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

Education is now a product not a service Watch

    Offline

    2
    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.
    I have no problem with privatising the NHS and have not been inconsistent at all. I think it's the perfect candidate for privatisation as at present like all massive state-funded undertakings it's extremely expensive and inefficient, no matter what dodgy graphs and stats its Politburo may put up in its defense. 100 billion a year is 100 billion a year.
    There is insufficient accountability and transparency, and a lot of care trusts seem to wield considerable autonomy over massive wads of guaranteed cash, without having any kind of stick or penalty at their backs for when they get things wrong. The private sector has to compete in a marketplace that punishes inefficiencies and failure. For that reason the NHS should be privatised.

    A couple of years ago I was telling anyone who would listen that the UK higher education system isn't working - the all-inclusive model is all wrong, it's not good value for money for the taxpayer, etc. Nobody was listening back then. Now look at the radical shake-up of higher education.. The same thing will happen, in an even more drastic way, with the NHS. This post-war fat monolith that sucks up funds can't carry on in this way. If people want state-of-the-art facilities, specialist nurses and overtrained overpaid doctors to tell them little Jonny will recover from the cold, they will have to pay for it in the future. It's only a matter of time. The choice we have is: do we want to approach this sensibly and privatise it in measured steps starting right now, or do we want to wait for another great Depression.
    Offline

    17
    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.
    Yeah- i agree.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.



    '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...



    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..



    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.



    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.
    Oh, I'm sorry. I did not realise you had a degree in medicine and surgery thus making you an expert in the medical field.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Service provided a product bubs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtomicMan)
    Oh, I'm sorry. I did not realise you had a degree in medicine and surgery thus making you an expert in the medical field.
    I don't need a medical degree to have an opinion on the NHS. It's too expensive and needs to be cut down to size - better yet privatise the lot. If a few yobbos on TSR don't like it then tough. If all that training and infrastructure for nursing and related medical degrees is really necessary, let the customer pick up the bill not the taxpayer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picaa)
    I don't need a medical degree to have an opinion on the NHS. It's too expensive and needs to be cut down to size - better yet privatise the lot. If a few yobbos on TSR don't like it then tough. If all that training and infrastructure for nursing and related medical degrees is really necessary, let the customer pick up the bill not the taxpayer.
    You seem to have a firm grasp of the duties and reponsibilities of modern day doctors, which mainly entails prescribing drugs blindly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AtomicMan)
    You seem to have a firm grasp of the duties and reponsibilities of modern day doctors, which mainly entails prescribing drugs blindly.
    Wish you had a firm grasp of English. Perhaps then you would have a better understanding of what I was saying, as you clearly don't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picaa)
    I have no problem with privatising the NHS and have not been inconsistent at all. I think it's the perfect candidate for privatisation as at present like all massive state-funded undertakings it's extremely expensive and inefficient, no matter what dodgy graphs and stats its Politburo may put up in its defense. 100 billion a year is 100 billion a year.
    There is insufficient accountability and transparency, and a lot of care trusts seem to wield considerable autonomy over massive wads of guaranteed cash, without having any kind of stick or penalty at their backs for when they get things wrong. The private sector has to compete in a marketplace that punishes inefficiencies and failure. For that reason the NHS should be privatised.

    A couple of years ago I was telling anyone who would listen that the UK higher education system isn't working - the all-inclusive model is all wrong, it's not good value for money for the taxpayer, etc. Nobody was listening back then. Now look at the radical shake-up of higher education.. The same thing will happen, in an even more drastic way, with the NHS. This post-war fat monolith that sucks up funds can't carry on in this way. If people want state-of-the-art facilities, specialist nurses and overtrained overpaid doctors to tell them little Jonny will recover from the cold, they will have to pay for it in the future. It's only a matter of time. The choice we have is: do we want to approach this sensibly and privatise it in measured steps starting right now, or do we want to wait for another great Depression.
    Disagree. It took 2 huge wars at a disgusting human cost to bring about social reform in this country, and you want to take it all back? If the mega rich paid their taxes, we would have more than enough money to make the NHS the envy of the world.

    If you support privatisation then you think that a person's life is only worth what they can afford to pay. I thought British society had progressed from that draconian way of thinking, obviously not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picaa)
    no matter what dodgy graphs and stats its Politburo may put up in its defense. 100 billion a year is 100 billion a year.
    Would you rather spend 2.24 trillion like the Americans?

    Dodgy graphs! :rofl:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    The average spend in OECD countries is 9.0% of GDP - it is 8.4% in the UK - thus below the OECD average.

    Per Capita spending;

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Countries with semi-privatised healthcare - i.e. the USA and Australia are actually more expensive for the state to run, what makes you think that your great plan would reduce our already normal level of spending on healthcare?

