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

Education is now a product not a service Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This post is an embarassing post of cliches, predjudices and misinformation.

    (Original post by Picaa)
    That is, it's not the universities that cost the govt a lot of money in subsidies, it's the NHS. Massive, bloated, ineffective, a relic of the post-War British recovery.
    The NHS consumes 8% of GDP (compared to 11% in France, 16% in the USA, 10% in Australia), and cost per head of population is one of the lowest in the industrialised world. I made a thread on this topic - with some more stats http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1469622.

    Doctors cost the taxpayer well over 100K a year each, yet most of their time is spent dispensing painkillers and diagnosing minor infections and ministering to the elderly. How does the education system at present help with this? It doesn't .. it just makes it much WORSE.
    I really don't understand what your even getting at here.

    i.)Pre-Consultantcy doctors cost the taxpayer way below that (£20-£60K)
    ii.) Medicine has become increasingly advanced in the last few decades - heart transplants, gene therepy, effective cancer treatment, robotic surgery and on and on and on - to say that a modern doctors role is simply "dispensing painkillers and diagnosing minor infections" highlights a complete ignorance of modern medical science and the direction it's moving - i.e. a highly complex science, illustrated by the trend towards increased sub-specialisation.
    iii.) The bit about old people just sounds like disgusting ageist rhetoric

    How does it make it worse? Nursing is becoming a 'profession' instead of a vocation because of these various nursing and medical degrees e.g. Radiography. An inferior one to physician but still bloody expensive so we need to get foreigners/agency staff to take up the mundane jobs of wiping asses in the hospital wards and sweeping up.
    Both nursing and radiography have become increasingly more technical and specialised in modern medicine. Nurses don't do mundane work that's done largely by HCAs and cleaning is done by cleaners (surprisingly).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    This post is an embarassing post of cliches, predjudices and misinformation.



    The NHS consumes 8% of GDP (compared to 11% in France, 16% in the USA, 10% in Australia), and cost per head of population is one of the lowest in the industrialised world. I made a thread on this topic - with some more stats http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1469622.
    'Oh but it's less percentage of GDP than in France' he whines. Who gives a **** about France or the USA. Even if all that were true, how does it help us save costs. I suggest you start looking at reality a little more clearly. Try focusing on these stats:

    Cost of entire NHS per annum : about 100 billion GBP
    Cost of higher education : about 6.3 billion GBP
    [Cost of entire armed forces per annum : about 30 billion GBP]

    Does that make things a little bit clearer for you? Truth hurts, doesn't it? Well those are the figures and the NHS is a staggering burden on the taxpayer.

    I really don't understand what your even getting at here.

    i.)Pre-Consultantcy doctors cost the taxpayer way below that (£20-£60K)
    'Pre-consultancy doctors' eh?? Oh you mean TRAINEES who are doing their obligatory 2-year stint in a hospital ward or somewhere similar before being allowed to practice as GPs. Duh...

    ii.) Medicine has become increasingly advanced in the last few decades - heart transplants, gene therepy, effective cancer treatment, robotic surgery and on and on and on - to say that a modern doctors role is simply "dispensing painkillers and diagnosing minor infections" highlights a complete ignorance of modern medical science and the direction it's moving - i.e. a highly complex science, illustrated by the trend towards increased sub-specialisation.
    Whatever medical and scientific advances take place, the majority of people who consult with 100K-a-year doctors do so over minor ailments - colds, flus, little Jonny had tummy trouble and couldn't go to school today, etc. It's not high-tech drugs but massive quantities of painkillers and antibiotics being prescribed. My point being: a NURSE could handle such consultations more efficiently than having a very expensive doctor there, and perhaps even filter things that make it through to a reduced GP contingent at most surgeries. Hope you get it..

    iii.) The bit about old people just sounds like disgusting ageist rhetoric
    To an idiot like you, sure it would sound like that. To a reasonable person, it's obvious that most patient hours are spent with retired OAPs. There is a growing percentage of the population in that bracket, and they are MASSIVE consumers of the NHS. Is the reality of this world not PC enough for you? You don't like people to say it how it is? Well tough.

    Both nursing and radiography have become increasingly more technical and specialised in modern medicine. Nurses don't do mundane work that's done largely by HCAs and cleaning is done by cleaners (surprisingly).
    Yeah that's the problem. People need to get back down to earth - the NHS cannot be expected to offer state-of-the-art high-tech medical expertise indefinitely. Not at the stupid rate of 100 billion per year, fed into by jumped-up nurses with degrees from ex-polys that themselves cost money, supported by propaganda from useless ***** on TSR fiddling the figures and doctoring a few charts and stats.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    I fully agree with you; and it's a point many people don't seem to realise. Education is a public service akin to fire brigades, police, hospitals, etc.

    The same argument that is used for tuition fees could also be used - without any change - to putting high fees for calling the fire brigade.

    Your house is burning, you call the fire brigade, they sort it out, you benefit.
    You want to become a doctor, you go to university, they teach you, you and the whole society benefit.
    This is a positive thing. You should pay for what you benefit from, be that education or fire fighting.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I can honestly say I have never met a nastier cyber-persona than yourself.

