Uni Health Care

[bozo]

Tell me what they can do or what the government can do to avoid them claiming benefit? And please don't say they can all start their own businesses.

Why don't they do what a lot of students are doing and get a degree? Once the recession has blown over, they will have skills for jobs that will be available. I agree with you, they probably couldn't create businesses for themselves; we aren't living in a Libertarian society (yet). There is too much regulation and control over business; it needs to be lifted so that the people with ideas get the encouragement and support when setting up their own company.

Simply getting a degree is no answer. Nowadays a degree= debt. Worse, there simply aren't the jobs around for youngsters either with or without a degree.
My main point is that it isn't the unemployed's fault that they are jobless ( I accept a minority might welcome it ) and a civilised society looks after them through the benefit system.

[Tiberius]

Firstly, a degree does not equate "debt". The benefits of jobs that the degree unlocks far outweigh the financial burden that the student holds at the end of it. There may not be degrees out there for the students who go and study "doss" subjects (which I'll leave unnamed...I'm sure you can figure them out), but there are for those who have specific degrees. My degree is in computer science (arguably one of the fastest growing industries) and I specialize in information security (which is also a quickly growing sector within computing).

Your last point I agree with. A civilised society looks after them, but they do it through charity, not through a flawed benefits system that just encourages people to not look for jobs. Going to university has a lot of perks, the main ones being that the Student Loans Company gives you a loan that you don't even have to start paying back until you earn over £15,000 a year, and once you earn that amount, the percentage of your salary you have to pay back still leaves you financially stable.

[bozo]

You may be one of the lucky ones who gets a job, maybe even a job that suits and pays well. Good for you, but you aren't seriously suggesting that a degree in itself is a passport to well-paid, interesting,worthwhile and secure employment are you?

Charity! AAAGGHH. The ultimate in capitalist ideology. The state withdraws and the do-gooders take over, awarding relief to those thought worthy, and if you aren't...tough shit, go away and die.
If that's what you and your Libetarians stand for, I'll have none of it. Despicable doesn't do it justice.

[Tiberius]

No, of course a degree isn't a passport as you term it, but it certainly helps give the extra "push" that a person without a degree doesn't have.

I happen to think charity has done a lot to help a lot of people. You seem to view it as if they are working towards some kind of corporate goal. So I take it in a socialist society you'd outlaw them?

Despicable doesn't do the whole socialist ideology justice. It's ludicrous, impossible, inherently flawed, and punishes the people who work the hardest. It's downright evil.

[bozo]

Adrian,
I think charity is a cunning capitalist invention. Whatever the cause, it will never be a total solution.
The people doing the charity thing get more out of it, in the sense that they feel they are " making a difference ". Plus they get the smug satisfaction that goes with it that they are somehow doing great things. In some case it eases consciences. I have attended charity do's in the past and witnessed known criminals flashing the cash in charity auctions.
It also diverts people's attention and involvement from campaigning in the political arena for a fairer society where charity is a thing of the unenlightened past.

As for your rant that socialism is evil, well I lose it sometimes too.You can't be serious....can you?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why don't they do what a lot of students are doing and get a degree? Once the recession has blown over, they will have skills for jobs that will be available. I agree with you, they probably couldn't create businesses for themselves; we aren't living in a Libertarian society (yet). There is too much regulation and control over business; it needs to be lifted so that the people with ideas get the encouragement and support when setting up their own company.

Question Adrian ... do you really think that that many people having degrees (gnu-Labour reckons it wants 50% of all school leavers to get degrees) is a good thing? I know I don't ... I genuinely believe that 1 or 2% of degrees (when degrees were "blue sky") actually meant something as opposed to now.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

I think charity is a cunning capitalist invention. Whatever the cause, it will never be a total solution.

And you ask me why I think socialism is evil. Jebus Christ, you are a sick person. Hey, forget Cancer Research UK, forget all the AIDS foundations, forget helping out in poverty stricken countries (I thought socialism is all about helping the poor???). Screw charity, it's all a capitalist lie!

The people doing the charity thing get more out of it, in the sense that they feel they are " making a difference ". Plus they get the smug satisfaction that goes with it that they are somehow doing great things.

Sure, and it is because of that smug satisfaction that charity works. People like feeling morally superior, and charity provides them with that option for a small (or heck, large) donation. The point is, the money given actually helps people. It doesn't matter that people get some kind of kick out of it (you could make the same argument that they do it for the little flag pins you get), it matters than people do it, and they give their money away freely.

