(September 15, 2012 at 2:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I live under the NHS and whilst it has its advantages, a lot of people live under the delusion that it is "free". Like the students who protest against higher tuition fees for university, people do not understand that anything paid for by the government is ultimately paid for by the people. If education was free for students, it would be paid for by everyone else. Likewise, the NHS is free for everyone, but it paid for by the tax payers.

While this is true, a lot of the corruption is taken out when health insurance is seen less as a free market issue and more as a public health issue. Honestly? I don't trust these big companies for a second; they'll do whatever they can to save a buck, even if that means screwing over policy holders.

While I respect your libertarian views, I think there are some government services that are too important to be left to the free market and I think most people would agree; courts, police, military and fire departments, for example. Generally, at least in the US, it isn't so much whether you're for a free market or socialism, it's what services you think the government should be involved in of and to what degree the governments' involvement should be.

(September 15, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Puddleglum Wrote: Since it wasn't a European country where on earth do you think it referred to?

OK please guilty to americanocentrism but there is only one country that doesn't put its name on its stamps or its country in the name of its armed forces.

Any guesses who that might be?

It was a simple enough request (for a little consideration) but oh, no... fuck that... go on the counter-attack, instead. Yeah. OK.

Completely irrelevant, but are you sure about the armed forces? No other country in the world leaves off the name of the country? As for stamps, we invented the fucking things, so we'll do whatever the fuck we like with them.

eta: Oh, and there's only 2 continents, now? See the Olympics? 5 rings.

(September 15, 2012 at 3:40 pm)Red Celt Wrote: No they don't. I don't know anyone who thinks that.

You not knowing anyone who thinks that does not disprove my point. It's an argument from personal incredulity of sorts, which is a logical fallacy. The students who protested against the rise in fees held signs demanding free education, and were quite perplexed as to why the general public weren't supportive. Well, it's because whilst free education would be free for students, it wouldn't be free for anyone else. The general public do not want (nor should they want) to pay for students, when they can easily get a student loan and pay for their own education. Same goes with the general attitude towards free healthcare. It isn't free; in fact due to government bureaucracy, it usually costs far more than it should, since governments are generally not held accountable for the money they spend waste.

Quote:"Free" = "Free at the point of delivery". That's all that it's ever meant.

Right, and whilst that sounds like a great idea, nobody seems to care about the true cost of it.

Quote:As for you wanting to opt out from the NHS altogether... what happens if you're in a traffic accident? Should the NHS ambulance be cancelled if your wallet has a BUPA card in it? A lot of "private" healthcare is actually carried out by the NHS, but you're charged for it. Oh, you'll likely have much shorter waiting times and your own room instead of a bed on a ward... but it will still be NHS.

No...if you have an accident, the NHS ambulance comes as per usual, and you are cared for by NHS hospital staff. The difference is, when you are discharged, instead of sending the bill to the government, it is sent to your insurer, and your insurer works everything out. Emergency situations would all work like that. Non-emergency situations would work as they currently do.

Quote:Always good to know that the healthcare of the wealthy is more important than the healthcare of the poor.

You apparently missed this part of my post:

"(and the government / welfare charities would support those unable to buy healthcare themselves)"

---

(September 15, 2012 at 3:41 pm)TaraJo Wrote: While this is true, a lot of the corruption is taken out when health insurance is seen less as a free market issue and more as a public health issue.

Not true. By definition, the "free market" is free of government interference, ergo corruption via governments making backdoor deals with insurance companies is non-existent.

Quote:Honestly? I don't trust these big companies for a second; they'll do whatever they can to save a buck, even if that means screwing over policy holders.

Distrust for big corporations stems from the fact that they can get away with screwing people over because they form monopolies and get governments to legislate in their favour. Take those restrictions away, and other companies will emerge as competitors, forcing the larger corporations to play fair in order to preserve their market share. In a free market, competition is key to ensuring that corruption is kept to a minimum.

Quote:While I respect your libertarian views, I think there are some government services that are too important to be left to the free market and I think most people would agree; courts, police, military and fire departments, for example. Generally, at least in the US, it isn't so much whether you're for a free market or socialism, it's what services you think the government should be involved in of and to what degree the governments' involvement should be.

I believe the government should control the justice system (i.e. courts and police) and defense (i.e. the military). The first is important in any country, and the main point of government is to ensure that citizens' rights are protected, which is done though the enforcement of laws. Defense is also important since it prevents other countries from trying to violate citizens' rights.

Other than that, everything should be optional and up to the citizens. There have been fire departments in the US that are set up with a local "fire tax", which people can choose to pay. If they don't pay, then they run the risk of their house burning to the ground. If they do pay, they get the service. I don't argue that a fire service isn't a good thing, but I do argue that it should be up to individuals to decide what they use their money for. I would always pay the "fire tax", but I'll defend anyone's right to not pay up.

(September 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote: You not knowing anyone who thinks that does not disprove my point. It's an argument from personal incredulity of sorts, which is a logical fallacy.

