Britain To Charge For Their Shitty Healthcare - Who's For 'Free' Healthcare Now?

You present a piece of propaganda created by a liberal organization, whereas I presented a simple, unassailable fact: The IMF advised Britain to begin charging for its healthcare because the nation is in such a perilous financial state. All of the socialist cheerleaders feening for nationalized healthcare can try to divert and deflect as much as they want, but unfortunately facts are facts.

All you're posting is right-wing propaganda, so what's your point?

Also, I'm a fan of some things being socialized... like the highway I just drove a thousand miles on.

Everyone throwing around this whole 'socialist agenda' shit is ridiculous. Get a clue.
 


Also, I'm a fan of some things being socialized... like the highway I just drove a thousand miles on.
So you like paying more than your share, or you like free riding?

Because you don't need government to overpay. You can give to your fellow man until your heart is content.

You only need government if you want to free ride.

Most people like socialism when they get more out of the system than they put in.

You wouldn't want your home socialized, or your bank account socialized. You probably wouldn't want your ass socialized.

Just sayin...
 
^ Some "socialized" things aren't so bad... hence the my example of our highways.

Really, this has nothing to do with the original post, but:

I haven't had medical coverage from an employer for over 5 years. I pay my own health insurance, but I also know those companies are fucking rip off artists. The denying coverage over bullshit and profiteering off the sick needs to stop. Health care shouldn't be the leading cause of bankruptcy.

I pay more than my share already. I'm a single 28 y/o male without any health issues, the only time I've been to the doctor in the last 2 decades were for check-ups. I still spend about $2,500/yr for my health coverage that I don't even use. I'm okay with that price just in case something does happen. If I had a wife and kids this would be a much larger issue.

Personally my only quam is with people throwing around this shit about healthcare reform being comparable to nazi germany, etc. What a crock of shit.

Also, I'd be more prone to rallying for the current system if health care wasn't the most reliable investment available on the market. Nothing offers such consistent returns, which is why there is so much fuss about it in the media.
 
Health insurance from a private company is still a collectivist action.
Those companies require your collective funds to do the payouts for the people that actually do use their cover, and if you're not getting sick, then you're paying more than your fair share in the first place. One might say it's socialism by proxy, just better hidden, because there are certain private individuals getting amazingly rich and fat off it... just like the leaders of a corrupted socialist/communist society.

What I find amazing is how few people, particularly on here, seem at all willing to even consider the shade of grey: a hybrid system - whereby if one has private health insurance, they get a rebate on their tax that's about the same as what you'd pay into the national system in the first place (we have that here... amazingly, private health insurance premiums went up by almost the exact amount the rebate was worth about a month after the legislation was enacted).
It doesn't just have to be private/public cover
 
Health insurance from a private company is still a collectivist action.
No, it isn't.

Those companies require your collective funds to do the payouts for the people that actually do use their cover, and if you're not getting sick, then you're paying more than your fair share in the first place.
There is no "fair share" because risk is pooled. You could only have a share, if you knew exactly how many claims there would be, in which case, it would not be insurance, it would be prepayment.

Governments use the term insurance, for funds that do not actually provide insurance. Insurance is a form of risk mitigation. Not a collective system of service or good provision.

One might say it's socialism by proxy, just better hidden, because there are certain private individuals getting amazingly rich and fat off it... just like the leaders of a corrupted socialist/communist society.
But it is not socialism by proxy (it is corporatism). There is nothing wrong with getting rich off something. What is wrong, is when you get rich by rent seeking (limiting competition through regulatory advantage or licensing) in order to maintain higher than market prices.

What I find amazing is how few people, particularly on here, seem at all willing to even consider the shade of grey: a hybrid system - whereby if one has private health insurance, they get a rebate on their tax that's about the same as what you'd pay into the national system in the first place (we have that here... amazingly, private health insurance premiums went up by almost the exact amount the rebate was worth about a month after the legislation was enacted).
It doesn't just have to be private/public cover
There is an Austrian Economics expression, taken from Mises.

"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."

In other words, hybrid systems are for all intents and purposes, public options, as they undermine private options.

"Health insurance" can only be assessed as collective risk pooling, where there is a possibility no claims will be made. I have expressed this many times at WF already. You don't insure your car against tire wear, because that is an expected expense. Likewise, you wouldn't insure the house of a pyromaniac against fire, why would you insure a woman trying to start a family against the costs of getting pregnant?

You can't insure the likely or predictable. That is not the function of insurance. That is prepayment. And when the costs are known, the premiums of a prepayment plan, must rise to equal known costs + management fees (overhead). Which means prepayment, is actually overpayment.

So what some people want, is a public health pool. Not insurance, a health pool. The problem is, not everyone can pay, and not everyone needs the pool to the same degree.

Right now, there is nothing to stop do-gooders and bleeding hearts from paying for medicine for their fellow citizens via charity. What a public option is, is using the power of democracy aka political power, to force other people to give up their property for your cause.

You don't give. You force other people to give and you claim the moral benevolence for it.

Look how wonderful I am, I have given away someone elses money!

The way to create better health care for more people, is to lower barriers to entry, and allow maximum competition. The more competition, the more options, the more advancement, the lower the costs, the more opportunities there will be.

As long as competition remains restrained, and the state starts handing out care without fully paying for it, shortages must occur. That means waiting lists.

More care must be paid for (nothing in life is free). To make more care affordable, competition and accountability to the customer (patient) is necessary.

It's really as simple as that.
 
You're quoting the daily mail. That's like quoting Keith Olberman on MSNBC about prayer in schools, lol.....

Listen to riddarhusetgal! He knows whats going on!

As I am sure anyone in britain or australia or any other developed country except america could tell you, no matter their politics, a free healthcare service is great! In these countries there is a universal consensus around free healthcare with the exception of some right-wing libertarians.

I am happy that when I get a heart attack or cancer or what ever, I know that I will get treatment, without ever having worried about whether I was covered. I am sick = I get treatment. I think this is as universal a right as I am born therefore I am entitled to be free.

Being for private healthcare is like being for private road system, or asking people to pay each time they use the footpath outside their door.
 
As I am sure anyone in britain or australia or any other developed country except america could tell you, no matter their politics, a free healthcare service is great! In these countries there is a universal consensus around free healthcare with the exception of some right-wing libertarians.
Doctors, nurses, don't work for free. They aren't insured for free. They don't get trained for free. Medical equipment and supplies are not free. So how can the care be free?

It's not free. Someone is paying for it. In your case, it sounds like someone else is paying for it.

Also, libertarians are not right wing. They are apolitical. They don't believe you can vote away someone's life (which is his property aka self-ownership). Right and Left Wing Democrats think you can take anything from a man, including his life, if a majority agree to it.

I am happy that when I get a heart attack or cancer or what ever, I know that I will get treatment, without ever having worried about whether I was covered. I am sick = I get treatment. I think this is as universal a right as I am born therefore I am entitled to be free.
You don't have a right to take labor or property from others. Your freedom means you are free to provide for yourself, not free to place positive obligations on (take from) others. A society where every man is his brother's keeper, is a society where everyone is a slave to everyone else.

No thanks.

Being for private healthcare is like being for private road system, or asking people to pay each time they use the footpath outside their door.
There is nothing wrong with private roads, but not to get off topic, Britain, the US and Australia had excellent private health care with friendly societies in the early 20th century, before monopoly medical licensing was brought in by the states, in order to make the medical establishment very wealthy through rent seeking.

See How Government Solved The Healthcare Crisis

~
 
Britain, the US and Australia had excellent private health care with friendly societies in the early 20th century, before monopoly medical licensing was brought in by the states, in order to make the medical establishment very wealthy through rent seeking.


