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

B338 - Health Bill (Third Reading) Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    ...Healthcare should belong to the public and not private individuals seeking only profit.
    Because?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I commend Cardozo and Edi, despite their bizarre and unhelpful classist language, for actually engaging. Everyone else is a bell end.
    Thanks I guess

    I don't hate anyone for their political ideology (unlike some), I just challenge them and debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    Because?

    Because that is where I believe it should be. Healthcare should be run for the benefit of society, by society, as fits its purpose. Profit should have as little to do with it as possible. This is for me a fundamental axiom. Unlike your party I do not believe in attaching price tags to absolutely everything.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You realise this is the third reading? Having looked through the previous discussion there is not alot more to say that has not been said already. A succinct no seems the only apt comment from myself.

    But of course Libertarian narcissism dictates that an insult must be thrown at those who refuse to pay you heroes enough attention.
    I'm not sure there's any need to label him like that just because he believes in Libertarianism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Because that is where I believe it should be. Healthcare should be run for the benefit of society, by society, as fits its purpose. Profit should have as little to do with it as possible. This is for me a fundamental axiom. Unlike your party I do not believe in attaching price tags to absolutely everything.
    Where should price tags be attached? which goods/services and why? healthcare is a service like every other service, it has costs and benefits like every other service, and doctors and nurses are professionals like every other professional out there. What is it that I'm missing here?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    I'm not sure there's any need to label him like that just because he believes in Libertarianism.

    How did you reach this conclusion? Perhaps, shockingly I label the party in such a a way because that is how I perceive them as group. :eyebrow:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    Where should price tags be attached? which goods/services and why?
    That is the big question that I am prepared to tackle. I do not believe in absolutes, which seems to be what libertarianism deals in.

    healthcare is a service like every other service, it has costs and benefits like every other service, and doctors and nurses are professionals like every other professional out there. What is it that I'm missing here?
    Umm, I believe that it should be owned and provided publically? :confused: I did just say that to you in my last post didn't I?

    Just because something is a service does not mean it should be exploited for personal profit. There are certain services like healthcare which I believe should be owned and distributed publically and everybody in society should contribute. If certain individuals have profited enough from the existence of society so as to pay for dramatically better care, then lets call their contribution a debt for the obvious inequity which delivered them to such a position.

    After all these profits and personal fortunes would not be possible whatsoever without society itself. That has been widely accepted since Hobbes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You realise this is the third reading? Having looked through the previous discussion there is not alot more to say that has not been said already. A succinct no seems the only apt comment from myself.
    Not from most people. I made a post in the last thread saying much the same thing but without the phrase 'bell end'. In the first and second reading, almost everyone was totally either misreading or misrepresenting the bill based on a skim. They weren't debating the bill" they were debating what they thought the bill was in some awkwardly twisted annals of their mind. Go look through the old threads - Three quarters of the posts from the Libers were not negating counter-arguments, but negating flat out misunderstandings. That's not debate. What Cardozo, Edition and - latterly - yourself are doing here is debating the merits of the bill, not wading through a pond of misunderstanding. I don't think it is, thus, unreasonable for people to justify their dismissal of the bill. What's the point being here otherwise?

    But of course Libertarian narcissism dictates that an insult must be thrown at those who refuse to pay you heroes enough attention.
    It absolutely is, yeah, when socmany people apparantly are showing disdain for the effort placed in writing this bill by failing their metaphorical KS3 comprehension test by simply saying 'no' because they see the words 'sell' and 'NHS' in the same sentence. I'd say the same thing for other parties, I just tend not to read the other bills.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also, on the more broad topic of the bill, I find it worrying that people believe the state should be the sole executor of health provisions given that those services need to be provided by individuals. I don't think the government should be effectively appropriating the labour of people by monopolizing their potential employers, just because they happen to be a doctor or nurse or whatever. That is, of course, one of my many concerns with a fully state-dependent healthcare system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Not from most people. I made a post in the last thread saying much the same thing but without the phrase 'bell end'. In the first and second reading, almost everyone was totally either misreading or misrepresenting the bill based on a skim. They weren't debating the bill" they were debating what they thought the bill was in some awkwardly twisted annals of their mind. Go look through the old threads - Three quarters of the posts from the Libers were not negating counter-arguments, but negating flat out misunderstandings. That's not debate. What Cardozo, Edition and - latterly - yourself are doing here is debating the merits of the bill, not wading through a pond of misunderstanding. I don't think it is, thus, unreasonable for people to justify their dismissal of the bill. What's the point being here otherwise?
    It absolutely is, yeah, when socmany people apparantly are showing disdain for the effort placed in writing this bill by failing their metaphorical KS3 comprehension test by simply saying 'no' because they see the words 'sell' and 'NHS' in the same sentence. I'd say the same thing for other parties, I just tend not to read the other bills.


    Well, evidently this misunderstanding was a result of generalisations on both our parts. Mine, that all succinct replies would be based upon reasonable comprehension, understanding and informed disagreement. Yours, that all those who provided succinct replies lacked the above.

    I did not intend to express disdain for the effort that went in to writing and researching the bill, I realise they are a huge pain in the arse and if that is the impression I gave then I apologise. (Although I was probably disdainful of the ideological basis and for that I am not sorry :pierre:)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    That's not debate. What Cardozo, Edition
    It's Edi btw :P

    I asked the mods if I could change my forum username but they refused...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXedixXx)
    It's Edi btw :P

    I asked the mods if I could change my forum username but they refused...
    Sorry mate, that - and the various other Typo's - are the hazard of writing any reply longer than a sentence on a phone!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Sorry mate, that - and the various other Typo's - are the hazard of writing any reply longer than a sentence on a phone!
    Haha. I can imagine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    We've established you're good at strawmans. We've established this:

    • There's universal cover.
    • There's patient choice.
    • There is a reduced tax burden, particularly on the poor.
    • Plural health provision provides better health outcomes.
    • This provides better outcomes at lower cost to government.
    That's your cop out for any argument you can't deal with unfortunately. There is still just about universal cover, though there are issues with cost of care i've raised before which haven't been adequately dealt with. There is patient choice, as long as someone has money, and no health problems.
    There is tax reduction, but with a comparable benefit reduction through the adjustment in the PAA, which leaves the poorest no better off, but does reduce tax on the richer.
    And the idea that a private, rather than a public, health service being better is entirely down to your own perspective, so saying that has been established because its what you believe is rubbish.

    A reduction in received taxation through reduced NICs? Excuse me? Why should employer NICs go down because of this (or indeed employee NICs if they existed in TSR-land).
    Apologies, this was a stupid mistake on my part (been in Ireland too long).

    As for the cost, you must not have read the Bill. You seem to think risk equalisation is pricey, but it is designed to be revenue-neutral, specifically it not only subsidises more risky patients but it taxes less risky patients.

    The Bill as a whole is cost neutral. The tax cuts themselves are designed so that the Bill is cost neutral.
    But you've produced no figures to back this up. Particularly, you've not provided figures as to what price you've calculated this catastrophic health insurance to cost, and how this will increase the PAA. And specifically, you've not explained how the risk equalisation pool will work (will there be a standard insurance price due to risk equalisation? At what stage will finances from the risk equalisation pool be allocated, and how will risk taxes work?). It just doesn't seem to add up whichever way i think about it.


    Yes, the basket of goods will become cheaper, in that sense, they are no better off in terms of the handout everyone gets is the same. However to argue that the poor are not better off is wrong. For anyone spending 1p more than the PAA, they are better off. Why? Goods are cheaper, so anything spent outside of the basket of goods deemed the decent minimum is more available. Indeed, it means the working poor will be able to gain material wealth. Furthermore, income tax is reduced, so that people get to keep more of their own money that they do earn, again, helping those who earn 5p+.
    I wasn't discussing the change to income tax, but to vat and council tax, which in the context of TSR is regressive (in that those unable either to work, or to find a job, in theory gain or lose nothing, but the more someone earns and spends beyond that, the higher percentage of their total income will be saved).
    For those living in accomodation considered to be of a 'decent' standard by the PAA, there will be no gain or loss from the removal of council tax (as this would have been covered under the PAA), whether or not they are earning. But for those who are earning more, and can afford more expensive accomodation, they will save above what PAA covers, and be better off.
    The same applies to vat... someone receiving (and spending, for the sake of simplicity), for example, 10k a year on PAA, and nothing else, saves nothing. Someone doing so with 10k a year PAA, and 2k above it saves £100 (or 0.8% of their total received sum). With the same 10k PAA, and 10k above it saves £500 (2.5%)... 10k and 30k above it saves £1500 (3.75%)... etc... (in fact the same maths also applies to the drop in income tax)
    • Offline

      3
      Who wrote this bill? I want to ****ing punch them.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Jangrafess)
      Who wrote this bill? I want to ****ing punch them.
      I know you want to advance your left wing career with these strikes and things, but punching someone just means you are following J Prescott... Do you really want to do that to yourself and your career? :rolleyes:
      • Offline

        3
        (Original post by Teaddict)
        I know you want to advance your left wing career with these strikes and things, but punching someone just means you are following J Prescott... Do you really want to do that to yourself and your career? :rolleyes:
        No, this punch will just be to make me feel good.
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Jangrafess)
        No, this punch will just be to make me feel good.
        Rather than punch someone why not debate the bill?
        • Offline

          3
          (Original post by Teaddict)
          Rather than punch someone why not debate the bill?
          Punching them gets the point across rather more directly. Anyway, loads of people have debated it so far and not a single person has offered to punch the author.
          • Offline

            16
            (Original post by Teaddict)
            I know you want to advance your left wing career with these strikes and things, but punching someone just means you are following J Prescott... Do you really want to do that to yourself and your career? :rolleyes:
            That punch was funny though.
           
           
           
          TSR Support Team

          We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

          Updated: December 7, 2010
        • 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
          Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
        • 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.