    (Original post by Picaa)
    'Oh but it's less percentage of GDP than in France' he whines. Who gives a **** about France or the USA. Even if all that were true, how does it help us save costs. I suggest you start looking at reality a little more clearly. Try focusing on these stats:

    Cost of entire NHS per annum : about 100 billion GBP
    Cost of higher education : about 6.3 billion GBP
    [Cost of entire armed forces per annum : about 30 billion GBP]

    Does that make things a little bit clearer for you? Truth hurts, doesn't it? Well those are the figures and the NHS is a staggering burden on the taxpayer
    Sorry, why are we comparing healthcare and the armed forces?

    We 'give a ****' about France and the USA because they are useful comparisons when talking about hea.thcare standards and economics. They are useful because they expose the lies peddled by people like yourself that the NHS is particularly more expensive than anywhere else, or particularly any worse. It's a damn site more useful than your bizzare logic of picking random areas of spending and then comparing it to healthcare.

    'Pre-consultancy doctors' eh?? Oh you mean TRAINEES who are doing their obligatory 2-year stint in a hospital ward or somewhere similar before being allowed to practice as GPs. Duh...
    Not really, foundation year doctors are included in that, I'm also talking about those doing ST1-7 training in hospitals or those training as GPST - you don't seem to understand the career structure of medicine - so again, it's another brick wall really.

    Whatever medical and scientific advances take place, the majority of people who consult with 100K-a-year doctors do so over minor ailments - colds, flus, little Jonny had tummy trouble and couldn't go to school today, etc.
    What sort of patients do oncologists, paedeatricans, heaemotologists, obs & gyn, urologists, vascular surgeons, cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, radiologists, paedeatric radiologists, interventional radiologists, interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, psychiatrists, orthopaedic surgeons, aneaesthetists, psychiatrists, a&e doctors, dermotologists, endocrinologists, hepatologists, max-fax surgeons, neurologists, neurological surgeons, proctologists, rheumatologists, surgical oncologists .etc.............deal with?

    I assume you are talking about GPs, a GPs role is to deal with minor ailments - determine who requires specialist help (and thus preserve resources) and increasingly manage people's conditions in the community - diabetics .etc. previous hopital out-patient clinics that have been moved to general practice, peform minor surgery, palliative care and so on.

    It's not high-tech drugs but massive quantities of painkillers and antibiotics being prescribed. My point being: a NURSE could handle such consultations more efficiently than having a very expensive doctor there, and perhaps even filter things that make it through to a reduced GP contingent at most surgeries. Hope you get it..
    I hope you get that's a criminally dangerous idea. Probably not.

    To an idiot like you, sure it would sound like that. To a reasonable person, it's obvious that most patient hours are spent with retired OAPs. There is a growing percentage of the population in that bracket, and they are MASSIVE consumers of the NHS. Is the reality of this world not PC enough for you? You don't like people to say it how it is? Well tough.
    Pardon? I am fully aware of the fact that the biggest users of the NHS are the elderly - does it not go without saying? I'm just wondering why that's a problem?

    Yeah that's the problem. People need to get back down to earth - the NHS cannot be expected to offer state-of-the-art high-tech medical expertise indefinitely. Not at the stupid rate of 100 billion per year, fed into by jumped-up nurses with degrees from ex-polys that themselves cost money, supported by propaganda from useless ***** on TSR fiddling the figures and doctoring a few charts and stats.
    What would be your opinion if you yourself, otr your family, required cancer treatment for example? Would it be too expensive then? What if a member of your own family required specialist cardiac surgey? Should we bother?

    Useless expletive? I'm going to be a doctor - what are you doing with your life? You just seem like an angry little basement dweller. I don't think attacking nurses will win you much favour - nurses are caring people, who like doctors, could earn more money and have an easier life (as well as not having to put up with the ignorance of certain members of the general public) doing other stuff. They are underpaid, overworked and are always the first to be laid off, blamed or pushed around.

    What's so inherently wrong with the state paying to provide people with healthcare - as discussed earlier it doesn't cost a particularly unreasonable amount, and access to good health is surely one of the most important investments a government can make.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    I can honestly say I have never met a nastier cyber-persona than yourself.
    Well that's nice. You see I had a look at your other posts on TSR and found an awful lot of similar posts to your ones above, all basically saying the same thing about Labour, the NHS, etc. and realised you're not interested in the truth. And why should you be? After all, it's OTHER people's money we're talking about spending, not yours. Everything is just a big joke, a big game, right? It's all capitalists vs workers, just like cowboys and Indians. So naturally you specialise in misreading, misinterpreting and misquoting, to support your agenda. However not everyone is as stupid as you think. TSR is not the House of Commons and the HoC is itself a farce to those in the know (and that doesn't include useful idiots like you). This concludes our communication.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Picaa, your earlier post seemed to be an attack on privatisation and now you are criticising the NHS? I don't understand what your stance is, it appears to be inconsistent.
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by SoulfulBoy)
      +1
      Hmmm. Don't you mean +(9000+n) ?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by HJV)
      I fully agree with you; and it's a point many people don't seem to realise. Education is a public service akin to fire brigades, police, hospitals, etc.

      The same argument that is used for tuition fees could also be used - without any change - to putting high fees for calling the fire brigade.

      Your house is burning, you call the fire brigade, they sort it out, you benefit.
      You want to become a doctor, you go to university, they teach you, you and the whole society benefit.
      It's quite a convincing argument to privatise the fire service, actually - rather than one for free university education.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lrampant)
      This is a positive thing. You should pay for what you benefit from, be that education or fire fighting.
      Right so if someones house in burning down, and say their kids are stuck upstairs, but they cannot afford to pay, you just let the kids die?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by garethDT)
      Picaa, your earlier post seemed to be an attack on privatisation and now you are criticising the NHS? I don't understand what your stance is, it appears to be inconsistent.
      Unless you take the view that everything should be state provided or nothing should be state provided, there is no inconsistency in believing government should pay for education at tertiary level and not health (or vice versa).
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by garethDT)
      I think if university is reserved for the academically gifted then it can be a public service free of charge. This is how it was before the 1990s.

      The idea to privatise education and double the amount of students had the intention of raising the skill level of the British workforce to adapt to a capitalist economy but it was a very naive concept. A person of average (academic in this case) ability will always end up in an average paid job; it is impossible to make people 'cleverer'. They did however want to give the illusion they were making people cleverer which is why they lowered entry requirements and make a degree a perfectly achievable qualification even for people of below average academic ability.

      The main hole in the privatisation argument is that it is based on 'if you want an advantage in the job market, then you should have to pay for it'. Whilst this is a fair comment in neglects the fact that with an ever increasing number of graduates, the idea that a degree guarantees a top job is absurd. What will happen with this generation is the people with 1sts and 2.1s in well respected courses will take the to jobs. People of average ability will get average jobs, regardless of a piece of paper which says they have a 3rd class degree in media studies.

      Higher education should be a public service to to the academically gifted who will in turn fund it by the high income tax they pay on their top salaries.

      I would suggest you watch this video about the so called academically gifted:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

      University should be for everyone that wants to go. It is one of the most incredible experiences of my life so far.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by simontinsley)
      It's quite a convincing argument to privatise the fire service, actually - rather than one for free university education.
      Out of interest, why do you think a private fire brigade would be desirable?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      [QUOTE=garethDT;28954838]Realistically though the amount of graduates who in the next 30 years will never earn more than £21k is ridiculously small. Also you don't seem to be taking into account that everyone's interest on the new rate will be very significant, and will certainly outweigh the money lost on those who slip through the net.[/QUOTE

      There have been several reports that have said the government will not get much more money back from increasing the fees.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Organ)
      Out of interest, why do you think a private fire brigade would be desirable?
      Well it seems almost absurd that government should declare that monopolies are bad and set up commissions to stop them and then enforce a monopoly in certain industries. I have no doubt that the fire service could be provided better if there were a multitude of providers.

      Furthermore, you'd see a lot more in the way of fire prevention since people would have more incentive not to have a fire, and thus there would end up being far less preventable fires, which are a waste in every sense of the word.

      Additionally to that, we currently use force to extract money from people without their permission in order to pay for the fire service (and other things), and I consider that immoral.

      EDIT: I don't really wish to get into a discussion in this thread, since I don't wish to drag it off-topic. If you make a new topic, quote me in.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by JMG89)
      I would suggest you watch this video about the so called academically gifted:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

      University should be for everyone that wants to go. It is one of the most incredible experiences of my life so far.
      interesting video thanks. If anything I think it supports my argument that everyone has different abilities and to hand out degrees to everyone undeserved or not is not fair on them and its not fair on the people who really are academically gifted.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by WelshBluebird)
      Right so if someones house in burning down, and say their kids are stuck upstairs, but they cannot afford to pay, you just let the kids die?
      It's called insurance.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lrampant)
      It's called insurance.
      And if as I said, they can't afford it??
      We already have high taxes and various insurances and bills. There are a lot of people who simply couldn't afford to pay for yet another service which is currently paid through taxes.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by garethDT)
      interesting video thanks. If anything I think it supports my argument that everyone has different abilities and to hand out degrees to everyone undeserved or not is not fair on them and its not fair on the people who really are academically gifted.
      you need to watch it again. He argues that there is no such thing as academic and non academic people, that these ideas are a fiction. Everyone has the ability to be academic however within the system we have only a few people are sucessful because different people learn in different ways. We need to change the system so that it is flexible for different methods of learning not just help the people who were sucessful in the system we have now.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by WelshBluebird)
      And if as I said, they can't afford it??
      We already have high taxes and various insurances and bills. There are a lot of people who simply couldn't afford to pay for yet another service which is currently paid through taxes.
      That's why you cut taxes...
      Give people the choice to insure their house against fire or not. They shouldn't be hand held by the government.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Lrampant)
      That's why you cut taxes...
      Give people the choice to insure their house against fire or not. They shouldn't be hand held by the government.
      If you really think the privitisation of something like the fire service would casue a cut in the amount of tax paid, then you are a very naive person.
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. 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.

  4. 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

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