(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.