You're absolutely right. How could I possibly claim that there are people who don't realise that they pay tax and that some of that tax goes to the NHS. That would be an incredible claim to make.

(September 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Right, and whilst that sounds like a great idea, nobody seems to care about the true cost of it.

How come only one of us is allowed to argue by anecdote?

(September 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote: No...if you have an accident, the NHS ambulance comes as per usual, and you are cared for by NHS hospital staff.

Great. OK. What if everyone decided to do the same thing? No NHS ambulances, no NHS, as nobody is paying for it from their tax. Or is this the whole, "I'm alright jack" argument, because I'd hoped that that had mostly died with Thatcherism.

A social healthcare system only works if it is social. I'm sure that you believe that your health is more important than everyone else's... but guess what? They think the same about their health. The deciding factor in triage shouldn't be wealthy-first, then the poor. Because, then we really would all be fucked.

My two cents. I pay gladly my taxes knowing that I have health care for 12€ a year (and even cheaper now that I'm a student, actually). I don't mind a bit, I could even pay more taxes if the decision makers could improve health care even further.

(September 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Distrust for big corporations stems from the fact that they can get away with screwing people over because they form monopolies and get governments to legislate in their favour. Take those restrictions away, and other companies will emerge as competitors, forcing the larger corporations to play fair in order to preserve their market share. In a free market, competition is key to ensuring that corruption is kept to a minimum.

Ok, I could see that happening, but it would also have to include strong anti-trust laws to prevent one company from buying out all the rest or to prevent all the companies from joining together to fuck everyone over.

Quote:Other than that, everything should be optional and up to the citizens. There have been fire departments in the US that are set up with a local "fire tax", which people can choose to pay. If they don't pay, then they run the risk of their house burning to the ground. If they do pay, they get the service. I don't argue that a fire service isn't a good thing, but I do argue that it should be up to individuals to decide what they use their money for. I would always pay the "fire tax", but I'll defend anyone's right to not pay up.

I don't agree with that. If my neighbor's house is on fire, I don't care whether he's insured or not; I want the fire department to put it out before it threatens my house.

(September 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(September 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Other than that, everything should be optional and up to the citizens. There have been fire departments in the US that are set up with a local "fire tax", which people can choose to pay. If they don't pay, then they run the risk of their house burning to the ground. If they do pay, they get the service. I don't argue that a fire service isn't a good thing, but I do argue that it should be up to individuals to decide what they use their money for. I would always pay the "fire tax", but I'll defend anyone's right to not pay up.

I don't agree with that. If my neighbor's house is on fire, I don't care whether he's insured or not; I want the fire department to put it out before it threatens my house.

You make a good point. We are not islands. We impact each other both by our actions and by our inactions. It is reasonable to make community agreements about what we'll tolerate on both scores.

Quote:I don't agree with that. If my neighbor's house is on fire, I don't care whether he's insured or not; I want the fire department to put it out before it threatens my house.

That is actually how it used to work...

Roughly 8.6% of my gross income is taken as national insurance, which covers services like the NHS. That is on top of the 20% tax rate I already pay. If there should be such a service, it should be completely optional. I want the right to either pay the government for my healthcare, or choose to go with a private insurer if I am not satisfied with the NHS.

That's not true. National Insurance is just another tax. It just goes straight into the treasury and has nothing to do with the NHS. I spent 15 years working in the UK,half of that as an employer so I know all about NI thanks

There is a specifically US problem that would need to be addressed, in the Uk they bulk buy their supplies getting the best possible prices. lets say the NHS thinks it needs 1 Billion Aspirin tablets next year. They order one Billion tablets from a company that will make absolutely no profit on them whatsoever, indeed they may supply them at a loss, the reason compabies do it is that they can then install the necessary plant to manufacture such items incredibly cheaply and they make higher profits on direct sale.

However In the US there would be so much pork barrelling and 1000 dollar syringes bought from a company in Wyoming because the senior senator has sold his vote (again) that the costs would spiral out of control so an entirely separate method of procurement would have to be installed. Added to that we should have training colleges attached to Hospitals (as the UK has) where Nurses and Doctors train for free and in return guarantee to work x number of years in the state system.

All in all it works out , if done properly, vastly cheaper for everyone because everything is bulk sourced.

---

Completely irrelevant, but are you sure about the armed forces? No other country in the world leaves off the name of the country?

Yup

UK has The Royal Navy, The Royal Marines, The Royal Airforce, Royal Artillery, Royal tank regiment etc Everyone else has their name in them

The US marine corps, the Royal Australian Air force etc.

(September 16, 2012 at 12:50 am)Puddleglum Wrote: Yup

UK has The Royal Navy, The Royal Marines, The Royal Airforce, Royal Artillery, Royal tank regiment etc Everyone else has their name in them

The US marine corps, the Royal Australian Air force etc.

Just one word: Luftwaffe.

And there's others: List of militaries by country.

If you make a claim such as "everyone else", you really should check first.