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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    Not sure if srs.
    As usual, my comment was half serious. While I doubt that Aneurin Bevan was ever the right stuff for Minister for Health, at that point (the late Forties/early Fifties), the Labour Party made a point of choosing uneducated candidates, and with that policy in mind, Nye Bevan was actually the best choice among the alternatives.

    Privatising the NHS MIGHT be the right move. Don't knock the idea based on some visceral, "gut" feeling; sober thought and level heads must prevail. In my opinion, anything that decreases the tax burden on the average Briton is going in the right direction. I believe that privatising the NHS would be a major source of relief from tax burden, even adjusting for the loss the average Briton would have to pay owing to doctors' fees an'all.

    Do you seriously believe that the NHS tax we all pay is equal to the average cost, in real terms, of providing health insurance, or even health care, to someone? No! Of course not. Even though technically, insurance should take into account risk and the simple cost of doing business (that is, health fees taken by doctors etc.), I appreciate that the NHS does not need to do the first part. Instead, it calculates risk for an imaginary "average patient", and multiplies this by the "degree of need"---this is where you get your NHS fee from. But that's not all. Because it's a government organisation, the NHS is padded out nicely to provide hidden profit, over and above what a private insurance firm would gain.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    National Rail is essentially nationalized and is not close to collapsing.

    British Gas was sold off when it was profitable.

    The Royal Mail was sold when profitable (we still hold a 30% stake).
    Do you judge the privatisations to have been a mistake? I think they were the right thing to do. A government should have a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch, and it should only own such organisations as are directly related to these branches. Government does not need a gas company, or a postal delivery firm, or (way back in the day) a telephone firm.

    If I had to pick a near-perfect government, it would be that of the U.S., immediately prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal malarkey, excepting, of course, the protectionist policies it had adopted. Who says that the State has a duty to provide a social safety net? Certainly not Keynes. But then again, I'm anti-income redistribution as well as anti-Crown corporation.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    Because it's a half-baked idea proposed by a Taffy who didn't go to uni and who was a miner's son, and thus who had no idea how government projects work.

    Should have been privatised ages ago.
    A privatised NHS? What so we can give the likes of Branson tax-payer contracts? I don't think so.

    A privatised NHS does not mean that there is less tax, just that the government is not in control of it, it simply hands over lump sums to private companies.

    You are also naive if you think that a private company will make less profit than a non-profit government run organisation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Borgia)
    A privatised NHS? What so we can give the likes of Branson tax-payer contracts? I don't think so.

    A privatised NHS does not mean that there is less tax, just that the government is not in control of it, it simply hands over lump sums to private companies.
    I think it should be the choice of every Briton to opt in or out of health insurance, and that a competitive market must be created. Say, have the choice between The Co-Operators, Virgin Health, and maybe "the government option" (NHS as-is).

    Your inclusion of the word "non-profit" is indicative of bias; perhaps they are non-profit in intent, but there is always a substantial degree of cronyism and padding. How come, therefore, Tony Blair can light his cigarettes with twenty-pound notes?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    I think it should be the choice of every Briton to opt in or out of health insurance, and that a competitive market must be created. Say, have the choice between The Co-Operators, Virgin Health, and maybe "the government option" (NHS as-is).

    Your inclusion of the word "non-profit" is indicative of bias; perhaps they are non-profit in intent, but there is always a substantial degree of cronyism and padding. How come, therefore, Tony Blair can light his cigarettes with twenty-pound notes?
    So what, it becomes impossible for people with poor health to get healthcare?

    The system you speak of could exist right now, but it doesn't, because no one would use it when they have the NHS. If you want private health care, you go and get it. It's there.

    And please drop the business woman schtick. We are talking about people's health here, not designing the next crappy dragons den product.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Borgia)
    So what, it becomes impossible for people with poor health to get healthcare?

    The system you speak of could exist right now, but it doesn't, because no one would use it when they have the NHS. If you want private health care, you go and get it. It's there.

    And please drop the business woman schtick. We are talking about people's health here, not designing the next crappy dragons den product.
    If I want private health care, sure, I go and get it---BUT I STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE NHS!

    In real terms, the closest equivalent would be the Prime Minister saying, "We want everyone to drive, so the government will give you a free Land Rover once you become 17 and pass your driving licence exam. This will be accompanied by an income tax rise to cover some of that extra money." "But what if I want a Mercedes? I don't like Land Rovers." "You can still get a Mercedes, but you'll still need to pay the tax, so I suggest you enjoy your brand new Land Rover."
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    If I want private health care, sure, I go and get it---BUT I STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE NHS!

    In real terms, the closest equivalent would be the Prime Minister saying, "We want everyone to drive, so the government will give you a free Land Rover once you become 17 and pass your driving licence exam. This will be accompanied by an income tax rise to cover some of that extra money." "But what if I want a Mercedes? I don't like Land Rovers." "You can still get a Mercedes, but you'll still need to pay the tax, so I suggest you enjoy your brand new Land Rover."
    But health care is not a frivolous free gift like a Land Rover. What a stupid comparison. Do you complain about having to pay taxes for schools too?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Borgia)
    But health care is not a frivolous free gift like a Land Rover. What a stupid comparison. Do you complain about having to pay taxes for schools too?
    Yes, actually, I do. I went to a proper school, and my cousin... well, he went to Eton like grand-dad, and great grand-dad before him. I don't think I should pay for comprehensives; my kids sure won't use them.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    Yes, actually, I do. I went to a proper school, and my cousin... well, he went to Eton like grand-dad, and great grand-dad before him. I don't think I should pay for comprehensives; my kids sure won't use them.
    At this point Poe's law comes into play, but nonetheless, you do realise that the majority of the population cannot afford their children's education. An entire generation of British children with no education would leave this country damaged beyond repair and entirely reliant on immigrants, which I presume you, as a UKIP supporter do not want...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Borgia)
    At this point Poe's law comes into play, but nonetheless, you do realise that the majority of the population cannot afford their children's education. An entire generation of British children with no education would leave this country damaged beyond repair and entirely reliant on immigrants, which I presume you, as a UKIP supporter do not want...
    Well, the "proper school" comment was entirely in jest, but my point was that the majority of the population COULD afford their children's education if the tax burden was lower.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    Well, the "proper school" comment was entirely in jest, but my point was that the majority of the population COULD afford their children's education if the tax burden was lower.
    No it couldn't. How on earth does that work? The amount paid by the average person towards school costs is less than 10,000 pounds a year.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Borgia)
    No it couldn't. How on earth does that work? The amount paid by the average person towards school costs is less than 10,000 pounds a year.
    Well the way I see it is this:

    Who pays comprehensive school fees? Taxpayers do. As far as I know, they are financed in no other way---either directly or indirectly by taxes. I know this because the Government profits only by taxing the population, and comp schools are Government-funded. It follows, therefore, that if you got rid of the tax components that finance the school system, the taxpayers would get this money and would therefore be able to use it as they see fit, INCLUDING ON EDUCATION.

    So why not cut out the middle-man entirely? Have schools funded by the parents of the children that go to them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    Yes, actually, I do. I went to a proper school, and my cousin... well, he went to Eton like grand-dad, and great grand-dad before him. I don't think I should pay for comprehensives; my kids sure won't use them.
    This "proper" school doesn't seem to have taught you much about tact or, indeed, how to convey yourself persuasively or particularly well at all.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    This "proper" school doesn't seem to have taught you much about tact or, indeed, how to convey yourself persuasively or particularly well at all.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Sorry, I've been drinking, and where I am, it's 4 in the morning!

    Furthermore, a substantial number of laughs can be had when one throws tact out the window; delivering news or making an argument in the most mean way possible, but while retaining cogency, is my favourite type of humour.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    Well the way I see it is this:

    Who pays comprehensive school fees? Taxpayers do. As far as I know, they are financed in no other way---either directly or indirectly by taxes. I know this because the Government profits only by taxing the population, and comp schools are Government-funded. It follows, therefore, that if you got rid of the tax components that finance the school system, the taxpayers would get this money and would therefore be able to use it as they see fit, INCLUDING ON EDUCATION.

    So why not cut out the middle-man entirely? Have schools funded by the parents of the children that go to them.
    It would be a struggle for most people.

    I think the government funds each state school place to the tune of about £4000 per pupil - but there's no way of translating that back to tax paid in by individuals.

    A day school is going to cost about £11000 per year as a minimum - £7000 if you rebate the state school contribution. If you have two children, that's still £14000 to find from purely disposible income. If you're on £50000 per year, and want to fund two day school places as well (rather than state or grammar) you'd be looking at having to find an additional £20000 at least to take into account your high rate tax.

    This doesn't take into account VI Form which is a lot more expensive.

    At best, giving parents back the state school fees as a voucher or rebate is a treat - it can't incentivise people who are nowhere near affording it, or are marginal on the idea of school fees.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I would also predict that if a vouchering system came in, public schools would immediately ramp up their fees. In the past 10 years or so, few things have inflated as fast as school fees.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmeckel)
    Do you judge the privatisations to have been a mistake? I think they were the right thing to do. A government should have a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch, and it should only own such organisations as are directly related to these branches. Government does not need a gas company, or a postal delivery firm, or (way back in the day) a telephone firm.

    If I had to pick a near-perfect government, it would be that of the U.S., immediately prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal malarkey, excepting, of course, the protectionist policies it had adopted. Who says that the State has a duty to provide a social safety net? Certainly not Keynes. But then again, I'm anti-income redistribution as well as anti-Crown corporation.
    In hindsight i do think that while it was a good idea to split infrastructure and operations in energy and transport i do think that Network Rail is right to be nationalised and the National Grid should be too (both of these were/are franchised monopolies which can't be as efficient in the free market without substantial change to planning laws - i doubt people want want multiple train tracks or electricity networks running through their town though). Energy supply should remain privatised and government should stop taxing energy bills, instead they should focus on creating more competition, possibly involving a state entrant to 'encourage' energy companies to pass on their price falls a bit quicker. In rail i would scrap the current franchised monopolies and technically nationalise however i would allow open access bidding in the way that Grand Central operates now. This means that each year (they'd purchase their own trains ect.. so no government subsidies to these businesses) Virgin would say that they wish to run the 00 service from London to Leeds, National Express would run the 15 service, the state the 30 service and so forth.. one service per hour per company for the whole day for the whole year with a state entrant.. this creates competition.

    I completely agree with the privatisation of the Royal Mail although i may have kept a tad more than the 30%. It's a non-essential business in a competitive market, there's no reason for the state to keep it.

    I would also like to see the BBC at least partially privatised.

    (Original post by Clip)
    I would also predict that if a vouchering system came in, public schools would immediately ramp up their fees. In the past 10 years or so, few things have inflated as fast as school fees.
    Most of the best public schools already have fees far in excess of what the government would provide via a voucher unless they were stupid. If government instead said 'here's a £10k voucher, but if you can't get in with that your staying at a state school' then what you'd see is that the existing private schools being selective would 'kindly' allow students passing the tests into the schools for that £10k (it's still in their interest to have every student that can get an A* because it makes them look better to actual fee paying parents) but a lot of others left out. At that point you'd probably see some £10k fee schools pop up as well and the more moderately charging public schools probably expand substantially to take in more students so long as they were intelligent.

    Thick children probably wouldn't benefit from the system though.
    Offline

    15


    NHS spending has been cut, Tories forced to admit
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Only in real terms. And still less than Scotland and Wales (not that i don't consider that a good thing).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    immigration ?

    the labour deficit ?

    What's going on ?
    Doctors throwing their toys out of their pram no getting larger pensions when they retire resulting in GP surgerys trying to make it awkward for working people to get out of hour hoapital appointments.

    A general election coming up so UNiSON playing its face for nurses trying to justify more money.

    A more demanding population wanting immediate treatment.

    A population who is incapable of self diagnosing.

    The advent of 24 hour media requiring story's being blown out of all proportion .
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • 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.