Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Cutting Public Services - but which?

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That system (odious or not) has apparent pride of place in Britain.

    The NHS is health insurance.

    The NHS is a publicly-funded healthcare system. It's only health insurance in the sense that it's how we, as a country, chose to insure ourselves against people not being able to access medical care. You always have access to it, regardless of contribution. It's not health insurance in the terms that everyone else is talking about. But this isn't news to you; you're just making a non-point, again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The NHS is a publicly-funded healthcare system. It's only health insurance in the sense that it's how we, as a country, chose to insure ourselves against people not being able to access medical care. You always have access to it, regardless of contribution. It's not health insurance in the terms that everyone else is talking about. But this isn't news to you; you're just making a non-point, again.

    A person making a non-point that is resultant in another's admittance to obsfucation of a fact is a negative ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's only health insurance in the sense that it's how we, as a country, chose to insure ourselves against people not being able to access medical care.

    It is only a choice if you decide to withdraw from the national insurance system. That takes quite a considerable effort, and cannot be said to be an easy choice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's quite easy not to pay national insurance, you just don't pay it. If you want a job, work for yourslef and don't pay any national insurance. If you want to work for someone else whose terms are that they'll deduct national insurance contributions from your pay- that's a choice you make, to contribute.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A person making a non-point that is resultant in another's admittance to obsfucation of a fact is a negative ?

    What the fuck are you on about? Why don't you actually say something for once, rather than just stringing words together?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who owes an obligation to your colleague ? And why ?
    Well you see there those of us- luckily, a majority in this country- who believe there is such a thing as society, and every country and community should seek to be or become a caring society where those who need help can get it.

    That is why greedy private hands should be kept well away from public services such as healthcare. Otherwise you end up with people dying outside hospitals because the administrator refuses to admit them in as they have no health insurance.

    Fuck that for a laugh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That system (odious or not) has apparent pride of place in Britain.

    The NHS is health insurance.
    However it is not a private health insurance but a public, government-run one set up to operate as a vital public service.

    The difference of course being that the former kind are profit-driven and as such are perfectly happy to let people die if they are considered a liability risk.

    Luckily, most people in this country consider that to be abhorrent and nauseating.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is only a choice if you decide to withdraw from the national insurance system. That takes quite a considerable effort, and cannot be said to be an easy choice.


    The NHS is funded by those that can pay and pays for everyone including those that can't. If you stop paying your health service isn't taken away from you. If you keep getting sick or are diagnosed with a condition, it isn't taken away from you and your premiums aren't raised.

    If you need some topical skin cream it costs £7.20. If you need an expensive several month long course of antibiotics, it costs £7.20. If you have an ongoing medical condition/disability/too young/too old/pregnant or goto hospital/walk in centre then the drugs are free.

    It is a form of insurance, yes. But it's not compulsory and it's far more inclusive, efficient, reasonably priced and caring than a privately run system that will tell you to go fuck yourself if it can find an opportunity to. Besides, our system is cheaper.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh I forgot, I'd cut Whowhere's salary too. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can try...... :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    It's quite easy not to pay national insurance, you just don't pay it.

    True.

    However if HMRC deems that you were liable for contributions your life will become unpleasant.
    katralla wrote: »
    If you want a job, work for yourslef and don't pay any national insurance.

    You could take this option.

    However, Part 1 section 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 states you are liable, and once again the unpleasantness looms.
    katralla wrote: »
    If you want to work for someone else whose terms are that they'll deduct national insurance contributions from your pay- that's a choice you make, to contribute.

    If you are deemed an employee, the employer has a legal obligation to deduct the appropriate contributions so I suspect most employers will not offer you a choice.

    In conclusion my contention is (as above) that withdrawal from the national insurance system takes quite a considerable effort, and cannot be said to be an easy choice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Well you see there those of us- luckily, a majority in this country- who believe there is such a thing as society, and every country and community should seek to be or become a caring society where those who need help can get it.

    That is why greedy private hands should be kept well away from public services such as healthcare. Otherwise you end up with people dying outside hospitals because the administrator refuses to admit them in as they have no health insurance.

    Fuck that for a laugh.

    Impressively emotional socialist rhetoric but it does not answer my question.

    Who owes an obligation to your colleague ? And why ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    If you keep getting sick or are diagnosed with a condition, it isn't taken away from you and your premiums aren't raised.

    Conversely, you may never get sick (and try your hardest not to) yet see your premium go through the roof despite never making a claim.
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Besides, our system is cheaper.

    Cheaper than what ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Impressively emotional socialist rhetoric but it does not answer my question.

    Who owes an obligation to your colleague ? And why ?
    Socialist my arse.

