The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DH-Biker
Its not, actually;

Per person, the amount that goes towards the NHS in your taxes is between £1-£4.

If you don't want to pay that small amount for good healthcare for 60 million people; then that is your fault as a person within a society.

Riiiiight.

Spending on health is £120bn/year.

There are 40 million taxpayers.

So £1-4 each?

Riiiiiiight.
Original post by Jordenfruitbat
Wow less than I thought even :smile: What can you buy with that a couple of mc donalds seriously, what is his problem paying such a small contribution to the NHS which saves lives.


Because its "theft" :rolleyes:
by moving to america...
Original post by EdwardCurrent
How can I be bound by something I have never been asked about and have never contracted on? Further, something I disagree with because I think better solutions exist. Does that strike you as ethical?


You can't please everyone it's true, but laws exist in an attempt to have a civilised society which encourages progress at the same time as protecting the vulnerable. Allowing people to do whatever they want is Anarchy, and tends to result in much more widespread suffering than Democracy.

Sometimes it's a bit of give and take. You are required to contribute to a healthcare system which was designed to look after everyone in the country. You don't agree with this, but perhaps you do agree with the laws that prevent far-left-extremists from beheading you in retaliation to your position. Perhaps those violent minded individuals would like to have the freedom to murder you, but instead their tax money is used to fund police and prisons to ensure your safety.

Everyone pays for state provided services which are intended for the good of society. Most of the time, said services are not perfect, and there will always be room for improvement. The NHS is a prime example. However I do generally think that the intentions are good, and allowing people to "opt out" would undermine the effort to create the ideal society. If everyone were able to refuse to pay for the services that they didn't individually want, society wouldn't function and we would descend into the aforementioned undesirable anarchy

So actually, yes, it does strike me as ethical that you're obliged to contribute to the NHS. It's in the best interests of the country, and will also probably be in your best interests in the future, although you may not appreciate it now.
Original post by TulipFields
Because its "theft" :rolleyes:

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote *against* them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialisation of labour. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?
Original post by TulipFields
Because its "theft" :rolleyes:


True that..... :rolleyes: Bad government stealing all our money and throwing it into the nhs :wink:
die
Original post by Jordenfruitbat
True that..... :rolleyes: Bad government stealing all our money and throwing it into the nhs :wink:

I should have quoted you in as well:

Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote *against* them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialisation of labour. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?
Original post by jesusandtequila
Suppose that one man takes your car from you at gunpoint. Is this right or wrong? Most people would say that the man who does this is a thief who is violating your property rights.

Okay, now let's suppose that it's a gang of FIVE men that forcibly takes your car from you. Still wrong? Still stealing? Yup.

Now suppose that it's ten men that stop you at gunpoint, and before anything else they take a vote. You vote *against* them taking your car, but the ten of them vote for it and you are outvoted, ten to one. They take the car. Still stealing?

Let's add specialisation of labour. Suppose it's twenty men and one acts as negotiator for the group, one takes the vote, one oversees the vote, two hold the guns, one drives. Does that make it okay? Is it still stealing?

Suppose it's one hundred men and after forcibly taking your car they give you back a bicycle. That is, they do something nice for you. Is it still stealing?

Suppose the gang is two hundred strong and they not only give you back a bicycle but they buy a bicycle for a poor person as well. Is it still wrong? Is it still stealing?

How about if the gang has a thousand people? ten thousand? A million?

How big does this gang have to be before it becomes okay for them to vote to forcibly take your property away without your consent? When, exactly, does the immorality of theft become the alleged morality of taxation?

This is completely ridiculous :facepalm:
If they steal my car at the gunpoint, but then care for the car, fix it when it breaks and chauffeur me to where I need to go, I wouldn't mind>
Except the analogy is so crap, and the argument is so meaningless.
Government isnt exactly stealing a last piece of bread from your mouth.
(edited 12 years ago)
The only thing private healthcare is good for is cosmetic procedures.
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?

Edit: I might have known that the extreme far left would have taken a disliking to my post.


If you are rich enough to afford private healthcare why do you care if you contribute to the NHS or not?
Original post by TulipFields
This is completely ridiculous :facepalm:
If they steal my car at the gunpoint, but then care for the car, fix it when it breaks and chauffeur me to where I need to go, I wouldn't mind>

Then if you don't mind, you'd do it voluntarily - and hand your car over, indeed there would be no need for it to be compulsory in the first place.

Except the analogy is so crap, and the argument is so meaningless.


So why is the analogy crap or the argument meaningless? It's lovely of you to dismiss it in such a way without actually making any points.
Original post by jesusandtequila
Riiiiight.

Spending on health is £120bn/year.

There are 40 million taxpayers.

So £1-4 each?

Riiiiiiight.


Closer to £98.6 billion.

Forty million tax payers paying £4 is obviously one-hundred and sixty million. This isn't even a quarter of one billion, so you're quite right, it wouldn't make up for it.

In fact, to make up for that, everyone would have to pay something like £1,500 odd each?

I assure you; a person doesn't pay £1,500 towards the NHS every month.

In fact, most of the money towards the NHS is funded throughout organizations, I believe.

Your joe-average tax payer pays no more for tax towards the NHS per month then they do towards a pack of cigarettes.
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?

Edit: I might have known that the extreme far left would have taken a disliking to my post.


You do realise that it is the NHS that facilitated your birth, right?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by NGC773
If you are rich enough to afford private healthcare why do you care if you contribute to the NHS or not?


Because he's paying for the healthcare for those more unfortunate than him and thats baaaad. They should suffer for being poor. OP is a blatant troll.
Original post by TulipFields
This is completely ridiculous :facepalm:
If they steal my car at the gunpoint, but then care for the car, fix it when it breaks and chauffeur me to where I need to go, I wouldn't mind>
Except the analogy is so crap, and the argument is so meaningless.
Government isnt exactly stealing a last piece of bread from your mouth.


This what a stupid analogy to make, you really are grasping at straws your argument does not work at all :rolleyes:
Original post by moonkatt
OP is a blatant troll.

Or the OP isn't a socialist?
Original post by Jordenfruitbat
Wow less than I thought even :smile: What can you buy with that a couple of mc donalds seriously, what is his problem paying such a small contribution to the NHS which saves lives.


Exactly.

I haven't read through their arguments, but I assume they are all preaching the goodness of Private Healthcare?

Well, that's all fine and dandy. Let them preach all that goodness when they have an accident, and PHC doesn't send an ambulance, and PHC's famous A&E department is mysteriously not there.

I don't know what his problem is, but if they can't support something that those who survived World War Two came together to create, in aid of so many millions who had been devastated by it, then that's their loss.
Original post by tehFrance
Or the OP isn't a socialist?


from other threads he's made, I'd lean more in the direction of troll.
Original post by tehFrance
Or the OP isn't a socialist?


You don't have to be a Socialist to support the NHS.

In fact, even Margaret Thatcher said, "The NHS is safe with us".

And she was about as Conservative as it gets. :rolleyes:

Latest

Trending

Trending