Insurance or universal based health care?

[Atomic_Piggy]

I was just wandering which you prefered. Personally I like the idea of insurance based health care, because really, why the hell should I pay for someone elses health care if I have worked harder and as a result earn more money than them? Why should healthy people who take care of themselves have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc? Also, with good inusrance you don't have to wait very long either.
On the other hand, a lot of rich folk may have inherited their money from relatives and thus have done nothing to earn the money or higher standards of medical care.

Heres something to get you thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Debate

 

[Mr Stabby]

I'm opposed to all social programs except universal health care and universal education

 

[Solaris]

Perfect solution fallacy.

What a ****ing stupid poll.

Big fail.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Perfect solution fallacy.

Look at the poll again: Neither is perfect

Besides, I thought you would have gone for universal

 

[Mr Stabby]

There are only really two options, pay for it yourself, or pay for it as a collective. Since everyone may need it, then paying as a collective seem sensible to me.

 

[kirovman]

Well everyone paying for it is effectively a form of Nationalised Insurance.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

There are only really two options, pay for it yourself, or pay for it as a collective. Since everyone may need it, then paying as a collective seem sensible to me.

But then you would have to pay for someone who has not looked after their health and knows that what they are doing damages their health. Eg smoking - I have nothing against smokers, but why should I pay for their health care because they, despite all our knowledge, smoked anyway.

 

[kirovman]

But then you would have to pay for someone who has not looked after their health and knows that what they are doing damages their health. Eg smoking - I have nothing against smokers, but why should I pay for their health care because they, despite all our knowledge, smoked anyway.

What they pay on Cigarette duty more than pays for it.
Anyway, the resulting early deaths will increase pensions for the rest of us.

 

[repiV]

Well everyone paying for it is effectively a form of Nationalised Insurance.

Unfortunately, there is no accountability within the system that you would expect from a commercially provided service. We are at the whim of the state as to which treatments are and are not allowed, and there are no other avenues to turn to if you aren't happy with the service.
The number of life-prolonging cancer treatments on the market that aren't available on the NHS because they aren't "cost-effective" is scandalous.

 

[Llama]

Unfortunately, there is no accountability within the system that you would expect from a commercially provided service. We are at the whim of the state as to which treatments are and are not allowed, and there are no other avenues to turn to if you aren't happy with the service.
The number of life-prolonging cancer treatments on the market that aren't available on the NHS because they aren't "cost-effective" is scandalous.

^ Troof.

I think the system here is pretty effective in theory in that those who find the NHS to be shit (Who to be honest, are correct) can pay for private treatment.

It's a shame that the NHS is such as expensive, choking mess, otherwise it might work quite well.

Obviously neither system works perfectly on it's own, which is why a system using both would be preferable.

 

[kirovman]

The NHS is a double edged sword.

 

[The Monkey]

But then you would have to pay for someone who has not looked after their health and knows that what they are doing damages their health. Eg smoking - I have nothing against smokers, but why should I pay for their health care because they, despite all our knowledge, smoked anyway.

Because smoking is more and more a sign of poverty and choosing not to treat a disease so associated with a certain group of society will cause unnecessary class disturbance.

 

[Solaris]

Look at the poll again: Neither is perfect

Besides, I thought you would have gone for universal

That's exactly the problem.

I prefer Universal Healthcare, but neither system is perfect. Anyone who doesn't vote for neither is perfect is guilty of the perfect solution fallacy. So the whole poll is stupid.

It's like asking:
Do you Prefer:
Cats
Dogs
I am a human being

The Neither is perfect option is stupid becuase what we want to know is who prefers what, not who thinks what is perfect.

 

[kirovman]

Because smoking is more and more a sign of poverty and choosing not to treat a disease so associated with a certain group of society will cause unnecessary class disturbance.
__________________

That is also a pretty good explanation.

There is an argument about giving benefits to the underclass "why should I give my tax money to them"
I feel the same way, although I still believe that on the other hand if we didn't give them anything, they'd either be forced to steal or starve (or the less likely - work).
Crime would probably go up and we'd have bodies lying in our streets.
If that's the case, I believe giving benefits out is a small price to pay.
Although the benefits system in this country needs a good sort out, it is mismanaged and abused.

 

[Solaris]

I think another problem is like expressed above:

Why should I pay for the health care of someone poorer than me becuase I worked harder than them.