    You can say that the country and people of the USA, of which she's part of and has contributed to in various ways, has an obligation of certain duty of care.

    Access to healthcare is one of the most fundamental human rights there are. That is why putting greedy scumbags (sorry, private health insurance companies) in charge of it is unacceptable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Socialist my arse.

    You can say that the country and people of the USA, of which she's part of and has contributed to in various ways, has an obligation of certain duty of care.

    Access to healthcare is one of the most fundamental human rights there are. That is why putting greedy scumbags (sorry, private health insurance companies) in charge of it is unacceptable.

    Every person who is deemed a US citizen has an obligation to your colleague because it is a fundamental human right ?

    Did I understand you correctly ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru


    Cheaper than what ?

    The American one. The American system costs the US taxpayer more than ours and they don't get anything for it.

    And what the hell are you talking about, I might never make a claim yet my premium could still go up. What premium? It might if I were on private health care with no other choice, but I'm not.

    As for Aladdin, i think the point he is trying to make is that society is better, and works better when people look after one another. I pay quite a bit in national insurance, I don't resent or mind paying it. I know I might/probably need it one day as I have done in the past, I know that my contributions will help other people in society who are needier than me.

    If you're happy seeing people suffer for lack of basic healthcare then I suggest you live in the USA. And whilst you're at it watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" film.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    And what the hell are you talking about, I might never make a claim yet my premium could still go up. What premium?

    These premiums :
    The funds required–
    (a) for paying such benefits under this Act as are payable out of the National Insurance Fund and not out of other public money; and (b) for the making of payments under section 162 of the Administration Act towards the cost of the National Health Service,
    shall be provided by means of contributions payable to the [Inland Revenue] by earners,employers and others

    You do not get a no claims bonus on this policy.

    If anything the policy encourages sickness.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cabal_chess.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    As for Aladdin, i think the point he is trying to make is that society is better, and works better when people look after one another. I pay quite a bit in national insurance, I don't resent or mind paying it. I know I might/probably need it one day as I have done in the past, I know that my contributions will help other people in society who are needier than me.

    People looking after one another is not predicated on a coercive health insurance policy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Every person who is deemed a US citizen has an obligation to your colleague because it is a fundamental human right ?

    Did I understand you correctly ?

    You are framing this in terms that I think you know are manifestly wrong.

    The distinction in moral choices (e.g: what actions are 'right' or 'wrong') here needs to be understood in terms of 'is' or 'ought' - or, what has happened as distinct from what we think should happen?

    What has happened, is that in human societies, virtually all - we have had demonstrable patterns of behaviour incorporating reciprocal altruism (or 'do as you would be done by' + ' that which you would not wish for yourself, do not do to others') which has been necessary for both cohesion and survival, and for the increased security of both in the future. There are masses of evidence to support this.

    What 'should happen' is another matter - for example the idea of 'inalienable rights' in the US constitution are conceptions that are emergent - meaning they are ideaas don't pre-exist human beings as a law or condition external to them (like gravity) - they are invented by people and evolve in response to causes and conditions.

    Your attempt to destabilise Aladdin's point by hinting at the fact that it can't be grounded in an absolute first principle could therefore equally be applied to anything you might come out with - we'd just need to turn the question round and say 'who does not owe her compassion or responsibility and why?'.

    In fact, on balance if we take the fact that conditions experienced across human societies have made reciprocal altruism necessary for survival and continued and enhanced security of populations - we could argue quite persuasively that it would be you who would have to tell us why we shouldn't give a shit about other people, given that this would be a more radical exception.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People looking after one another is not predicated on a coercive health insurance policy.

    it's cheaper isn't it?

    it's general service might not be amazing but can you name better? it's no good saying something is flawed if you fail to provide any reaonsable alternative..... of course it has flaws, but in general it works, there are areas where cuts can be made if need be noone is denying that
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru


    If you are deemed an employee, the employer has a legal obligation to deduct the appropriate contributions so I suspect most employers will not offer you a choice.

    In conclusion my contention is (as above) that withdrawal from the national insurance system takes quite a considerable effort, and cannot be said to be an easy choice.

    It is a CHOICE to work for someone who is going to make national insurance contributions out of your pay.

    And, seriously, who the fuck is going to know what you earn and don't declare?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You are framing this in terms that I think you know are manifestly wrong.

    Aladdin's terms.
    The distinction in moral choices (e.g: what actions are 'right' or 'wrong') here needs to be understood in terms of 'is' or 'ought' - or, what has happened as distinct from what we think should happen?

