How can I stop paying for the NHS? Watch

This discussion is closed.
RightSaidJames
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#121
Report 7 years ago
#121
(Original post by Nightstar-27)
Then move to another society where only the rich and powerful live happy lives and the poor and sick are treated by crap. I'm sure there are plenty of countries and societies that are like this, go move there if it makes you so sick to live in a country where everyone pays taxes to help everyone else.
He was being sarcastic...
0
burpleronnie
Badges: 0
#122
Report 7 years ago
#122
(Original post by isaqyi)
I've just said that I'll pay (what will presumably be top dollar) for my own insurance and not use the NHS. Why is other peoples' healthcare my problem?
Because without those 'other people' society would fall apart.

You need them more than they need you.

Not everyone can be an investment banker.
0
EdwardCurrent
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#123
Report 7 years ago
#123
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Except it really isn't.
The only reason the american system doesn't result in mass death of the poor and elderly is because those people are protected because the government pays for their healthcare (through taxes).
I favour a free-market solution. The US system is not. I don't think an insurance model would be the model to 'win out', but I would not be so arrogant to state it as fact because human behaviour and markets are complex.

The facts are that if the provision of jackets had also been a public/socialised industry then there would be people frothing at the mouth about that too. "You can't do that! Only the rich will be able to afford to keep warm in the winter, all the poor people will have to walk about shivering and getting frost-bite". I can hear them now. But it's not true; it's a lie. Because people are free to make rational decisions about how to spend their own money, competition in the market drives up standards and quality, and drives down prices.

Why stop at healthcare? If the government provides for the poor better than freedom, then why don't we have a National Jacket Service?

So I take it you don't use any public services at all and think everything should be private and profitable?
What about those who cannot afford private healthcare? Since you don't think anyone should pay for someone elses healthcare, do you think those people should just suffer and die?
I don't care what the system is as long as it is ethical and doesn't rely on coercion. Fortunately, free-market capitalism is based on freedom, but it also does things better than any system of force ever has.
0
Fusilero
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#124
Report 7 years ago
#124
(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
No it doesn't. Only where the government is concerned. But even if it did, does it strike you as reasonable and ethical?
Honestly? Yes it does. I find your stance to be unreasonable and unethical, I have little faith in market forces myself and put the value of one human life above the capital of this nation. Only marginally less faith than I have in the state, mind you. Neither are high on my Christmas card list, assuming I gave christmas cards to concepts. I am not a fan of state interference in the NHS either, I would prefer them to become more autonomous myself but I also disagree with the method the Cameron, Brown and Blair government took to attain that autonomy, creating the 'internal market' et al.
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#125
Report 7 years ago
#125
(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
I favour a free-market solution. The US system is not. I don't think an insurance model would be the model to 'win out', but I would not be so arrogant to state it as fact because human behaviour and markets are complex.

The facts are that if the provision of jackets had also been a public/socialised industry then there would be people frothing at the mouth about that too. "You can't do that! Only the rich will be able to afford to keep warm in the winter, all the poor people will have to walk about shivering and getting frost-bite". I can hear them now. But it's not true; it's a lie. Because people are free to make rational decisions about how to spend their own money, competition in the market drives up standards and quality, and drives down prices.

Why stop at healthcare? If the government provides for the poor better than freedom, then why don't we have a National Jacket Service?

I don't care what the system is as long as it is ethical and doesn't rely on coercion. Fortunately, free-market capitalism is based on freedom, but it also does things better than any system of force ever has.
Well done for not answering any of my points.
So I will ask again:

1 - Do you use any public services?
2 - Would you be happy with every public service being turned into a private company (that so has to be profitable) that will charge you as much as they can get away with.
3 - Do you think people who cannot afford healthcare should suffer and die (as this is essentially what you are suggesting).

Also, you really cannot compare jackets to healthcare. There are so many differences I am amazed you can even make the claim that they are similar.

Plus, if a fully free market healthcare system is so brilliant, give me a country where there is one that works well.

Just a note - free market capitalism is not based on freedom. Its based on screwing other people for as much money as possible. Why else do you think businesses try to fix prices of things etc.
0
Mithra
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#126
Report 7 years ago
#126
(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
I favour a free-market solution. The US system is not. I don't think an insurance model would be the model to 'win out', but I would not be so arrogant to state it as fact because human behaviour and markets are complex.

The facts are that if the provision of jackets had also been a public/socialised industry then there would be people frothing at the mouth about that too. "You can't do that! Only the rich will be able to afford to keep warm in the winter, all the poor people will have to walk about shivering and getting frost-bite". I can hear them now. But it's not true; it's a lie. Because people are free to make rational decisions about how to spend their own money, competition in the market drives up standards and quality, and drives down prices.

Why stop at healthcare? If the government provides for the poor better than freedom, then why don't we have a National Jacket Service?

I don't care what the system is as long as it is ethical and doesn't rely on coercion. Fortunately, free-market capitalism is based on freedom, but it also does things better than any system of force ever has.
For someone going on about ad hominem attacks thats a nice little strawman NJS you've set up there.

And you're right, privatising the rail service has massively increased quality whilst making rail travel now almost free.

Oh wait, no it hasn't.
2
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#127
Report 7 years ago
#127
(Original post by RightSaidJames)
The UK Government spends about $3200 per capita on healthcare, and reaches all of the population.
The US Government spends about $3700 per capita on healthcare but only reaches 28% of the population.
Source

I know which system I prefer.
The USA is not a good example of a free-market system.
0
TulipFields
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#128
Report 7 years ago
#128
(Original post by OrmondDrone)
It's the principle of mutual reciprocity. If you want to be a selfish ******* then go and live in the USA.
This. If people could opt out of paying taxes on the basis of "But I don't wanna pay for someone else", we would be stuck in Victorian times. Has OP even considered that one day he might not be able to afford private healthcare?
1
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#129
Report 7 years ago
#129
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Well done for not answering any of my points.
So I will ask again:

1 - Do you use any public services?
Yes. So?

2 - Would you be happy with every public service being turned into a private company (that so has to be profitable) that will charge you as much as they can get away with.
Yes, and I don't accept your premise, a competitive market drives prices down and standards up - a state-based monopoly is far worse.

3 - Do you think people who cannot afford healthcare should suffer and die (as this is essentially what you are suggesting).
There is an easy way to ensure universal coverage whilst having private provision through means-tested payments for the poorest.

Plus, if a fully free market healthcare system is so brilliant, give me a country where there is one that works well.
Riiight, and give me one with socialised healthcare which gives patients choice, gives people responsibility over their healthcare and doesn't deny treatments base upon the fact that it's not cost-worthy for the masses. Singapore works well with a largely privatised system.

Just a note - free market capitalism is not based on freedom. Its based on screwing other people for as much money as possible. Why else do you think businesses try to fix prices of things etc.
Yet you don't realise that monopolies are enabled completely by the state either directly or through regulation which creates barriers to entry. Competitive markets are full of businesses trying to make as much profit as possible, yes, but they are constrained by competing with each other - and the barriers to entry are low such that they canot form cartels since firms can easily enter the market.
0
jesusandtequila
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#130
Report 7 years ago
#130
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Also, you are somehow using the fact the government has to intervene to give insurance to millions of poor people to defend the system. Surely the fact the government has to do that is a sign the system is a bad one?
So what does that say about the UK system - where the government intervenes with almost everyone?
0
RightSaidJames
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#131
Report 7 years ago
#131
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
The USA is not a good example of a free-market system.
I quite agree, but the OP seems to think it is.
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#132
Report 7 years ago
#132
(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Yes. So?

Yes, and I don't accept your premise, a competitive market drives prices down and standards up - a state-based monopoly is far worse.

There is an easy way to ensure universal coverage whilst having private provision through means-tested payments for the poorest.

Riiight, and give me one with socialised healthcare which gives patients choice, gives people responsibility over their healthcare and doesn't deny treatments base upon the fact that it's not cost-worthy for the masses. Singapore works well with a largely privatised system.

Yet you don't realise that monopolies are enabled completely by the state either directly or through regulation which creates barriers to entry. Competitive markets are full of businesses trying to make as much profit as possible, yes, but they are constrained by competing with each other - and the barriers to entry are low such that they canot form cartels since firms can easily enter the market.
1 - Then you are a hypocrite.
2 - Is there any evidence for that?
3 - But that still means part government funding, which means it isn't a fully free market system, and means that taxes have to be paid. (the only other option is to have people pay more for their healthcare and use the extra to fund the poorer people - and how is that different to taxes)
4 - As far as I am aware, Singapore is no where near a free market system. There is a very high amount of government intervention and the system is part funded by compulsory payments from your wages into a savings account. So essentially taxes. Plus the country is a lot lot smaller than the UK, and has no where near the amount of elderly people (who are a huge financial burden on any healthcare system)
5 - If you really believe then, then I feel sorry for you. Regulation prevents monopolies. Otherwise, companies could simply come together and decide that they all will charge x amount for something, instead of actually competing on price.

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
So what does that say about the UK system - where the government intervenes with almost everyone?
By point was that if you have a "private" system where government has to intervene to prevent mass suffering, then the "private" system is not working very well.
0
EdwardCurrent
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#133
Report 7 years ago
#133
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Well done for not answering any of my points.
So I will ask again:
I answered the only point of any relevance. That it is not true that the market will not provide for the poor.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
1 - Do you use any public services?
Yes, because it is unavoidable, because I have been forced to pay for them already, and because after I have paid all my taxes I have no money left to spend on a private alternative. I do have private healthcare but only because my employer provides it as a fringe benefit.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
2 - Would you be happy with every public service being turned into a private company (that so has to be profitable) that will charge you as much as they can get away with.
Sure. Because even though they charge as much as they can get away with, it will still be cheaper and better than what a state monopoly can provide.


(Original post by WelshBluebird)
3 - Do you think people who cannot afford healthcare should suffer and die (as this is essentially what you are suggesting).
Absolute nonsense. In a free market, the price is driven down and quality is driven up. For the few cases that might fall below the price threshold there exists private charity.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Also, you really cannot compare jackets to healthcare.
Why not?

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Plus, if a fully free market healthcare system is so brilliant, give me a country where there is one that works well.
There isn't a country with a free-market healthcare system, so I cannot cite one that works well. That does not prove anything.

(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Just a note - free market capitalism is not based on freedom. Its based on screwing other people for as much money as possible. Why else do you think businesses try to fix prices of things etc.
Nonsense. It is based on voluntary transactions between two or more individual men or woman. There is no government waving it's fist and saying "give me your money or else", "you are having this whether you like it or not", "I know what's good for you better than you do". You are free to work as you will and contract as you like. That is freedom.

Price fixing only make sense when there are barriers to competition. These barriers exist only when the government gets involved and starts demanding money. Do you have any idea how difficult and expensive it is to set up a business in modern Britain? The beauty of the free-market is its self-regulation, and activites like price fixing in such an environment are very dangerous strategies indeed.
0
dring
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#134
Report 7 years ago
#134
(Original post by EdwardCurrent)

There isn't a country with a free-market healthcare system, so I cannot cite one that works well. That does not prove anything.
It makes one question all the 'facts' you're stating about free-market healthcare systems, though
0
DH-Biker
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#135
Report 7 years ago
#135
(Original post by isaqyi)
I am considering getting private health insurance, but no longer wish to contribute to the NHS as it is the worst healthcare system in Western Europe. I do not see it as my responsibility to pay for other peoples' healthcare, when I am more than willing to pay for my own.

Is there any way I can stop the British public stealing my money to pay for their healthcare?
Ha! Good joke th--- Wait, you were being serious? :lolwut: :rolleyes:

Tough ****, people in worse off conditions then you do require your financial aid, along with everyone else who pays taxes in the UK. You don't pay much anyway, so sit down and shut up. Its like £1 out of your taxes; you wont exactly notice it.

Nope; Chin up and pay like everyone else. I'm quite happy to, as I use the NHS probably every other week after an accident.

Finally; I'll enjoy pointing and laughing at you when that fantastic privatized A&E department comes speeding along in their fantastic privatized Ambulances to pick you up.

Oh wait, its still the NHS who do that side of it. :rolleyes: So you either stay indoors and try not to risk any life-threatening injury or antagonize your heart to bring about a heart-attack etc so you never need it.

Or, you move to America or another country that promotes private healthcare as the best thing since sliced bread, and enjoy being part of a system that leaves those unable to pay dying where they lay because the records show the Ambulance crews that these people can't pay. :rolleyes:
0
WelshBluebird
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#136
Report 7 years ago
#136
(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
I answered the only point of any relevance. That it is not true that the market will not provide for the poor.
Then how will it? Companies won't give free healthcare because you can't afford to pay for it! So how will the market provide for the poor? (don't say "private charity" because that is BS).

(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
Sure. Because even though they charge as much as they can get away with, it will still be cheaper and better than what a state monopoly can provide.
Evidence?

(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
Absolute nonsense. In a free market, the price is driven down and quality is driven up. For the few cases that might fall below the price threshold there exists private charity.
Except it isn't nonsense. Private charity? So you want people to beg then? And why do you think that would provide enough money anyway?

(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
Why not?
Because healthcare is essential. Jackets are not.
Plus the fact you have a huge gap in knowledge in healthcare. Most people wouldn't know if their doctor was selling them drugs to sort them out, or selling them drugs to make a quick buck.

(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
There isn't a country with a free-market healthcare system, so I cannot cite one that works well. That does not prove anything.
Yes it does. If it was so great, it would have been done already. Plus, the fact one does not exist also means you have no evidence for any of your claims.

(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
Nonsense. It is based on voluntary transactions between two or more individual men or woman.
Except getting healthcare really isn't voluntary is it.
If your child has cancer, you will pay anything you can afford to get them treated. If you can't afford it, then that child will suffer and die. It is pretty simple really.

(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
Price fixing only make sense when there are barriers to competition.
The very nature of healthcare means there are huge barriers to competition. Cost and knowledge.
0
EdwardCurrent
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#137
Report 7 years ago
#137
(Original post by dring)
It makes one question all the 'facts' you're stating about free-market healthcare systems, though
You mean facts like this:

(Original post by me)
I favour a free-market solution. The US system is not. I don't think an insurance model would be the model to 'win out', but I would not be so arrogant to state it as fact because human behaviour and markets are complex.
The only facts have stated have been about the free-market in general.
0
dring
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#138
Report 7 years ago
#138
(Original post by EdwardCurrent)
You mean facts like this:
No.
0
EdwardCurrent
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#139
Report 7 years ago
#139
(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Then how will it? Companies won't give free healthcare because you can't afford to pay for it! So how will the market provide for the poor? (don't say "private charity" because that is BS).

Evidence?
Prices are driven down. Is this what you are disputing? For the few cases that fall below the entry price then there exists private charity. Why do you find this so difficult to grasp?


(Original post by WelshBluebird)
Except it isn't nonsense. Private charity? So you want people to beg then? And why do you think that would provide enough money anyway?
No I don't particuarly want people to beg, but somebody asking someone else for some help and the other person saying "yes" under voluntary circumstances is certainly preferable to taking someone's money under threat of violence.

Charities exist today. If people weren't taxed to buggery then they would give far more to charity. And in any case, saying it's the government's job to look after the poor tends to absolve people of personal responsibility. Less freedom tends to less personal responsibility. Sound familiar? Look around you.

Because healthcare is essential. Jackets are not.
Irrelevant distinction to the point I was making. Is food essential? Why isn't there a National Food Service? Far more essential than healthcare.
0
isaqyi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#140
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#140
(Original post by DH-Biker)

Nope; Chin up and pay like everyone else. I'm quite happy to, as I use the NHS probably every other week after an accident.
If you choose to risk your life by getting on a bike, then why should I pay for your smashed ribcage? Why is that my problem?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (535)
37.84%
No - but I will (110)
7.78%
No - I don't want to (96)
6.79%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (673)
47.6%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed