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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    The idea that service X won't be provided if the state doesn't step in to provide it for us has no substance. Think about how many good restaurants there are in your local area, is this abundance of the food the result of government dictat? No. It's a natural consequence of a market system that encourages producers to compete with one another for custom. Little kiddies aren't starving on the street due to a lack of government interference, indeed, the West -thanks to it's market model in food- produces so much that the majority have trouble keeping their weight down.

    My model is simple - let the people identify their needs and keep the state out the way so those needs can be tended to efficiently. Yes the market is scary. But it's no more scary than having David Cameron or Barack Obama in charge of the nation's health service. Politicians have no business running hospitals, I wouldn't even put them in charge of a fish'n'chip shop.

    You can't compare food production with health care. The costs involved are worlds apart.

    Aside from that, under your model who would pay for the care needed by orphans, children from low income homes, children and adults with learning difficulties or complicated chronic diseases, the disabled, those not able to work due to illness etc?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    There is still law and government in libertarian models.
    Libertarians support public spending when it suits them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A right to life, isnt the same as a right to exist.

    Article 3

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    If you have a right to life then you are equally entitled to healthcare provision.

    In fact to deny healthcare is tantamount to inhumane treatment?

    Article 5

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    And finally everyone does have a right to health and therefore health care.

    Article 25

    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


    I think the ECHR answers the question.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Libertarians support public spending when it suits them.
    OK...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Any state that claims to be civilised can hardly do so when it allows so many of it's citizens to suffer needlessly. Also comparing Healthcare with another service such as getting a haircut is as about as credible as claiming that murder and running a red light are the same because they are both 'crimes'.

    (Original post by Barksy)
    You're confusing it with anarchism. There is still law and government in libertarian models. There just isn't a government that controls every aspect of your life.

    Remind me why the US grew so rapidly and the USSR collapsed? I know it's an over-used example but it serves its purpose.
    It probably has a lot more to do with the problems that arise when you try and completely rearrange a countries economic and social make up within the space of a few years as opposed to a gradual development which, both capitalism had over the space of a few hundred years and which prominent socialists predicted would happen rather then a fundamental flaw with socialist thought. Also, I doubt having a more established economic power continually do all within its means to mess things up as well as an incredibly costly war helped.

    The basic premise of more extreme socialist thought isn't to have a government that controls every aspect of your life, rather it swaps the over-emphasis of the individual to that of the community whereby people work as a community for the best of that community.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by castlemadeofsand)
    The basic premise of more extreme socialist thought isn't to have a government that controls every aspect of your life, rather it swaps the over-emphasis of the individual to that of the community whereby people work as a community for the best of that community.
    I don't care much for theoretical intricacies. The reality is it hasn't worked when tried; what it has achieved is misery for those unfortunate enough to live under the iron boot.

    The far left had the chance to sell itself in the last century. It failed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    You can't compare food production with health care. The costs involved are worlds apart.

    Aside from that, under your model who would pay for the care needed by orphans, children from low income homes, children and adults with learning difficulties or complicated chronic diseases, the disabled, those not able to work due to illness etc?
    I don't think you're getting it.

    The costs are worlds apart because one is a free market and the other is a schlerotic government monopoly, if they were both free markets the costs would be comparable and we would potentially enjoy an abundance of healthcare. Contrary to what the left believe healthcare isn't intrinsically expensive, it's been made so by decades of government bloat - the market is the antidote to this.

    It isn't right to allow a handful of extreme hardship cases to ruin the service for everybody else. By insisting on socialism the poor and mentally vulnerable are dragging standards down for the rest of society leading to a degraded average outcome. Imo the poor are much more likely to obtain healthcare when it's cheap and abundant as opposed to when it's scarce and expensive, markets are a way of achieving this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    It's not the right to healthcare that's the problem though, it's the associated financial burden that falls on the rest of society to help fund this so called right.
    Well, I believe the purpose thread was to debate whether healthcare can be considered a right. If you agree that rights are subjective then I think that proves that in certain scenerios, healthcare could be considered a right. Whether or not said right is practical is completely different discussion.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    As the OP says why stop there? Why not demand a right to free clothing, heating and food too if the economic model you're proposing is so wondrous?
    Effectively we already have those; except people are given money rather than being given clothes, fuel, electricity and food directly.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    It's because nobody will get out of bed in the morning if the state threatens to confiscate their income for the benefit of somebody they've never even met.
    That's been occuring since the dawn of civilisation and I'm pretty sure at least some people have woken up since then.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    Socialism does not work.
    Have I not told you this a thousand times before? social welfare programmes do not make a society socialist; common ownership of the means of production would. I think this video explains it well:

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Well, I believe the purpose thread was to debate whether healthcare can be considered a right. If you agree that rights are subjective then I think that proves that in certain scenerios, healthcare could be considered a right. Whether or not said right is practical is completely different discussion.