    What has happened, is that in human societies, virtually all - we have had demonstrable patterns of behaviour incorporating reciprocal altruism (or 'do as you would be done by' + ' that which you would not wish for yourself, do not do to others') which has been necessary for both cohesion and survival, and for the increased security of both in the future. There are masses of evidence to support this.

    And obligations are created how ?
    What 'should happen' is another matter - for example the idea of 'inalienable rights' in the US constitution are conceptions that are emergent - meaning they are ideaas don't pre-exist human beings as a law or condition external to them (like gravity) - they are invented by people and evolve in response to causes and conditions.

    That is incorrect.

    The "inalienable rights" to which you refer are in the Declaration of Independence, and were expressed as external.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    Your attempt to destabilise Aladdin's point by hinting at the fact that it can't be grounded in an absolute first principle could therefore equally be applied to anything you might come out with - we'd just need to turn the question round and say 'who does not owe her compassion or responsibility and why?'.

    I would contend that "no obligations" is the default position
    In fact, on balance if we take the fact that conditions experienced across human societies have made reciprocal altruism necessary for survival and continued and enhanced security of populations - we could argue quite persuasively that it would be you who would have to tell us why we shouldn't give a shit about other people, given that this would be a more radical exception.

    You are assuming facts not in evidence. A common mistake.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's cheaper isn't it?

    it's general service might not be amazing but can you name better? it's no good saying something is flawed if you fail to provide any reaonsable alternative..... of course it has flaws, but in general it works, there are areas where cuts can be made if need be noone is denying that

    You make it sound like it is my imperative.

    Why not avoid health insurance in all its manifestations ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    It is a CHOICE to work for someone who is going to make national insurance contributions out of your pay.

    And, seriously, who the fuck is going to know what you earn and don't declare?

    At least two people would in any scenario and that is one (or perhaps two) too many if avoiding unpleasantness is your thing.

    (Wilfull failure will probably get you time in the big house).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin's terms.

    I'm pretty sure Aladdin isn't framing selfishness as the default position.
    You are assuming facts not in evidence. A common mistake.

    :lol: Putting statements in smarmy prose does not make you seem more intelligent; or your contention that reciprocal altruism isn't in evidence in the majority of human cultures any less demonstrably ridiculous.
    I would contend that "no obligations" is the default position

    Of course you would, but you'd be wrong - because it's manifest nonsense to suggest that most human cultures and societies have no systems of mutual dependence and reciprocity.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    I didn't say 'they were expressed' I said 'they are'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Why not avoid health insurance in all its manifestations ?

    Because someone has to pay for the medical bills somehow. It either comes out your taxes as it does here, or it comes out your taxes and you pay for insurance as you do in the USA.

    If you want to pay at the point of use you can do. You'll then quickly realise how heavily subsidised medical care and drugs are. When we were in the USA they wanted £200 to look at my wife's tooth after she chipped it, plus extras for x-rays, fillings e.t.c. Here the price is £35 regardless. I know which system I prefer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Putting statements in smarmy prose does not make you seem more intelligent; or your contention that reciprocal altruism isn't in evidence in the majority of human cultures any less demonstrably ridiculous.

    Of course you would, but you'd be wrong - because it's manifest nonsense to suggest that most human cultures and societies have no systems of mutual dependence and reciprocity.

    You are drowning in abstractions, Martin.

    When, or if, you come to the surface you would notice the real world is only people. People doing things with, or to, other people, and sometimes without any consent.

    Any obligations are those that have been agreed upon. "No obligation" is the default position.

    If you entered a courtroom with your bag full of abstractions as your facts and evidence I do not think you would have much success.

    But do not take my word for it. Test it and let me know how you get on.
    I didn't say 'they were expressed' I said 'they are'.

    You said "for example the idea of 'inalienable rights' in the US constitution are conceptions that are emergent - meaning they are ideaas don't pre-exist human beings as a law or condition external to them (like gravity) - they are invented by people and evolve in response to causes and conditions."

    If you do some legal research on Jefferson, you would find that the inalienable rights to which he refers are expressly external and not man-made.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Because someone has to pay for the medical bills somehow. It either comes out your taxes as it does here, or it comes out your taxes and you pay for insurance as you do in the USA.

    If you want to pay at the point of use you can do. You'll then quickly realise how heavily subsidised medical care and drugs are. When we were in the USA they wanted £200 to look at my wife's tooth after she chipped it, plus extras for x-rays, fillings e.t.c. Here the price is £35 regardless. I know which system I prefer.

    I dare say you are correct with those figures but why not broaden your horizons ?

    You appear to be stuck in an either/or situation.

    Life without medical bills. Now there's a thought ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, explain in detail how you think that could work Schmuck?
Sign In or Register to comment.