Alot of my working class friends have parents who work in factories all day doing boring mind numbing work, or building or laboring on a building yard.

I highly doubt that a 'management consultant' works 'harder' than they do. Just society rewards different traits such as ingenuity and intelligence than it does willingness to do 'hard' work.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

That's exactly the problem.

I prefer Universal Healthcare, but neither system is perfect. Anyone who doesn't vote for neither is perfect is guilty of the perfect solution fallacy. So the whole poll is stupid.

It's like asking:
Do you Prefer:
Cats
Dogs
I am a human being

The Neither is perfect option is stupid becuase what we want to know is who prefers what, not who thinks what is perfect.

I see what your getting at now D:

 

[repiV]

^ Troof.

I think the system here is pretty effective in theory in that those who find the NHS to be shit (Who to be honest, are correct) can pay for private treatment.

It's a shame that the NHS is such as expensive, choking mess, otherwise it might work quite well.

Obviously neither system works perfectly on it's own, which is why a system using both would be preferable.

The NHS is a shining example of what happens when you put people with no tangible business or management experience in charge of the third largest employer in the world. That level of mismanagement and incompetence applied to the private sector would drive a large multinational to bankruptcy.
I worked for the Department of Health for a while, drafting Patricia Hewitt's correspondence. Every time a legitimate question was presented to the ministers, the reply did nothing more than justify the official line. We would get sometimes in excess of 300 letters a day complaining about some kind of injustice within the system and in response send out 300 identical replies claiming that the NHS decision was the correct one.
The feeling I got was that the ordinary MPs that represent their constituents are decent, hard-working people who have the people's best interests at heart and the ministers are in a world of their own (most of the correspondence was from MPs arguing the case of their constituents rather than from the public directly). Patricia Hewitt is a sanctimonious bitch without a clue in the world, Caroline Flint is, despite being very shagworthy, an arrogant, self-serving, egotistical bitch who treats her staff like shit and the lot of them generally see themselves as above the law and above the concerns of the common man. There was nothing democratic about that place.
In fact, I got told to stop using my initiative on more than one occasion.

 

[Solaris]

Yes, the Blair cabinet were clueless retards.

 

[repiV]

I think another problem is like expressed above:

Why should I pay for the health care of someone poorer than me becuase I worked harder than them.

Alot of my working class friends have parents who work in factories all day doing boring mind numbing work, or building or laboring on a building yard.

I highly doubt that a 'management consultant' works 'harder' than they do. Just society rewards different traits such as ingenuity and intelligence than it does willingness to do 'hard' work.

You don't even know what a management consultant does, judging by your use of quotation marks, so I don't think you are in any position to make that judgement.
The economy rewards ingenuity and intelligence because they are rarer, more valuable traits than the ability to crack away at a mind-numbing task, which anyone is capable of.
Regardless, in the corporate world, you are expected to go above and beyond the call of duty and often work so hard that you sacrifice your personal life and your health. No clocking off at 5 like your factory workers and builders. You stay until the job's done, you don't take your lunch if the company needs you and you work weekends if a deadline must be met. And you probably won't get paid overtime either.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I think another problem is like expressed above:

Why should I pay for the health care of someone poorer than me becuase I worked harder than them.

Alot of my working class friends have parents who work in factories all day doing boring mind numbing work, or building or laboring on a building yard.

I highly doubt that a 'management consultant' works 'harder' than they do. Just society rewards different traits such as ingenuity and intelligence than it does willingness to do 'hard' work.

I mean that they worked harder to get there. Yes, the job might be easier, but you don't need many qualifications to become a factory worker. You need to work bloody hard in school for some jobs, whereas factory workers don't.

 

[Solaris]

Regardless, in the corporate world, you are expected to go above and beyond the call of duty and often work so hard that you sacrifice your personal life and your health. No clocking off at 5 like your factory workers and builders. You stay until the job's done, you don't take your lunch if the company needs you and you work weekends if a deadline must be met.

How wonderful. What a beautiful system.

I mean that they worked harder to get there. Yes, the job migth be easier, but in order to become say, a neuroscientist you need to work hard as hell, whereas a factory worker doesn't need much qualifications at all.

But they still do a job that is as important and necessary as any other. They deserve health care in return.

 

[repiV]

How wonderful. What a beautiful system.

It's not, actually. I'm merely trying to correct your misconceptions about the "wonderful, easy world of high-flying jobs". Well-paying careers demand huge sacrifices, and companies can demand these things of employees because if they aren't willing to put in all that unpaid overtime then there are 100 other people desperate for the same opportunity who would be willing to do so.
In a company I used to work for, it often felt like I was committing a grave sin if I took 20 minutes out of the office at lunchtime, despite getting in at 8am and not leaving until 7pm, and working non-stop. For my measly 15.5k basic salary.

It really isn't the gravy train you think it is, it's a lifestyle choice with as many drawbacks as it has good points.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

How wonderful. What a beautiful system.


But they still do a job that is as important and necessary as any other. They deserve health care in return.

I'm not denying that they need health care, but those who try harder have earned better health care.

 

[Solaris]

Corporate Slaves of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your working lunches!

I'm not denying that they need health care, but those who try harder have earned better health care.

Try harder? Some people simply are not intelligent. They still however work very hard.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Try harder? Some people simply are not intelligent. They still however work very hard.

But you don't need to be dumb to work in a factory, just lazy. There are many jobs for the average joe that do not require great mental exertion. For example, one of my dad's friends is a construction worker, he has two cars and 4 bedroom house AND his wife doesn't work. They only have one child as well, so its not like they got it off welfare.

 

[Solaris]

Just Lazy? You arrogant middle class snob.

As someone who has done their fair share of mind numbing tiring work often till 4am, to get up at 7am for college the next day I suggest you try and do some actual 'lazy' work yourself. I bet you've never worked a day of your life, how you can call building site laborers, cleaners and factory line workers lazy is beyond me. You obviously have not a clue.

It would appear corporate jobs can be very hard too, but to call someone lazy just becuase they are poor in ****ing disgraceful.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Just Lazy? You arrogant middle class snob.

Yeah lazy wasn't the right word at all. My parents are working class, they weren't lazy, they never got the oppurtinity to go to uni (things were different in their day )

As someone who has done their fair share of mind numbing tiring work often till 4am, to get up at 7am for college the next day I suggest you try and do some actual 'lazy' work yourself. I bet you've never worked a day of your life, how you can call building site laborers, cleaners and factory line workers lazy is beyond me. You obviously have not a clue.

As I said above, lazy is the wrong word - I mean they could be more, but either they never got the chance or they didn't want to get a better education.
I have to say - I'm beginning to see where your coming from - BTW I come from a working class family and thus, until I get a proper job, am working class.

 

[repiV]

Beyond severe disability or problems of similar magnitude, there's frankly no excuse for being poor in modern day UK.
There are countless options out there and yes, if you are poor then laziness or at least apathy is likely to be a large factor. Lorry drivers, plumbers, electricians, couriers and many more besides all earn far more than the average wage, and you don't need to be particularly great to do any of those things.
Also, the main trick is to make wise use of the money you earn rather than simply increasing your income. If your cavalier spending increases to match your earnings, then you're no better off on any more than a superficial level.
The reason most people are one paycheque from homelessness is because most people decide to live beyond their means instead of investing in financial security - the same applies whether you earn 15k or 150k.

 

[kirovman]

You don't even know what a management consultant does, judging by your use of quotation marks, so I don't think you are in any position to make that judgement.
The economy rewards ingenuity and intelligence because they are rarer, more valuable traits than the ability to crack away at a mind-numbing task, which anyone is capable of.
Regardless, in the corporate world, you are expected to go above and beyond the call of duty and often work so hard that you sacrifice your personal life and your health. No clocking off at 5 like your factory workers and builders. You stay until the job's done, you don't take your lunch if the company needs you and you work weekends if a deadline must be met. And you probably won't get paid overtime either.

I agree with you, but anecdotally, as an Engineer who has regular contacts with said Consultants, I feel that Engineering Management Consultants are paid a lot to make a mess of things and sit around making phonecalls to the wrong people.
I hope to become one, one day.

 

[repiV]

I agree with you, but anecdotally, as an Engineer who has regular contacts with said Consultants, I feel that Engineering Management Consultants are paid a lot to make a mess of things and sit around making phonecalls to the wrong people.
I hope to become one, one day.

