The Rabbit Joint

[LHC]

Medical care is a business in every country, regardless of whether it has socialized medical care or not. As long as there are private, paid alternatives, the socialized branch will always be left behind in overall quality. It's the only way the private companies will stay in business. I understand food, entertainment, and the like to be businesses, but something that so greatly affects human life? There's no ethics whatsoever, when the rich get a higher chance of living than the poor.

Even if you support a state healthcare system it is phenomenally stupid to disagree with private treatment. The people with access to private healthcare:
a) Contribute more towards the state funded health service, benefiting those that use it
B) Do not use the state funded service, benefiting those that do

Also just because something 'affects human life' doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a business. You mention that you understand food being a business, but I'd say that is pretty fundamental for human life. Everybody owns their own bodies, including doctors. If you force them to work for in the state system this is bad because they cannot choose to whom they sell their services/skills. They are effectively being made slaves on the basis of their (extremely important) choice of occupation.

 

[sensible GP32]

Im going on a VIP sensible soccer day in London tomorrow, put on by codemasters.

Where we get to test the new game.... free booze and free lunch is included plus a goody bag.
Im hella nurvous but at the same time it'll be amazing, ive never really been to London on my own before.

i'll letcha know how it all went and post some pictures and that!

 

[declaration]

Medical care is a business in every country, regardless of whether it has socialized medical care or not. As long as there are private, paid alternatives, the socialized branch will always be left behind in overall quality. It's the only way the private companies will stay in business. I understand food, entertainment, and the like to be businesses, but something that so greatly affects human life? There's no ethics whatsoever, when the rich get a higher chance of living than the poor.

Even if you support a state healthcare system it is phenomenally stupid to disagree with private treatment. The people with access to private healthcare:
a) Contribute more towards the state funded health service, benefiting those that use it
B) Do not use the state funded service, benefiting those that do


People who use private healthcare have no vested interest in the quality of state funded provisions. Therefore, they will less likely to support policies/parties who are interested in increasing the standard and funding of provision, and will be more likely to support those who advocate low taxation with poorly funded, low quality healthcare.

I would ban private healthcare if I were PM. The idea that someone should get treated before my gran because they are a lawyer/banker etc is one of the most dispicable I can think of.

 

[Fishbong]

People who use private healthcare have no vested interest in the quality of state funded provisions. Therefore, they will less likely to support policies/parties who are interested in increasing the standard and funding of provision, and will be more likely to support those who advocate low taxation with poorly funded, low quality healthcare.

Pure speculation.

I think you are opposed to private healthcare because in the UK, the difference between the NHS and private healthcare is blatant. However there are countries in which the national health system is better funded.

What good is it if private healthcare is forbidden and the health system still can´t provide properly for the patients?

 

[declaration]

People who use private healthcare have no vested interest in the quality of state funded provisions. Therefore, they will less likely to support policies/parties who are interested in increasing the standard and funding of provision, and will be more likely to support those who advocate low taxation with poorly funded, low quality healthcare.

Pure speculation.

I think you are opposed to private healthcare because in the UK, the difference between the NHS and private healthcare is blatant. However there are countries in which the national health system is better funded.

What good is it if private healthcare is forbidden and the health system still can´t provide properly for the patients?

Not much.

That's why funding should be increased. And that's why everyone (including the rich) should have to contribute and use the service.

 

[nickspoon]

Not much.

That's why funding should be increased. And that's why everyone (including the rich) should have to contribute and use the service.

People who use private healthcare still pay for public healthcare as part of their taxes, so in fact, by using private healthcare, they free up public hospitals.

 

[Nova]

Engrish, yuk yuk

 

[lubidog]

Engrish, yuk yuk




That is utterly fantastic! I did a big LOL all over the place.

 

[declaration]

Not much.

That's why funding should be increased. And that's why everyone (including the rich) should have to contribute and use the service.

People who use private healthcare still pay for public healthcare as part of their taxes, so in fact, by using private healthcare, they free up public hospitals.

And by using private healthcare they totally remove themselves from caring about public healthcare standards. Thus resulting in them favouring lower taxes and shitter provision for the masses.

It's obvious.

Make private healthcare provision illegal and watch the rich flock to supporting tax increased to pay for NHS improvements.

People who buy private health insurance are scum imo.

 

[Nova]

Holy shit, awesome!



EDIT: And yes DCGM, I am aware that it is most probably oooooooooooooooooooooooooold...

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

Holy shit, awesome!



EDIT: And yes DCGM, I am aware that it is most probably oooooooooooooooooooooooooold...




whoa dude. its only 2 days old

 

[frutbunn]

QUOTE
People who buy private health insurance are scum imo.

:rolleyes: I take it the student bar had to close early tonight, so everyone came here...

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

People who buy private health insurance are scum imo.

According to your people, the NHS is sub-par. So you're saying people who buy private healthcare should suffer along with you?

And just for the record, I'm pro socialized m3dicine. I just don't think it's fair to call people with more money "scum".

