Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    THIS IS AN OFFER HOLDERS THREAD NOT AN ARENA FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSION FOR CURRENT STUDENTS OMFG MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD I AM SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THIS POLITICS LIB DEM ARE AWESOME TORRIES NOT SO MUCH AND GREENS ARE PLAIN RETARDED THAT'S THE CONCLUSION EVERYONE IS MAKING SO BE HAPPY AND LET'S DISCUSS HOW WE'LL ALL MESS UP OUR EXAMS AND NOT MEET OUR OFFERS AND GO TO ANOTHER INFERIOR UNI AND BE DEPRESSED FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES
















    Spoiler:
    Show
    rant over
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goods)
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...sualised#img-1

    That's a perfectly valid viewpoint. However if you cut taxes you have to cut public services. What would you cut?
    Everything. All of it. Make it all private. Problem solved!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    Everything. All of it. Make it all private. Problem solved!
    Very much in keeping with the person above's ideas! No politics, no political discussion...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goods)
    Very much in keeping with the person above's ideas! No politics, no political discussion...
    What is so bad about that? It is quite plain that 'politics', if that is what micromanaging the lives of individuals is to be called, causes a number of problems which we would be better off without. I don't suggest that my original statement should have been taken without a pinch of salt, but there's obviously a considerable element of truth to the claim that 'politics' so-called creates as many problems as it solves.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Dw were gona 100 ums in M3 and nothing less.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    tomfailinghelp must be rich/very well off. Lol privatise everything is the stupidest thing One could suggest,


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Yeah, I think I may have under-revised just a liiiittle bit.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (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.
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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...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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Privatising doesnt mean you have to pay, actually.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    (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...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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.