In some case it eases consciences. I have attended charity do's in the past and witnessed known criminals flashing the cash in charity auctions.

So? Does it really matter who gives? Surely it is about the money rather than the motives or the kind of person giving. The charity itself is run by good people, administered by the Charity Commission. It's not like they are letting known criminals start their own these days.

It also diverts people's attention and involvement from campaigning in the political arena for a fairer society where charity is a thing of the unlightened past.

Maybe that's because people actually prefer charity rather than government control. I think especially here in the UK, nobody really feels that "political" feeling. Look at the US elections; people party in the streets, they hold so many gatherings, because at election time they can vote on propositions that are written by the people. A balance needs to be created, where people can feel like they have some control in government.

As for your rant that socialism is evil, well I lose it sometimes too.You can't be serious....can you?

As far as I am concerned, your socialism idea would take one look at me and say "Well, he did pay for his degree, and he is working hard for a wealthy computer company, but fuck him...he earns waaaay too much." and then take money out of my pocket and give it to someone on welfare. Whilst I'm supportive of my taxes going to people who cannot help their situation, I'm not going to support an essentially evil system where my hard-earned money is taken from me and given to someone who just doesn't work. I'd much rather see a fair tax rate that has money going into creating jobs and opening up the markets.

---

---

Question Adrian ... do you really think that that many people having degrees (gnu-Labour reckons it wants 50% of all school leavers to get degrees) is a good thing? I know I don't ... I genuinely believe that 1 or 2% of degrees (when degrees were "blue sky") actually meant something as opposed to now.

It's not an unknown fact that more and more "menial" jobs are going to technology rather than people. The reason? Technology doesn't come with a health risk (i.e. people dying in dangerous work), and it is much more efficient (factory machinery, etc). Even in a socialist system, this would be the case (unless you are going to put a halt on all progress). If there are no menial jobs left, people need specific skills. The technology will always need humans to support it. Computers need programmers to code their software, for example. With ever decreasing "menial job" opportunities, people without a decent education are going to lose out.

Who knows, maybe in some distant future, socialism will work, but in a "futurist" way that has robots and computers doing all of humanities work, whilst people relax and don't work at all. Until then, the skill-less become an ever increasing burden on the skilful, and we need more skilful people around.

[bozo]

Adrian, you start by calling me " sick ". Now I've been taken to task before over that sort of approach. Actually, I don't object. I believe in free speech, so go ahead, call me what you like. I object too charity because the state would do it better in a socialist system.

Charity doesn't " work " for the reasons I suggested.

It does matter how charities operate, in my view. The state could do the job so much better, by firstly avoiding the need for charity and by taxing the very wealthy a whole lot more to funs a decent welfare system. Hey, those wonderful people won't mind will they, they can give up the charity balls!

Clearly you didn't appreciate anything we discussed months ago regarding socialism. You appear to be almost exclusively concerned with yourself.

[Tiberius]

My mother used to run a charity, she was chair of it. She took no money from them whatsoever (not even a salary). Her charity helped kids with Tourettes' meet up and have fun days out. I hardly think the government could provide a similar service without first going through reams of paperwork to organise anything. The reason charity works is because it is run by people, not by bureaucracy.

The problem with your own socialist system is that you claim "oh we'll just tax the rich more and everything will be fine". The problem is, though that might work for the start, the other agenda of socialism is to "close the gap between the rich and the poor". If the rich are "poorer" so to speak, they get taxed less, and the money flow just stops. What then? Limiting people's money doesn't solve any problem, it makes the problem worse.

and no, I didn't appreciate anything we discussed months ago. You didn't convince me of socialism then, and you haven't now. The fact you would do away with charity because you see it as some kind of capitalist conspiracy strikes me as the very brink of insanity.

[bozo]

Adrian, you're doing it again, accusing me of insanity now. Oh well.
I bet your mum loved doing it and got a lot of personal satisfaction from it. Good for her. Care for those that need care should not be left to well-meaning people like your mum to take it on board for as long as they want or until they pass the baton.
Taxing the rich ( more ) is called progressive taxation. It means that those that can afford to pay more, because they get more, for the benefit of the more unfortunate. I don't see what the problem is. If you are well off and accumulating even more wealth than you need, why object? I don't see, for instance, why a loaf of bread costs the same to a multi-millionaire as to...er me.

It's very evident I won't win you over, I just point out the weaknesses in your agenda.