How can I stop paying for the NHS? Watch

This discussion is closed.
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#241
Report 7 years ago
#241
(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.
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#242
Report 7 years ago
#242
(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".
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#243
Report 7 years ago
#243
(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, **** 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.
0
RightSaidJames
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#244
Report 7 years ago
#244
(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?
0
Libtardian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#245
Report 7 years ago
#245
(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, **** 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.
0
TulipFields
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#246
Report 7 years ago
#246
(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?
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#247
Report 7 years ago
#247
(Original post by TulipFields)
Victorian voluntary hospitals were better? :lolwut:
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.
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#248
Report 7 years ago
#248
(Original post by dring)
Would you give 40%?

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?
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#249
Report 7 years ago
#249
(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.
0
lilangel890
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#250
Report 7 years ago
#250
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
0
Libtardian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#251
Report 7 years ago
#251
(Original 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).
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#252
Report 7 years ago
#252
(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 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.
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.
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#253
Report 7 years ago
#253
(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.
2
TulipFields
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#254
Report 7 years ago
#254
(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.
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?
0
isaqyi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#255
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#255
(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: 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.
0
Mithra
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#256
Report 7 years ago
#256
(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? :p:

Heaven help us if you were to ever post a paradox. :dontknow:
0
x=o
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#257
Report 7 years ago
#257
(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?
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!
0
Libtardian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#258
Report 7 years ago
#258
(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.
You reek of jealousy.
0
dring
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#259
Report 7 years ago
#259
(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?
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#260
Report 7 years ago
#260
(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.
Oh ffs. Because everyone gets MRSA and gets killed by a single doctor. :rolleyes:
And please, don't try to tell me you don't get similar problems in the US. Because I know that is not true.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (477)
38.19%
No - but I will (95)
7.61%
No - I don't want to (87)
6.97%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (590)
47.24%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise