Socialism

[AmDaMan]

Our model of capitalism is called the 'social market' is it not? We focus on long term help for workers and organisations etc while the neoliberal US model focuses on short term goals etc.

We are less generous in welfare compared to other countries in Europe too, but overall our employment is higher than the US. Our values are better than the heavily individualistic ones of the US imo, for reasons such as more trust in society etc (in general).

 

[Orcish-Horde]

This question still makes no sense. What you actually means is 'Should people be forced to pay for state run healthcare', and my answer to that is no.

This does not mean I want a system like the USA, but a more liberal variation of that employed in France (France uses a mandated insurance based system and many hospitals and all doctors surgeries are run on a market basis independant of the state, the change I would make is that in France the insurance funds are still managed by the government (you can't choose your insurance provider), I would only have the government manage access, maximum basic care charges (insurers could charge less) and basic healthcare levels, but not get involved in the actual provision of insurance, which would help avoid some of the problems France experiences with the system).

It makes no difference whether I have to pay healthcare from my own pocket, or whether the government takes the money from my pocket for me. The end result is still that I'm paying for the service, fundamentally I want the best value for money (this is not the same as the cheapest) and massive, monolithic state run monopolies don't achieve that.

What happens if your insurance provider goes bankrupt or worse still refuses to pay?

 

[Dolph]

What happens if your insurance provider goes bankrupt or worse still refuses to pay?

Under such a system, they couldn't refuse to pay (The government mandates minimum cover levels). Bankruptcy could be easily addressed by a risk management strategy similar to the FSCS.

Alternatively, you can run up a massive debt for future generations to have to pay back under threat of force if you think it's fairer?

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

The americans recognise the loss of freedom associated with handing responsibilities to the state, and they value freedom highly.

In Europe, it's considered a good thing to obligate others to pay for your needs.

Guess who I think have the better idea...

Thanks for the unbiased description.

 

[Sankari]

"Under threat of force"?

 

[Sankari]

Because whether the funding is voluntary or compulsory is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand? We are looking at healthcare provision in those countries, not public healthcare provision in those countries.

Then you should look at all healthcare provision for both countries and compare like with like.

Agreed, but the costs between the US and UK private systems are dramatically different when you remember to include the taxpayer funding of the NHS as well (which is especially pertinant as you get taxed on private healthcare in this country if it's given as a benefit, you actually get taxed more for using the service less).

Even when this is taken into account, British citizens pay less. A LOT less.

YMMV, but I'd break it down, the NHS offers very good immediate and emergency care services, the rest of it is, at best, mediocre, and their chronic condition management is awful.

I have two chronic conditions, and I've always found their management of these to be excellent. Do you have any chronic conditions yourself?

Of course, one way to improve the system would be to withdraw the provision of silly quack treatments like homeopathy and chiropracty...

The american system is not functioning well, that is clear, and I've never said otherwise, but the only alternative to our current system is not an american style one.

Agreed. I would prefer the Australian system, but I admit to some bias on that point.

 

[Dolph]

"Under threat of force"?

We've been through this over and over, when the state can take your property or your liberty for not paying taxes, the money is taken under threat of forcible action.

That the state has a monopoly on legal use of force does not change the issue that it is still force.

 

[Dolph]

I have two chronic conditions, and I've always found their management of these to be excellent. Do you have any chronic conditions yourself?

My wife has a chronic spinal condition.

Of course, one way to improve the system would be to withdraw the provision of silly quack treatments like homeopathy and chiropracty...

We discussed this in the other thread, but surely it depends on the cost of the placebo versus the costs (finaicial and otherwise) of the conventional alternative.

Agreed. I would prefer the Australian system, but I admit to some bias on that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Australia

Reading that, so would I, not my ideal, but certainly better than what we have at the moment.

 

[Orcish-Horde]

Under such a system, they couldn't refuse to pay (The government mandates minimum cover levels). Bankruptcy could be easily addressed by a risk management strategy similar to the FSCS.

Alternatively, you can run up a massive debt for future generations to have to pay back under threat of force if you think it's fairer?

They can refuse to pay if you don't make payment, they can refuse to pay if you breach the contract. I would rather pay the tax than be at the whim of privite sector health. Would your opinion stay as it is if your health failed you to the point that you could no longer work? At a time just before our health system changed over to privite sector, pay as you go? How about a suddon run of bad health within your family?

We've been through this over and over, when the state can take your property or your liberty for not paying taxes, the money is taken under threat of forcible action.

That the state has a monopoly on legal use of force does not change the issue that it is still force.

State funded Police? Never directly used.
State funded Armed forces? Was a member but have never directly used them.
State funded Fireservice? Never directly used.
State funded Coast Guard? Never directly used.
State funded Road service? Use every day.
State funded Housing? Used in the past.
State funded child protection? Never directly used.
State funded Health service? Used it a total of 5 times and one of them times was when I was born. Nothing a local witch doctor couldn't put right.

I could get by without making use of all these bar two, would I like to see them become pay at point of use to save me some tax? Not a chance, I may not ever use them but I expect them to be there should I need them. People have to be forced to pay tax not because the state has to provide services. Its cause the very same people that don't want to pay tax are the very people that screem blue murder should the state not provide what they think the state should provide.

 

[Tefal]

You can't

i know that but he's saying a completely free one would be best funded not privately and not by tax. I'm asking how on earth thats possible.

 

[DrDee]

Universal healthcare is beneficial to everyone in a country, having a healthy population is a good thing. In the UK it is a lot more prominent as we are all so close together, the Yanks on the other hands don't suffer this so find it hard to understand why some red neck who is unemployed in his trailer getting healthcare is beneficial to them while they sit in their Malibu beach house a world away.

I am not a fan of the socialist state we have become, but with our size, population and market the way it is, it seems like the only option.

 

[Kitchster_uk]

I disagree with the current system and socialism in general. As I've said previously, it removes the necessity to work and creates an automatic underclass as we have in the UK - the non-working classes. The Jeremy Kyle/Judge Judy watching scum that blight our nation yet receive exactly the same levels of healthcare and in general, better government treatment. The ridiculous thing is, we are TAXED EXTRA for having private healthcare through work, even though it takes burden away from the system.

Until we deal with the social underbelly of our society, it is irrelevant which system we use. And while we have our current system, no one is prepared to address it PROPERLY.

 

[Gothic Draconia]

Status quo here. You have to support a basic level of existence for everyone otherwise you'd have a country like elsewhere, where the rich have everything and the poor or lazy rot in the streets, literally. It's the price you pay to live in a first world country.

 

[Sankari]

We discussed this in the other thread, but surely it depends on the cost of the placebo versus the costs (finaicial and otherwise) of the conventional alternative.

No, it depends first and foremost on the efficacy of the treatment.

I don't want an NHS doctor offering me placebos just because it's cheaper than real medicine. I want proper medical treatment for my money, not moonshine and magic.

 

[Sankari]

We've been through this over and over, when the state can take your property or your liberty for not paying taxes, the money is taken under threat of forcible action.

I think you mean the money is taken under the auspices of an entirely legal process to which every British citizen tacitly agrees by the very act of residing in this country.

Don't want to pay tax? Fine; you know where the door is.

That the state has a monopoly on legal use of force does not change the issue that it is still force.

You are using the word "force" in a wholly inappropriate manner. Taxation is perfectly legal, and enforcement of legislation is not "force" per se.

Would you say that we drive on the left hand side of the road "under threat of forcible action"? Do we pay for goods in the supermarket "under threat of forcible action"?

 

[snowdog]

Been reading an American car forum; and I just find it funny how people always scream "omg socialism, it is evil, just look at Europe".

I fail to see how socialism (unless taken to the extreme) is evil, or how Western Europe is "deeply socialist" - now I agree we have plenty of welfare state - but that is hardly socialism.

It makes me laugh how some Americans seem to think that such basic things as petrol tax; state funded health system and so on are almost the work of the devil.

Compared to the US Europe is crap in terms of tax etc...

''It makes me laugh how some Americans seem to think that such basic things as petrol tax; state funded health system and so on are almost the work of the devil''

They are. Petrol tax is a bloody joke and definitely the work of the devil. Health system should only be party funded imo.

Universal healthcare is beneficial to everyone in a country,.

No it's not.
Sure some things like particular types of cancer and other diseases are bad, and everyone deserves an equal chance to get better from it.

People who get sick from their own stupidity like eating **** all their life or smoking or drinking do not deserve state funded health imo, I don't want to pay tax because mr. alcoholic wrecked his liver.

Also, any person over 65 only costs money, both in healthcare and in benefits. Financially it is in nobody's interest to raise the life expectancy over 65...

The americans recognise the loss of freedom associated with handing responsibilities to the state, and they value freedom highly.

In Europe, it's considered a good thing to obligate others to pay for your needs.

Guess who I think have the better idea...

Imo the yanks have got the better idea.

 

[DrDee]

No it's not.

Your an idiot if you disagree, a healthy nation is a prerequisite of being 1st world.

 

[Nix]

Your an idiot if you disagree, a healthy nation is a prerequisite of being 1st world.

Sorry to be a pedant, but not really. First, second, and third-world as descriptive terminology are pretty much redundant these days.

Essentially the terms mean thus:

First - The Capitalist West.
Second - The Communist Bloc
Third - The Developing World

Since the introduction of these terms many decades ago (probably talking 60s-70s), the science behind them has moved forward away from the reductionism/foundationalism which was the current paradigm at the time.

You're better off using more encompassing terms these days such as: More/Less Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs/LEDCs), Oil & Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPECs), Newly Industrialised Countries (NICs), etc.

These terms are usually based on a western view of modernity and development, thus the 'west' is by default usually considered as 'First World'. You're better off using developmental indexes to truly compare the differences within demographics, quality of life and their casual/causal relationships, etc.

 

[Sankari]

The west is considered first world because we are at the top of every developmental index you care to name. Measure it any way you like, and the west will still be ahead of everyone else.

 

[Nix]

The west is considered first world because we are at the top of every developmental index you care to name. Measure it any way you like, and the west will still be ahead of everyone else.

The terminology is based on a western development of the developmental sciences and their desire to try and hedge things into neat little categories. The terms have evolved somewhat. Globalisation and Westernisation for instance now means that even the east (say, after the Asian Tiger growth) can be described as first world now. China still has many problems but you'd have a difficult time trying to pin it as second-world.

It's historical accident and luck that the west are top of the food-chain, nothing more. Other countries are catching up, and many will soon surpass the traditional west in terms of their positions on such indexes. Should the UK fall far below the future norm, we will still be considered first world and in reality first-world simply means passing a figurative benchmark in terms of modernity.