Anubis wrote:
That isn't a point that I miss. Competition isn't always good, it puts people under more stress than they should be sometimes. People have to undergo medical care, it's an essential service that you have to take whether you like it or not, the only other option is a poor quality of life and bad health, even death in many cases. You'd think that individuals shouldn't have to pay for it and end up with payments that they can't afford for something their body does. Plus, with government funding, state hospitals can make do with things that would be unviable for private hospitals, such as forward planning.
The UK healthcare system does allow private operation of health services, though, so they are competing. Compare that to the Canadian system where all hospitals are run by the crown, and thus they have no incentive to plan ahead. Even though both systems are funded publicly, the British system is vastly more flexible due to the private operation of facilities.
Quote:
Education is a neccessity in the modern world, people need it to prosper. What of the person who cannot afford education for their children?
It's not like we don't need unskilled labour. But more than that, there's already a mechanism to fund poor students. Student loans.
Since education allows you to earn vastly more over your lifetime, you will be able to afford to pay for your education after the fact.
Quote:
With such a mentality, you could force people to pay directly for police and fire callouts, so that the rich get the most police attention. What of the person who's lost everything from a burglary?
You're assuming that the rich and poor are relying on the same emergency services. But what if they're not? What if the ruch communities have their own emergency services, and naturally they're very good (you get what you pay for), but the poorer foks also have their own emergency services? The poorer services wouldn't be as good, but there also wouldn't be any conflict of interest.
Quote:
I say that such things are neccessities and essential services, which should be available to everyone.
And they would be - just not all at the same level of service.
Quote:
And going back to the point of people missing out on treatment because they can't afford it...
It DOES happen. If a person has a rare disease for which drugs are very expensive, and cannot afford that, what is to be done in a private system?
Think about that. You're claiming its some sort of injustice if I can't afford a cure for some grave illness that afflicts me. But, what about before that cure existed? There was no injustice then - the illness was merely fatal. When the expensive cure comes available, but I can't afford it, from my point of view nothing will have changed. The illness is still incurable for someone of my means - why is it now an injustice when before it wasn't, even though nothing is different?
Quote:
Prices which can be paid for by taxes instead. Instead of having to pay out huge sums of their wages and suffer high insurance premiums, people can live their lives with healthcare guaranteed.
Taxes are less efficient than direct payment.
Quote:
And in the UK, people pay nothing directly for state healthcare. Take taxes as contributing to health insurance.
And thus, on average, they pay more than they would if they paid directly.
23 Jul 2007, 12:04 pm