~

Do your research. I live in australia. I can tell you right now the government doesn't have a monopoly on healthcare (there are private hospitals too), but the government does provide universal free healthcare and for all life-threatening illnesses!
 
fox is definitely biased but they do report a lot of accurate facts that liberals never seem to address.

Answer me this: What is a liberal?

The very word "liberal" is some orwellian type word invented in the last few decades.

If you look at the meaning of the word, Liberal basically means that you agree with enlightenment values, the seperation of church and state, and a set of rights universal to all human beings.

The opposite of liberal is monarchist, feudalist or polygarchist!

Why only in america does the word liberal mean something different!

If you believe in the american consitution, you are a liberal! Strictly speaking!
 
Do your research. I live in australia. I can tell you right now the government doesn't have a monopoly on healthcare (there are private hospitals too), but the government does provide universal free healthcare and for all life-threatening illnesses!
Can anyone become a doctor? Or are they licensed?

Is medical practice regulated? What about drugs? Is any form of treatment allowed?

Monopoly, is the result of license. License, is when the state makes something illegal (like anyone becoming a doctor) and then licenses only some people to legally perform as doctors. Monopoly is also known as privilege. It leads to rent seeking (high earnings due to diminished competition).

Please stop saying free healthcare. It is only free to the free riders. Someone, somewhere is being forced to pay for it.
 
If you look at the meaning of the word, Liberal basically means that you agree with enlightenment values, the seperation of church and state, and a set of rights universal to all human beings.
More specifically natural rights, which are a theory of NEGATIVE rights, not the POSITIVE rights (which is progressive, aka American liberalism) you claimed you were owed because you were born free (which is completely nonsensical).

Such as,

Because I was born, it is my right that doctors and nurses should treat me for "free".

Because I am born free, others must create drugs for me, for "free".


That is positivism, and has nothing to do with liberalism.
 
Answer me this: What is a liberal?

The very word "liberal" is some orwellian type word invented in the last few decades.

If you look at the meaning of the word, Liberal basically means that you agree with enlightenment values, the seperation of church and state, and a set of rights universal to all human beings.

The opposite of liberal is monarchist, feudalist or polygarchist!

Why only in america does the word liberal mean something different!

If you believe in the american consitution, you are a liberal! Strictly speaking!

yea let me refine my statement, left wing socialist.
 
The way to create better health care for more people, is to lower barriers to entry, and allow maximum competition. The more competition, the more options, the more advancement, the lower the costs, the more opportunities there will be.

As long as competition remains restrained, and the state starts handing out care without fully paying for it, shortages must occur. That means waiting lists.

As I understand it, this and punishing frivolous lawsuits would bring down the costs dramatically. Are there any other solutions to the high costs?
 
As I understand it, this and punishing frivolous lawsuits would bring down the costs dramatically. Are there any other solutions to the high costs?
If you take the time to read through this (includes Trademark's suggestion), you will be infinitely smarter than almost everyone you know on this topic. I suspect you will be even smarter than every Congressman.

A Free-Market Guide to Fixing Healthcare

Well worth your time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trademark
Guys, if you want health care just marry a Canadian chick.


Problem solved.
 
guerrilla: ok, I concede the point on the difference between collectivism and corporatism...
However, I still refute that leaving something like healthcare to the free market will result in the best outcomes, when the late 20th century experiments with capitalist (specifically Thatcher-ist) ideology driven markets have basically proven that this dosen't work.
To de-regulate the health care industry would actually make it much less efficient.
In your argument about licensing of doctors, that's not creating a barrier to entry. That's ensuring as little malpractice as possible.
If people did not require a license to practice medicine, if education requirements were lowered, health care outcomes would be substantially worse, even though there would be plenty more competition on the market, and there would likely be a greater strain on the quality services offered, due to the maltreatment delivered elsewhere.
 
It's very strange that you seem to think that when one party advises another to do something it means they are going to do it.

No need to go over the old arguments again, but I doubt you'll find many people in countries with state healthcare that would prefer it to be privatised.