    Effectively we already have those; except people are given money rather than being given clothes, fuel, electricity and food directly.

    That's been occuring since the dawn of civilisation and I'm pretty sure at least some people have woken up since then.

    Have I not told you this a thousand times before? social welfare programmes do not make a society socialist; common ownership of the means of production would. I think this video explains it well:

    Your 'right' to healthcare infringes upon my right not to be stolen from. What you're advocating, in essence, is the highwayman state. Didn't your parents ever teach you that it's wrong to steal? Why does theft and coercion magically become ok when the state indulges in it? I would genuinely like an answer to this.

    That's slightly different. Almost nobody these days would advocate the nationalisation of Asda for example, yet we persist with this model for the NHS because it's what we've always done. If your theories were workable why aren't you out there beating the drum for state owned supermarkets and clothing stores? A lack of enthusiasm for this sort of thing is telling.

    Well like it or not state activity like taxation does cause unemployment, even your average GCSE economics student knows that! Lefties deliberately blinker themselves to the economic reality of socialism though and harp on instead about the 'poor&vulnerable'. At least acknowledge both sides of the equation. That's all I ask.

    The NHS is the epitome of socialism being as it is a state run monopoly. You know all those beds and hopitals and scalpels and things (aka the means of production)? Well the state owns them on behalf of the taxpayer.

    I think it's you who hasn't yet come to terms with the definition of socialism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Libertarians support public spending when it suits them.
    Libertarians believe in primacy of the cost-benefit analysis.

    What this means is that there must be a strong justification for a collective action because of the potential threat it poses to individual liberty. If the benefits of collectivity outweight the costs -i.e laws that prohibits shoplifting and/or thievery in general - then it would be foolish to disregard it without careful consideration.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    I don't know really, the right not be killed in the street just seems like a sensible idea. As always though it's up for debate.
    The right to not die of easily curable diseases just seems like a sensible idea too
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Your 'right' to healthcare infringes upon my right not to be stolen from. What you're advocating, in essence, is the highwayman state. Didn't your parents ever teach you that it's wrong to steal? Why does theft and coercion magically become ok when the state indulges in it? I would genuinely like an answer to this.
    It doesn't become right because the state says so. It becomes right because of the circumstances. If somebody I new was dying and the only way to save his/her life was to steal the cure then frankly I would do it and I don't care what you or the state would think of me for it. I understand that in most scenerios stealing is wrong, however I think in that case the damage caused by not doing so would be worse than the damage caused by letting them die. As I said in my first post; I'm a consequentialist - my views on what's right and what's wrong are based on the consequences of said actions.

    Also, I should note that paradoxically your right not to be stolen from infringes on the right of others not to be stolen from since money has to be stolen from others in order to fund the police force that that enforces said right.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    That's slightly different. Almost nobody these days would advocate the nationalisation of Asda for example, yet we persist with this model for the NHS because it's what we've always done. If your theories were workable why aren't you out there beating the drum for state owned supermarkets and clothing stores? A lack of enthusiasm for this sort of thing is telling.
    Because it's rather easy to determine how much money one would need in order to buy food, clothes, etc. and they are relatively cheap, consequently even the unemployed can afford them. Admittedly, fuel, not so much - it might be worthwhile to grant a reasonable amount of heating fuel for free, particularly for the elderly for instance. But anyway, with healthcare, you can't really predict what kind of money you'd need to pay for your healthcare bills in the future; how does one know they're going to be involved in a horrific car accident or catch some strange new disease the next day? they wont. You could say insurance, however, that assumes everyone can afford it; in the US 1/6 people have no such insurance, for instance.


    (Original post by chefdave)
    Well like it or not state activity like taxation does cause unemployment, even your average GCSE economics student knows that!
    I don't recall economics being that simplistic...

    (Original post by chefdave)
    Lefties deliberately blinker themselves to the economic reality of socialism though and harp on instead about the 'poor&vulnerable'. At least acknowledge both sides of the equation. That's all I ask.
    What equation?

    (Original post by chefdave)
    The NHS is the epitome of socialism being as it is a state run monopoly. You know all those beds and hopitals and scalpels and things (aka the means of production)? Well the state owns them on behalf of the taxpayer.
    Yes, but in order to be considered socialist then all forms of private property must be abolished. By that logic virtually all societies since the beginning of civilisation were socialists as they had militaries, police forces, etc. all controlled by the state and indeed paid for by the taxpayer.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    I think it's you who hasn't yet come to terms with the definition of socialism.
    In which case I may have to think of a new term for myself...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    The right to not die of easily curable diseases just seems like a sensible idea too
    You don't have a right to force other people to do stuff for you. A right to healthcare is all well and good but from the libertarian perspective it's tantamount to slavery because you're using your 'rights' to force others to labour for you free of charge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    It doesn't become right because the state says so. It becomes right because of the circumstances. If somebody I new was dying and the only way to save his/her life was to steal the cure then frankly I would do it and I don't care what you or the state would think of me for it. I understand that in most scenerios stealing is wrong, however I think in that case the damage caused by not doing so would be worse than the damage caused by letting them die. As I said in my first post; I'm a consequentialist - my views on what's right and what's wrong are based on the consequences of said actions.

    Also, I should note that paradoxically your right not to be stolen from infringes on the right of others not to be stolen from since money has to be stolen from others in order to fund the police force that that enforces said right.



    Because it's rather easy to determine how much money one would need in order to buy food, clothes, etc. and they are relatively cheap, consequently even the unemployed can afford them. Admittedly, fuel, not so much - it might be worthwhile to grant a reasonable amount of heating fuel for free, particularly for the elderly for instance. But anyway, with healthcare, you can't really predict what kind of money you'd need to pay for your healthcare bills in the future; how does one know they're going to be involved in a horrific car accident or catch some strange new disease the next day? they wont. You could say insurance, however, that assumes everyone can afford it; in the US 1/6 people have no such insurance, for instance.




    I don't recall economics being that simplistic...



    What equation?



    Yes, but in order to be considered socialist then all forms of private property must be abolished. By that logic virtually all societies since the beginning of civilisation were socialists as they had militaries, police forces, etc. all controlled by the state and indeed paid for by the taxpayer.



    In which case I may have to think of a new term for myself...
    1) Under free market conditions producers would simply stop producing if well meaning people like you kept pinching their stock, in turn this would deprive the rest of society from getting the medicine they desperately needed. This is why socialism/communism is such a consistent failure: it works against the grain of human nature by penalising people for attempting to better themselves via hard work.

    I think you should consider the wider social and economic implications of the philosophy you're advancing, just a few minutes' thought should expose it's glaringly obvious flaws! There are far reaching consequences to theft one of them being economic underperformance.

    2) At least you admit that taxation is theft. A Freudian slip or a fleeting moment of honesty from a liberal-leftist?

    3) But the costs of treatment have been inflated due to years of heavy government intervention. We don't know what the true cost of healthcare is because we've never been brave enough to trust the free market (and when I say free market I mean people freely identifying their needs and then satisfying them accordingly). If the costs were lowered care would become more accessible and the poor would no longer be considered poor because a larger amount of services would be within their financial reach. The NHS is too inefficient, ultimately this only helps those working with in it. Why not put the patient first for a change?

    4) It really is that simplistic. A basic supply/demand graph will clearly demonstrate the impact of increased taxation or a rise in the national minimum wage. When prices rise the amount people can afford falls and less is consumed as a result. GCSE level stuff.

    5) The negative impact of socialism/taxation. Lefties only look at schools and hospitals etc like the funding has come out of thin air.

    6) The NHS pretty much conforms to the dictionary definition of socialism, the presence of BUPA etc doesn't detract from this. Stop trying to sidestep the obvious!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You don't have a right to force other people to do stuff for you. A right to healthcare is all well and good but from the libertarian perspective it's tantamount to slavery because you're using your 'rights' to force others to labour for you free of charge.
    Yes, I've seen your argument from your other posts so I see where you are coming from.

    However, you see the need for some form of government yes? So therefore you need some form of tax to fund it?

    So you agree with tax, in principle, for the really important things - but you don't agree with healthcare being included in one of those important things.

    Other people do, you just have different boundaries - Your cost-to-benefit assessment is different to mine.

    Your arguments also apply to me. In my case, I don't think the NHS should spend billions on every little thing to save every person possible forcing a 90% tax, you have to draw a line somewhere.

    We draw the line in vastly different places. I think that £1000 of my tax for healthcare is a good deal, you don't.

    - or am I wrong? (in my assessment of your views)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    Yes, I've seen your argument from your other posts so I see where you are coming from.

    However, you see the need for some form of government yes? So therefore you need some form of tax to fund it?

    So you agree with tax, in principle, for the really important things - but you don't agree with healthcare being included in one of those important things.

    Other people do, you just have different boundaries - Your cost-to-benefit assessment is different to mine.

    Your arguments also apply to me. In my case, I don't think the NHS should spend billions on every little thing to save every person possible forcing a 90% tax, you have to draw a line somewhere.

    We draw the line in vastly different places. I think that £1000 of my tax for healthcare is a good deal, you don't.

    - or am I wrong? (in my assessment of your views)
    Having David Cameron et al run the health service makes about as much sense as asking him to run a chain of builder's merchants, we know from experience that this will almost certainly end in a financial catastrophe because the state doesn't have the wherewithal to respond to market demand sensitively.