    (Original post by AtomicMan)
    You seem to have a firm grasp of the duties and reponsibilities of modern day doctors, which mainly entails prescribing drugs blindly.
    Sounds more like the United States to me

    Picaa seems completely ignorant of both health economics and medical science. In fact, he just seems ignorant and angry - maybe he is a failed medic?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    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.
    Ok, so when the government used to pay for something and they stop paying for that thing, your saying there won't be a reduction in taxes...? Right.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lrampant)
    Ok, so when the government used to pay for something and they stop paying for that thing, your saying there won't be a reduction in taxes...? Right.
    Depends. Take healthcare for example - if the NHS only covered acute (emergincies) healthcare for example - then the cost for acute ailments will skyrocket because loads more people will present with acute ailments - rather than going to see the GP/specialist for preventitive measures. Thus the costs of treating acute medicine will rise massively. Take back to work schemes for the unemployed as another example - if they are scrapped, then unemployment can rise as less people re-enter work, costing the taxpeayer more in total.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lrampant)
    Ok, so when the government used to pay for something and they stop paying for that thing, your saying there won't be a reduction in taxes...? Right.
    Yes I am.
    Stop being so naive.
    The money will just be diverted elsewhere.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Yes I am.
    Stop being so naive.
    The money will just be diverted elsewhere.
    The point is once EVERYTHING is cut, taxes will be reduced. If the government isn't paying for anything it doesn't need to tax people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    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.
    Your argument does not stand up to logical scrutiny. One of these must be the case:

    1) Spending on fire is small, so that taxes won't be affected by privatising the fire service, but because it is small, individuals buying fire insurance will be cheap.

    2) Spending on fire is great, so that individuals buying fire insurance will struggle, but then privatising that would have a sizeable affect on taxes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lrampant)
    The point is once EVERYTHING is cut, taxes will be reduced. If the government isn't paying for anything it doesn't need to tax people.
    So you think no service should be government funded? :eek:

    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Your argument does not stand up to logical scrutiny. One of these must be the case:

    1) Spending on fire is small, so that taxes won't be affected by privatising the fire service, but because it is small, individuals buying fire insurance will be cheap.

    2) Spending on fire is great, so that individuals buying fire insurance will struggle, but then privatising that would have a sizeable affect on taxes.
    My argument is that no matter what cuts are made, taxes will not be reduced. We have seen this in the past, with the intrduction of tuition fees. The government spent less money, yet taxes were not decreased.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    My argument is that no matter what cuts are made, taxes will not be reduced. We have seen this in the past, with the intrduction of tuition fees. The government spent less money, yet taxes were not decreased.
    That is simply not true. You must compare the situation of reality with the situation had tuition fees not been introduced - not intertemporally.

    Remember that hoo-ha about the 80% spending cuts to 20% tax rises? Let us imagine that instead of cutting some things, they raised taxes instead. The tax level has gone down because of the spending cuts compared with what it would have been otherwise.

    Furthermore, governments have no incentive to cut spending AND keep taxes high. It's not a big vote winner, since people tend to like lots of services for low cost, not the other way around.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    That is simply not true.
    Why isn't it true?
    Tuition fees were introduced circa 1998.
    Government spending was decrease because of that.
    Yet the tax people pay did not decrease.
    Those are three facts.

    You are very very naive if you think cutting public services will decrease taxes. The money will just be diverted elsewhere.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We're better off just getting our degree and not attend university. After all, we are PAYING to EDUCATE ourselves. They say we want to make England a better place? Bull****, how is it going to reflect international students? It'll put them off, right?
    I'm applying for 2011 and the fees are still expensive as it also rises by inflation.
    This is going to affect many students who are in primary and secondary if they wish for further studies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It has long since been marketised.
    Nothing new, it's obvious.

    Conservatives, myself included, like market principles, and market principles are ripe in Conservative education policy....


    They have been used in Tory policy for years,- in all areas of policy, especially education.

    LABOUR TOO APPLIED MARKET PRINCIPLES TO EDUCATION, THEY CARRIED ON THE TREND

    Hence why:
    Funding per number of students (bums on seats), league tables, parental choice and so on
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Weber foretold this in 'Science as a Vocation' in 1917, comparing the university system of America (a 'state-capitalist' and 'bureaucratic'... system) compared to the German system, where lecturers weren't paid much, but couldn't be removed, even if their courses had no one attending them - i.e. their worth was measured in more than simply getting loads of students into their courses and lectures, 'crowd pleasing'. Who'd have thought a lecture given by a German intellectual would become strangely relevant to today ey, with higher education simply becoming an economic matter?

    'But inspiration cannot be produced to order. And it has nothing in common with cold calculation... without inspiration... he [the student] will continue to be merely a clerk or technical official'.
 
 
 
  • 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 newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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

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