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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alhae)
    Our cancer survival rates are pisspoor and waiting lists are too long. The US doesn't suffer either of these problems because it is not the taxpayers that pay for everyones' healthcare, it is themselves. End the nonsense now and privatise the NHS. If you disagree with me then it shows that you cannot face the truth.
    Whether or not your train of logic is true, if we didn't bother giving healthcare to the poorest 15% of our country (who are also the most in need) then we'd be able to boost our cancer survival rates.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    I can only hope that things turn out for the best (ei, capitalism dies).
    Please tell me you are joking, can you not just take a quick look at the world and see where the masses are better off. Which countries have the best educational attainment, healthcare, wealth, housing- o ye capitalist economies. In india and china free market policies have impoved the lives of billions of people.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmRPP2WXX0U these people are not rich land owners they are the masses.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Yes I do and I would be quite happy to pay for them at the full cost. Everybody uses them but because of progressive taxes some pay more than others. The NHS is not there in order to produce the best and most effcient healthcare system, it is there to try and redistribute income a little.
    That's very good of you!

    Taxes are there to redistribute income. Public services are there to redistribute income. People come to live in societies which tax you because they tend to be better places to live. Even for the rich people who feel like they shouldn't be taxed because they can afford to pay for anything.

    As an immediate comparison for healthcare... do you think the American system is efficient?! The NHS is far far better value for money. US wastes a large amount of money on administration because it's so fragmented. And 15% of Americans have crap all cover.

    The WHO ranks the NHS as 12th in the world. Not exactly crap. (America languishes in the 20s somewhere)

    Two of the best services that I can think of (Japan and France, which were 1st and 3rd respectively) are funded 70% by the public, and 30% by the individual. This perhaps is a better system.

    I can't think of a particularly effective entirely private health service. There are a lot of advantages to everyone of having at least a portion of the healthcare system being socialised.

    And those people whose moral compass points them towards helping others would also probably decide that socialised healthcare and taxation is a good thing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alhae)
    Our cancer survival rates are pisspoor and waiting lists are too long. The US doesn't suffer either of these problems because it is not the taxpayers that pay for everyones' healthcare, it is themselves. End the nonsense now and privatise the NHS. If you disagree with me then it shows that you cannot face the truth.
    But the overall WHO rating of the NHS puts it at 12th in the world, with America at 24. The best systems in the world are largely socialised, and avoid the problems of waiting lists.

    The US system also costs twice as much per person as the NHS. Massive waste of money.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hslt)
    That's very good of you!

    Taxes are there to redistribute income. Public services are there to redistribute income. People come to live in societies which tax you because they tend to be better places to live. Even for the rich people who feel like they shouldn't be taxed because they can afford to pay for anything.

    As an immediate comparison for healthcare... do you think the American system is efficient?! The NHS is far far better value for money. US wastes a large amount of money on administration because it's so fragmented. And 15% of Americans have crap all cover.

    The WHO ranks the NHS as 12th in the world. Not exactly crap. (America languishes in the 20s somewhere)

    Two of the best services that I can think of (Japan and France, which were 1st and 3rd respectively) are funded 70% by the public, and 30% by the individual. This perhaps is a better system.

    I can't think of a particularly effective entirely private health service. There are a lot of advantages to everyone of having at least a portion of the healthcare system being socialised.

    And those people whose moral compass points them towards helping others would also probably decide that socialised healthcare and taxation is a good thing.
    Please, explain why private health care is less efficient.

    It is immoral to to help people in this way, socialists all seem to be the same. Why can't be have a capitalist system and all the people who say the health service is good because it helps people, which I suspect is a lot, can fund a charity which provides healthcare for the poor? It is because you don't want to help people if it is going to cost you. What is immoral is to want to help people by forcing people to give up their hard earned money. If you want to help people then great but don't help people with money that is not yours.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I think it is a bit of a myth that some how throwing money at education will make you learn better, you can have the best top notch projectors and sports pitches but it won't make you learn more.
    I don't have time to reply to the rest of this post, or your other post, but I have to comment on this point.

    It isn't about being able to afford better projectors or sports pitches.
    Its about being able to afford more teachers, to be able to afford better teachers, to be able to afford more resources etc etc.

    While I agree with your general point that if you put intelligent public school kids into a crappy comp they would still do well, I personally think their grades would suffer. Maybe not much, but some professions are very competitive, and that small difference could mean all the difference.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Please, explain why private health care is less efficient.
    Given the empirical evidence that privatised healthcare tends to cost more than socialised healthcare (and why wouldn't it be? In a world with near unlimited wants and limited demand, the price of healthcare is going to rocket) I think the onus is on you to prove that socialised medicine is less efficient.

    (Original post by Sternumator)
    It is immoral to to help people in this way, socialists all seem to be the same. Why can't be have a capitalist system and all the people who say the health service is good because it helps people, which I suspect is a lot, can fund a charity which provides healthcare for the poor? It is because you don't want to help people if it is going to cost you. What is immoral is to want to help people by forcing people to give up their hard earned money. If you want to help people then great but don't help people with money that is not yours.
    Typical capitalist response. Taxes are as moral or immoral as countries and governments. If you want to live in a country and take advantage of the benefits it provides, you abide by the rules including paying your taxes. By your logic I should complain about my landlord taking my hard earned cash away from my for my rent.

    As for charity, if you think that can make up for more than a small amount of the shortfall that will occur if free healthcare provision is removed from the poor, you are seriously deluded.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Please tell me you are joking, can you not just take a quick look at the world and see where the masses are better off. Which countries have the best educational attainment, healthcare, wealth, housing- o ye capitalist economies. In india and china free market policies have impoved the lives of billions of people.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmRPP2WXX0U these people are not rich land owners they are the masses.
    Of course I'm not joking.
    I know capitalism has been an important step in our development, but that doesn't mean it should always remain the same. The human race has always strived for improvements and to better ourselves... This would be the next step.
    See mine and someone else's previous comments explaining how capitalism is bad and unequal, and how a different system would benefit us
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Please tell me you are joking, can you not just take a quick look at the world and see where the masses are better off. Which countries have the best educational attainment, healthcare, wealth, housing- o ye capitalist economies. In india and china free market policies have impoved the lives of billions of people.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmRPP2WXX0U these people are not rich land owners they are the masses.
    China and India have the fastest growing economies on this planet. Now, know what the supply side policies for economic growth are? Good education and healthcare? Also, china produces some of the cleverest students in the world. Doesn't this reflect a good educational system? Now, I would dispute how communist they are tbh. China definately has a dictatorship, which really does not reflect a true communist society. I also would like to question your point that free Market policies have improved those two countries. Do you have any evidence for that point? You could also argue that India is so poor because of Capitalism. The west have screwed over so many countries for money.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConorMC)
    China and India have the fastest growing economies on this planet. Now, know what the supply side policies for economic growth are? Good education and healthcare? Also, china produces some of the cleverest students in the world. Doesn't this reflect a good educational system? Now, I would dispute how communist they are tbh. China definately has a dictatorship, which really does not reflect a true communist society. I also would like to question your point that free Market policies have improved those two countries. Do you have any evidence for that point? You could also argue that India is so poor because of Capitalism. The west have screwed over so many countries for money.
    ^^ Exactly.
    China are definitely not communism, and MOST of the worlds poor countries at the moment are like that because of capitalism... There's always someone that gets screwed over with that system!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Please, explain why private health care is less efficient.

    It is immoral to to help people in this way, socialists all seem to be the same. Why can't be have a capitalist system and all the people who say the health service is good because it helps people, which I suspect is a lot, can fund a charity which provides healthcare for the poor? It is because you don't want to help people if it is going to cost you. What is immoral is to want to help people by forcing people to give up their hard earned money. If you want to help people then great but don't help people with money that is not yours.
    The American system costs twice as much per person. And doesn't achieve as good overall results as the NHS as measured by the WHO. Even in America you're taxed to support health services as well.

    If what you say is true, then taxes are immoral. Full stop. Very few people take this view. The NHS might be many things, but very few people would agree its immoral.

    Unless you're hyper rich, then I think you'll find taxes benefit you quite a bit.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Of course I'm not joking.
    I know capitalism has been an important step in our development, but that doesn't mean it should always remain the same. The human race has always strived for improvements and to better ourselves... This would be the next step.
    See mine and someone else's previous comments explaining how capitalism is bad and unequal, and how a different system would benefit us
    Capitalism as you probably accept is the best system for bringing about improvements in technology and as a result living conditions in the long run because it is the system that rewards sucess and incentives hard work the most. As friedman said 'henry ford did not revolutionise the automobile industry under order from a bureacrat'. Had henry ford not enjoyed proft from his work I am sure he would not have bothered because there would be no incentive to. The same goes for pretty much every technological advancement and the development of drugs. If henry ford did not make such improvements to transport then everybody today would be worse of, because the same goes for everything this is obviously a huge cost. I am sure at the time there were people like you saying 'look at that **** earning excessive amounts of profit, the people actually making the cars are not getting their fair share'. But it is this attitude that would cause the poor of today to be living in much worse conditions than they currently do.

    Yes capitalism creates inequality of income and very short sighted people like yourself will say 'tesco earned however many billion in profits, we should take that and give to the poor then the poor will be better off' but you fail to reconise that by doing this you will destroy future wealth and incentives. Because capitalism advances us much quicker it results in everybody being better off. I am not claiming that the gap between rich and poor with decrease, in fact it will probably increase, but the gap is not what is important you should instead look at how well off the poor are. I am certain if we had choked of the industrial revolution by not offering opportunities to profit then the poor would be worse of, the same applies to the future. Socialists seem to be more concerned about hurting the rich rather than actually improving the quality of life of the poor. A perfect example taxes on banks at the moment. If the government placed say a 90% tax on banks profits a lot of people like you would probably be delighted but what would happen is the city of london would lose all its business. There are to reasons to support such a tax either because the revenge on the bankers is worth costing the country billions and putting may working class people into poverty or because you don't even consider the possiblity that the banks will just move.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hslt)
    The American system costs twice as much per person. And doesn't achieve as good overall results as the NHS as measured by the WHO. Even in America you're taxed to support health services as well.

    If what you say is true, then taxes are immoral. Full stop. Very few people take this view. The NHS might be many things, but very few people would agree its immoral.

    Unless you're hyper rich, then I think you'll find taxes benefit you quite a bit.
    Taxes are immoral, if you disagree in principle with stealing, ie taking something without permission, then you disagree in principle with taxes. Taxes are a barrier to personal freedom because you do not allow the person the choice as to what they want to spend their money on, instead you spend it for them. People will always spend their money on what is best for them so long as they are rational so welfare is maximised when they can spend their own money. In case case of public goods the obstruction of freedom is sometimes justifible in order to ensure that welfare is maximised because thing like military and police do not have excludibility. However, in the case of healthcare there is no reason why it should be more effcient as a state run monopoly, the only person who benefits from the healthcare is the patient, with the exception possibly of vaccines, and the hospital can exclude the patients who do not pay. The argument of effciency would be a good one if it were true but it is not and picking one health system which happens to be a private one and less efficent proves nothing. A private system would be more effcient if we deregulated the industry to allow more doctors to enter and lowered the legal responsibilty of hospitals, also destroying the powerful unions would help. The market will,as always, through competiton cause maximum efficiency.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alhae)
    Our cancer survival rates are pisspoor and waiting lists are too long. The US doesn't suffer either of these problems because it is not the taxpayers that pay for everyones' healthcare, it is themselves. End the nonsense now and privatise the NHS. If you disagree with me then it shows that you cannot face the truth.
    The truth is that there are people in America who can't even afford to get an ambulance to hospital in the first place, never mind get treated. The truth is that if people think waiting lists are too long, then they are impatient considering it is a free service at the point of contact. If they want shorter waiting times then they can just fork out for BUPA. Although it has it flaws, and major though they may be, he NHS is brilliant, and is the envy of every other country in the worldwithout a state health service. We are absolutely privileged to live in the UK and have the NHS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConorMC)
    Businesses exist because entrepreneurs want to make money, not because they care about helping people. The government is there to serve the people, not to make a proft. Consumer choice tends to increase quality? Not when there is assymmetric information between the consumer and producer. Consider this: a doctor tells a patient they need to take x drugs and go under y procedure. The patient knows nothing about medicine so trusts the doctors and takes his/her advice. Afterwards, the patient is told everything is fine and better. Patient goes away happy thinking "what good quality". However, In reality the patient never really needed to take x drugs and have y procedure. The consumers choice isn't always the best choice due to their lack of knowledge in the area they are buying. It's not like buying a nice towel or something. The person who decides whether someone needs treatment or not should not think about the financial benefits of either decision. Sadly, when it's all about making profit, it seems that doctors veer towards such things. So please, realise that basic economic theory that consumers choice tends to increase quality is only applicable when the consumer is fully aware of what they ate buying and whether it is necessary. Otherwise people think they are getting quality when they actually aren't, allowing doctors in the private sector to not have to worry about being the best, as long as they give the best appearance.
    The idea of privatising the NHS is as bad as the idea of privatising all education in the uk (ie. It's a TERRIBLE one!)
    You are right, Healthcare offers a great deal of opportunities for exploitation of the consumer if the private sector is behind it. I should have made clear when I said that it should remain free at the point of access that I meant that government should still form the backbone of the NHS. What I meant by my post is that I think it is a mistake to automatically think of government as a force for good and private companies a force of exploitation, when government is always going to be influenced by more than just what its voters want.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Capitalism as you probably accept is the best system for bringing about improvements in technology and as a result living conditions in the long run because it is the system that rewards sucess and incentives hard work the most. As friedman said 'henry ford did not revolutionise the automobile industry under order from a bureacrat'. Had henry ford not enjoyed proft from his work I am sure he would not have bothered because there would be no incentive to. The same goes for pretty much every technological advancement and the development of drugs. If henry ford did not make such improvements to transport then everybody today would be worse of, because the same goes for everything this is obviously a huge cost. I am sure at the time there were people like you saying 'look at that **** earning excessive amounts of profit, the people actually making the cars are not getting their fair share'. But it is this attitude that would cause the poor of today to be living in much worse conditions than they currently do.

    Yes capitalism creates inequality of income and very short sighted people like yourself will say 'tesco earned however many billion in profits, we should take that and give to the poor then the poor will be better off' but you fail to reconise that by doing this you will destroy future wealth and incentives. Because capitalism advances us much quicker it results in everybody being better off. I am not claiming that the gap between rich and poor with decrease, in fact it will probably increase, but the gap is not what is important you should instead look at how well off the poor are. I am certain if we had choked of the industrial revolution by not offering opportunities to profit then the poor would be worse of, the same applies to the future. Socialists seem to be more concerned about hurting the rich rather than actually improving the quality of life of the poor. A perfect example taxes on banks at the moment. If the government placed say a 90% tax on banks profits a lot of people like you would probably be delighted but what would happen is the city of london would lose all its business. There are to reasons to support such a tax either because the revenge on the bankers is worth costing the country billions and putting may working class people into poverty or because you don't even consider the possiblity that the banks will just move.
    Don't you dare tell me I'm short sighted. What's with the random insults you slip in?
    I understand that capitalism has brought us the advances and wealth that we now enjoy... My belief is that communism (the true communism, not the sorry excuse for it that's been executed before) is the NEXT step in society, whether that is in 20 years, or 200.
    It may have been necessary in the past, but it's causing more harm than good these days as it exploits not only the poorer pepole in our country, but poorer countries in general.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    Taxes are immoral, if you disagree in principle with stealing, ie taking something without permission, then you disagree in principle with taxes. Taxes are a barrier to personal freedom because you do not allow the person the choice as to what they want to spend their money on, instead you spend it for them. People will always spend their money on what is best for them so long as they are rational so welfare is maximised when they can spend their own money. In case case of public goods the obstruction of freedom is sometimes justifible in order to ensure that welfare is maximised because thing like military and police do not have excludibility. However, in the case of healthcare there is no reason why it should be more effcient as a state run monopoly, the only person who benefits from the healthcare is the patient, with the exception possibly of vaccines, and the hospital can exclude the patients who do not pay. The argument of effciency would be a good one if it were true but it is not and picking one health system which happens to be a private one and less efficent proves nothing. A private system would be more effcient if we deregulated the industry to allow more doctors to enter and lowered the legal responsibilty of hospitals, also destroying the powerful unions would help. The market will,as always, through competiton cause maximum efficiency.
    If the first bit in bold is your personal view then thats fair enough.

    You can hold that view as a personal ideal, but the logic you put behind it is not sound. We live in a democratic society, it is your choice to live here, and it is your choice to therefore accept what the voted representatives of our country put down as law. If you don't want this, then you don't have to stay here but you can't expect to be the recipient of the bonuses that come with it - low crime, good jobs, wealth generation, police, fire services, good universities and education etcetc. Your citizenship in a tax paying society is your choice and acceptance of taxes is implicit in your want of citizenship.

    The latter bit in bold is an absolutely shocking idea if you care about providing good healthcare. Unless I misunderstand what you're getting at.
    What legal responsibilities of hospitals are you talking about?

    A simple, unregulated market will in theory (but not always in practise, such as when monopolies occur) generate a high efficiency. The problem with this is that people don't just care about cost of healthcare, there are a vast number of factors involved. And, if you use the example of vets as an unregulated health system, you end up getting a high proportion of sub-standard care that significantly undercuts good quality care and makes the higher quality less viable instead of having all health care reach a minimum standard. There is also a need to avoid fragmentation of health care. And to make it ubiquitously available. You need to prevent monopolies. You need nationwide health programmes to improve general awareness of various things. You also assume that 'health care' all comes under one bracket, and while some conditions/treatments would probably become more efficient, others would become marginalised and you'd have very poor or expensive service providing them. etcetcetc

    Theres probably a reason that the 'top' few healthcare systems are highly socialised but with elements of private care.

    And since you're not happy with the American example as one of private health care, find me one that you are happy with?

    And access to healthcare is important for a good society. Pretty obvious really. Keeps people in work, generating wealth for the country - even without taxes this is highly beneficial. With taxes and benefits it keeps people not only in work but off benefits - twice the bonus. It makes people want to come to this country, and as long as the influx is well managed this brings in useful workers, skilled workers.

    I'm not arguing with your personal stance on morality of whatever. But I do disagree with what I perceive as flawed logic, or poorly thought through solutions.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Don't you dare tell me I'm short sighted. What's with the random insults you slip in?
    I understand that capitalism has brought us the advances and wealth that we now enjoy... My belief is that communism (the true communism, not the sorry excuse for it that's been executed before) is the NEXT step in society, whether that is in 20 years, or 200.
    It may have been necessary in the past, but it's causing more harm than good these days as it exploits not only the poorer pepole in our country, but poorer countries in general.
    I don't slip in random insults. I said communists are short sighted in that they are prepared to entirely halt econmic development and improving living conditions in favour of giving the poor slighly more at the expense of the rich today.

    Capitalism doesn't exploit anyone becuase people can decide whether they want to do it or not. I am not really sure how your system would work but I suspect it would revolve more around forcing people to do things they didnt want to. Please answer me some basic questions, this is a genuine interest rather than for the purpose of arguement.

    1) I stumble across a cure for aids, why should I develop it?
    2) Why should I bother getting out of my bed in the morning and got to work?
    3) I am an exceptionally talented indvidual, will you use force to keep me in the country? Obviously if I am free to leave I am going to just go to America where I can be rich and live the dream.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    1) I stumble across a cure for aids, why should I develop it?
    2) Why should I bother getting out of my bed in the morning and got to work?
    1 - Because it will save millions of lives?
    2 - Because you enjoy what you are doing? (obviously not true for a lot of jobs, but is true for a lot also).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sternumator)
    I don't slip in random insults. I said communists are short sighted in that they are prepared to entirely halt econmic development and improving living conditions in favour of giving the poor slighly more at the expense of the rich today.

    Capitalism doesn't exploit anyone becuase people can decide whether they want to do it or not. I am not really sure how your system would work but I suspect it would revolve more around forcing people to do things they didnt want to. Please answer me some basic questions, this is a genuine interest rather than for the purpose of arguement.

    1) I stumble across a cure for aids, why should I develop it?
    2) Why should I bother getting out of my bed in the morning and got to work?
    3) I am an exceptionally talented indvidual, will you use force to keep me in the country? Obviously if I am free to leave I am going to just go to America where I can be rich and live the dream.
    I'm saying it'll happen naturally... There's no forcing people to do anything.

    1. To help cure people...
    2. Because if you don't, you will not receive the money for your food.
    3. Of course you won't be forced.

    In a communist society, people will have been brought up on very different ways of thinking... There's won't be so much materialistic motivation at all. The focus will be on helping other people and doing what's right for the community.

    No doubt you'll tell me this isn't possible, but it is. The reason we think as we do now is because of how our society is and how we've grown up... If you grow up completely differently you will value different things.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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