    Nobody is asking the state to renationalise o2, British Airways or British Leyland for example because by and large these privatisations were a success. Privatisation has precedent, so there' no reason to assume that a free market in healthcare is destined to fail. If we had a properly functioning healthcare market that was free to provide patients with the treatment they needed (i.e low taxes, less regulation and a review of the drug patent system) my prediction is that the population would aclimatise and never look back.

    Just because the state is no longer doing something it doesn't follow that it won't get done. Somebody else will step in. You can be assured of that.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Having David Cameron et al run the health service makes about as much sense as asking him to run a chain of builder's merchants, we know from experience that this will almost certainly end in a financial catastrophe because the state doesn't have the wherewithal to respond to market demand sensitively.

    Nobody is asking the state to renationalise o2, British Airways or British Leyland for example because by and large these privatisations were a success. Privatisation has precedent, so there' no reason to assume that a free market in healthcare is destined to fail. If we had a properly functioning healthcare market that was free to provide patients with the treatment they needed (i.e low taxes, less regulation and a review of the drug patent system) my prediction is that the population would aclimatise and never look back.

    Just because the state is no longer doing something it doesn't follow that it won't get done. Somebody else will step in. You can be assured of that.
    The difference, to me, is that building an extension on my house isn't a requirement for me to live

    Anyway, that's not really the issue.

    Maybe you are right and it would be more cost effective. But I take a look at the US and think "Thank god we have a the NHS"...

    In the UK the worst case is that you pay tax and don't ever get ill, or earn a lot of money so you are paying more than you are getting.

    In a private system the worst case is that you get very ill, cannot afford treatment and die horribly (and dramatically! lol, I'm being a bit silly but the point is valid).



    If the choice is between our flawed NHS, which could be improved, and a system like the US has - I'm happy to pay my higher taxes knowing I won't have to remorgage my house if I get cancer.

    You could introduce some kind of insurance like the US is trying, and have your best of both worlds - private companies but with some government safety net for the poor, for example like we currently do housing benefits. But it seems to just be introducing a middle-man who is going to be making a profit to me.

    The NHS certainly has a lot to learn from business though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    The difference, to me, is that building an extension on my house isn't a requirement for me to live

    Anyway, that's not really the issue.

    Maybe you are right and it would be more cost effective. But I take a look at the US and think "Thank god we have a the NHS"...

    In the UK the worst case is that you pay tax and don't ever get ill, or earn a lot of money so you are paying more than you are getting.

    In a private system the worst case is that you get very ill, cannot afford treatment and die horribly (and dramatically! lol, I'm being a bit silly but the point is valid).



    If the choice is between our flawed NHS, which could be improved, and a system like the US has - I'm happy to pay my higher taxes knowing I won't have to remorgage my house if I get cancer.

    You could introduce some kind of insurance like the US is trying, and have your best of both worlds - private companies but with some government safety net for the poor, for example like we currently do housing benefits. But it seems to just be introducing a middle-man who is going to be making a profit to me.

    The NHS certainly has a lot to learn from business though.
    Drawing parallels with the U.S isn't really fair because their system is private, it isn't free market. There's a difference that's all too often glossed over because we've been trained to automatically shut down our mental faculties and clam up whenever the private sector is mentioned as a solution. U.S healthcare is an exercise in crony capitalism. It's heavily regulated, heavily subsidised, and as a result it's run for the benefit of well paid healthcare professionals and suited middlemen who gorge themselves rotten at everybody else's expense. Iif this were the alternative I would go for the NHS too! But it's not what most libertarians propose. All we want is a deregulated healthcare system that is free to use the profit motive and price signalling to work out what it is that patients need most. This method works whenever it's put into practice, there's no reason to assume it will fail just because healthcare is really, really important.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Drawing parallels with the U.S isn't really fair because their system is private, it isn't free market. There's a difference that's all too often glossed over because we've been trained to automatically shut down our mental faculties and clam up whenever the private sector is mentioned as a solution. U.S healthcare is an exercise in crony capitalism. It's heavily regulated, heavily subsidised, and as a result it's run for the benefit of well paid healthcare professionals and suited middlemen who gorge themselves rotten at everybody else's expense. Iif this were the alternative I would go for the NHS too! But it's not what most libertarians propose. All we want is a deregulated healthcare system that is free to use the profit motive and price signalling to work out what it is that patients need most. This method works whenever it's put into practice, there's no reason to assume it will fail just because healthcare is really, really important.
    Are their any working examples?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hanvyj)
    Are their any working examples?
    Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell in their book The Plan cite Singapore as a good example of a hybrid model that neatly avoid the pitfalls associated with socialisation and privatisation via the allocation of individual health saving accounts. Because it encourages price sensitivity in the marketplace (i.e patients shop around comparing the services on offer) it rewards efficiency and places a natural limit on what healthcare professionals are able to charge. I would go further, naturally, but this model seems like a reasonable one.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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

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