 

[LHC]

Medical care is a business in every country, regardless of whether it has socialized medical care or not. As long as there are private, paid alternatives, the socialized branch will always be left behind in overall quality. It's the only way the private companies will stay in business. I understand food, entertainment, and the like to be businesses, but something that so greatly affects human life? There's no ethics whatsoever, when the rich get a higher chance of living than the poor.

Even if you support a state healthcare system it is phenomenally stupid to disagree with private treatment. The people with access to private healthcare:
a) Contribute more towards the state funded health service, benefiting those that use it
B) Do not use the state funded service, benefiting those that do


People who use private healthcare have no vested interest in the quality of state funded provisions. Therefore, they will less likely to support policies/parties who are interested in increasing the standard and funding of provision, and will be more likely to support those who advocate low taxation with poorly funded, low quality healthcare.

I would ban private healthcare if I were PM. The idea that someone should get treated before my gran because they are a lawyer/banker etc is one of the most dispicable I can think of.

Those that use private healthcare:
a) provide more in real terms to the state funded healthcare service, benefiting those that use it
B) don't use the state funded healthcare service, benefiting those that use it

They are not "chosen before your gran", they are chosen by doctors who as I said own themselves. Doctors should not be slaves just because they are doctors. They still own their own bodies.

People who use private healthcare have no vested interest in the quality of state funded provisions. Therefore, they will less likely to support policies/parties who are interested in increasing the standard and funding of provision, and will be more likely to support those who advocate low taxation with poorly funded, low quality healthcare.

Pure speculation.

I think you are opposed to private healthcare because in the UK, the difference between the NHS and private healthcare is blatant. However there are countries in which the national health system is better funded.

What good is it if private healthcare is forbidden and the health system still can´t provide properly for the patients?

Not much.

That's why funding should be increased. And that's why everyone (including the rich) should have to contribute and use the service.

The rich do contribute to the service, more than the poor. Using the service would make it less efficient.

And by using private healthcare they totally remove themselves from caring about public healthcare standards. Thus resulting in them favouring lower taxes and shitter provision for the masses.

It's obvious.

Make private healthcare provision illegal and watch the rich flock to supporting tax increased to pay for NHS improvements.

People who buy private health insurance are scum imo.

Well yeah you can make private anything illegal and watch the selfish scum rich flock to the state funded anything, but it doesn't make it right to ban it.

Of course if you ban the best thing people will support the second best. It doesn't make it right.

 

[declaration]

Even if you support a state healthcare system it is phenomenally stupid to disagree with private treatment. The people with access to private healthcare:
a) Contribute more towards the state funded health service, benefiting those that use it
B) Do not use the state funded service, benefiting those that do

a) Often they don't.
B) they don't use it, therefore have no concern about the standard of care, and become disinterested in its funding. Much like the situation in the US.

A health system where all of society are stakeholders (ie- have to use it) will be better funded. Its just common sense.

What is not right is lawyers getting better treatment than nurses because they have more money.

 

[LHC]

a) Often they don't.
B) they don't use it, therefore have no concern about the standard of care, and become disinterested in its funding. Much like the situation in the US.

A health system where all of society are stakeholders (ie- have to use it) will be better funded. Its just common sense.

What is not right is lawyers getting better treatment than nurses because they have more money.

a) yes they do. They earn more and hence provide more in taxes. This is exaggerated further by progressive taxation, which I believe is in place in every country in the western world
B) this doesn't matter. They are being taxed anyway without their consent, so whether they are concerned by the standard of healthcare is irrelevant
c) A better funded health system isn't necessarily a better health system. Money doesn't equal success, and socialism is inefficient. Equality for equality's sake is a stupid idea.

 

[declaration]

Firstly, "taxed without their consent" is a pretty stupid way to describe income taxation.

Neither you nor I really have any idea of the extent to which people object to being taxed. I would guess that the majority would consent as long as everyone else would too. Furthermore, taxation is decided by elected representatives, voted in by the people. Therefore, consent can be inferred.

Secondly, I realise you like to think of yourself as some Lockean libertarian, but in reality some things are too important to be left to the market. Not even you would advocate the privatization of the fire service, with only those with insurance being able to get their house fires put out. Similarly, it is rightly illegal to operate a private police force or army.

Medical treatment is as important as the above cases, and therefore should not be left to the market. Rich people should have to use the same service that nurses, teachers, firemen, and miners use so that they care about how good it is, and want to see it made better for the sake of their children and grandchildren.

Your other comment about socialism being inneffective is just usual right wing garbage. There is no reason why well-run state funded institutions cannot be efficient. For one, they do not need to spend millions on marketing, and PR. A case in point is the far superior efficiency of Medicare over private insurance in the United States. Privatisation throughout the world is littered with as many failures as successes. Ever heard of Rail Track?

 

[LHC]

Firstly, "taxed without their consent" is a pretty stupid way to describe income taxation.

Neither you nor I really have any idea of the extent to which people object to being taxed. I would guess that the majority would consent as long as everyone else would too. Furthermore, taxation is decided by elected representatives, voted in by the people. Therefore, consent can be inferred.

Consent cannot be inferred when the voting system is not representative. Also just because the majority say something doesn't make it morally right.

Secondly, I realise you like to think of yourself as some Lockean libertarian, but in reality some things are too important to be left to the market. Not even you would advocate the privatization of the fire service, with only those with insurance being able to get their house fires put out. Similarly, it is rightly illegal to operate a private police force or army.

Medical treatment is as important as the above cases, and therefore should not be left to the market. Rich people should have to use the same service that nurses, teachers, firemen, and miners use so that they care about how good it is, and want to see it made better for the sake of their children and grandchildren.

The fire service is clearly suited to monopoly conditions, but if somebody wanted to take out private fire protection in addition to this I wouldn't have a problem with that. It doesn't matter who dputs out a fire, so long as somebody does. The reason the fire service is suited to monopoly conditions is because if somebody does not purchase fire protection, they are endangering the lives of others. This does not apply to health insurance.

edit: I suppose in the case of deadly airborne disease a state monopoly on intervention would be required

Your other comment about socialism being inneffective is just usual right wing garbage. There is no reason why well-run state funded institutions cannot be efficient. For one, they do not need to spend millions on marketing, and PR. A case in point is the far superior efficiency of Medicare over private insurance in the United States. Privatisation throughout the world is littered with as many failures as successes. Ever heard of Rail Track?

Railtrack was a poorly run company, and the market saw the end of it. It is worth remembering of course that it was formed as a response to a failing network. They adopted a system in tatters, and they had the government to thank.

 

[declaration]

You clearly believe that the only reason people are unable to purchase medical insurance is because they are scroungers/ not motivated. Also, you believe that the rich should have access to better medical provision solely because they are rich.

Your morality is based on property rights and a blind belief in the capacity of the market to produce 'moral' outcomes. A nurse who treats war veterans cannot afford the same treatment as lawyers and estate agents. That is not moral. Any notion that morality and the market are linked is one of the most absurd I have ever heard.

My opinion is that there are various underlying reasons why people cannot afford medical insurance; many people pursue a career to help people rather than to accumulate as much money as possible. For this reason, a market which values Wayne Rooney as worth 300 nurses should not be allowed to dictate healthcare provision.

People should not be able to cut queues and the private sector should not be able to steal doctors and nurses trained by the public sector.

If you value the market so much, do you advocate being allowed to trade in body organs? Ebay stoes for livers for example? George Best buying a new liver and getting one before someone with liver cancer because the market dictates he deserves one?
If you answer yes, your idea of morality is disgusting to me.

 

[LHC]

You clearly believe that the only reason people are unable to purchase medical insurance is because they are scroungers/ not motivated. Also, you believe that the rich should have access to better medical provision solely because they are rich.

I don't understand. I never mentioned how/why people can/cannot afford medical insurance. This is not about what people deserve but what they are entitled to do with the money that they have earned through legitimate contracts. As I've said people own themselves, and as a result they own the fruits of their labour.

My opinion is that there are various underlying reasons why people cannot afford medical insurance; many people pursue a career to help people rather than to accumulate as much money as possible. For this reason, a market which values Wayne Rooney as worth 300 nurses should not be allowed to dictate healthcare provision.

Wayne Rooney provides countless hours of entertainment and Manchester United can inflate his massive ego by providing him with excessive wages if they please. Wayne Rooney, earning (I'd guess) more than 5 million a year after tax pays around 2 million or more in tax, and probably pays the wages of 100 nurses.

I hasten to add that this does not make him "better" than them, but he contributes far more to the NHS than those that use it. Wayne Rooney being forced to use a substandard health service benefits nobody, and he has no obligation to anybody else.

People should not be able to cut queues and the private sector should not be able to steal doctors and nurses trained by the public sector.

If you value the market so much, do you advocate being allowed to trade in body organs? Ebay stoes for livers for example? George Best buying a new liver and getting one before someone with liver cancer because the market dictates he deserves one?
If you answer yes, your idea of morality is disgusting to me.

I object to your use of the word "steal". They go there on their own volition. The public sector doesn't 'own' people, or at least I hope not.

If people genuinely under their own free will choose to sell an organ then I would not object to this. They own themselves. The liver is not a legitimate example because you can't sell your liver and survive. Once you are dead you no longer own your own body so at this point the state could choose allocation.

What do you propose is fair? A waiting list is unfair because bad people could be given treatment before good people. Lucky dip is unfair because people could never receive a donor. We could decide who deserves it most based on how they treat their bodies (i.e. George Best never receives one) but then we condemn people to death based on bad decisions, and as you've said healthcare is equal treatment for all. We could do it based on need/desperation, but then George Best gets a healthy new liver and wastes it when somebody more deserving is left to die.