Intelligence at Cambridge 2024Last reply 2 weeks ago
How likely will Cambridge allow me in if I miss my subject specific offer?Last reply 2 weeks ago
What to do for a competitive application for Mathematics at top universities.