A bit like politicians. :E

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I hate it when people vote without replying to the thread :hmph:

 

[The Monkey]

Beyond severe disability or problems of similar magnitude, there's frankly no excuse for being poor in modern day UK.
There are countless options out there and yes, if you are poor then laziness or at least apathy is likely to be a large factor. Lorry drivers, plumbers, electricians, couriers and many more besides all earn far more than the average wage, and you don't need to be particularly great to do any of those things.
Also, the main trick is to make wise use of the money you earn rather than simply increasing your income. If your cavalier spending increases to match your earnings, then you're no better off on any more than a superficial level.
The reason most people are one paycheque from homelessness is because most people decide to live beyond their means instead of investing in financial security - the same applies whether you earn 15k or 150k.

All people are different. Some people do not want to be "lorry drivers, plumbers, electricians, couriers", but want to work at a low payed job. I'm not saying they should earn as much as people with tougher jobs, I'm just saying that laziness isn't the only answer to people being poor.

 

[HunterSeeker]

All people are different. Some people do not want to be "lorry drivers, plumbers, electricians, couriers", but want to work at a low payed job. I'm not saying they should earn as much as people with tougher jobs, I'm just saying that laziness isn't the only answer to people being poor.

Take note that as long as you have low paying jobs, someone has to be poor becouse someone has to do the low paying jobs.

I support universal health care becouse health is not like electronics or cars. If you get sick you have no choice but to seek health care (unless you consider dying a choice). This means that privatized health care corporations can inflate the prices becouse those that need their service have no choice but to pay the price offered them.

 

[repiV]

All people are different. Some people do not want to be "lorry drivers, plumbers, electricians, couriers", but want to work at a low payed job. I'm not saying they should earn as much as people with tougher jobs, I'm just saying that laziness isn't the only answer to people being poor.

So if they choose to be poor it's not exactly a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[repiV]

Take note that as long as you have low paying jobs, someone has to be poor becouse someone has to do the low paying jobs.

Most people work a low paying job for a period of time before moving on. Likewise, most low paying jobs are taken by students, immigrants, housewives etc.

I support universal health care becouse health is not like electronics or cars. If you get sick you have no choice but to seek health care (unless you consider dying a choice). This means that privatized health care corporations can inflate the prices becouse those that need their service have no choice but to pay the price offered them.

Which makes universal healthcare systems even more of a moneysink, because they have to spend out an absolute fortune on obscenely expensive drugs, all out of the public purse. Buying health insurance gives you some kind of leverage over how much they should spend on you.

 

[kirovman]

I think a Universal Healthcare system could be effective and could offer the best treatments available. There are good examples, particularly Scandinavia (I think?). Despite their high taxes, I do believe they get something to show for it, real value for money. I wouldn't mind high taxes if the money all didn't go into a black hole and I saw it being used wisely and for the benefit of society as a whole.

Just not with this government, and their Chairman Mao-esque style of comedy mismanagement.

 

[repiV]

I think a Universal Healthcare system could be effective and could offer the best treatments available. There are good examples, particularly Scandinavia (I think?).
Despite their high taxes, I do believe they get something to show for it, real value for money. I wouldn't mind high taxes if the money all didn't go into a black hole and I saw it being used wisely and for the benefit of society as a whole.

Just not with this government, and their Chairman Mao-esque style of comedy mismanagement.

I agree. The problem is that in a market-based environment, comedy mismanagement is severely punished. In the public sector, the people who suffer at the hands of it are not the ones getting paid to mismanage.

It's the inevitable consequence of leaving the government responsible for anything - unaccountability. Incompetence can only be delayed for a while, but never stopped. And in Scandinavia, there is no constitutional guarantee that tax revenue will be spent fairly and wisely, it just so happens that they have decent leaders at the moment. That could easily change in the next general election.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Worked for it or not, if someone's sick, it's our duty as human beings to try to help them out. These are human beings - not just statistics - that we're talking about, and I don't think someone should go without treatment just because they can't afford it.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Worked for it or not, if someone's sick, it's our duty as human beings to try to help them out. These are human beings - not just statistics - that we're talking about, and I don't think someone should go without treatment just because they can't afford it.

-Angry Lawyer

Oh yeah, there should definatly be a state health care - I'm talking about higher standards for those who worked harder at school/college/uni :E

 

[kirovman]

Well if you can afford it and someone is willing to supply it without it being a detriment to the basic healthcare system, I say why not.

Actually, when it comes to matters as serious as healthcare, ideally everything would be top quality anyway.