Why doesn't England go Lib Dem?
- Thread starter EzraPound
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Actually, public medicare is of a comparable quality to private medicare, and usually cheaper. Canadians, for example, spend significantly less than Americans on medical fees via taxation per capita, and receive similar quality treatment. In this regard, I believe either a fully public system - like Canada - or a two-tier system - like the UK - would be most desirable, depending on their respective effects. And remember that the "competition = high quality & lower prices" theory is just that: a theory, and subject to negation due to outside factors.LockHeart said:I find it supremely hypocritical that the Government passes laws against monopolies but has a stranglehold on education and healthcare: sure you can go private, but the taxman rips you off for ineffective services that you'll never use, at a much higher rate compared to what you'd pay in a competetive market.Wicky_42 said:
A voucher system with schools would allow parents to choose where they send their children to school instead of having it dictated to them by local councils. Free of government influence, these schools could actually get on with educating children and poorer schools would be encouraged to restructure themselves similar to the schools where parents actually want to send their children, else they'll lose valuable income.
I don't want to see a huge and sudden fire sale of NHS assets. I'd prefer it if healthcare was devolved to local companies who, free from central control and targets, are able to gear the local healthcare system to what is really needed by the people around them, all while competing in a free market: providing efficient, effective care for patients. Another upside is that citizens will stop being shamelessly ripped off by the massive Ponzi scheme that is National Insurance.
People pay much less tax, are freer to make the choices they want without being dictated to by the government, and allows companies to engage in a more free market.
Ironically, I disagree with you on the Trident point as wellI don't have a problem paying tax for our national defence. But I'd prefer to see us take a stance of nuclear-armed, non-interventionist neutrality.
I agree with you on education vouchers, which were implemented effectively by the Centre Party in Sweden, but I think if the system were brought to Canada or the UK it should be legislated similarly, thusly enforcing: 1) a uniform curiculum to which components can be added by varying schools, 2) schools taking whatever students apply and not handpicking, to ensure they have a socially equalizing effect, and 3) the closure of all private schools that will not adopt themselves to the voucher system. Also, the individual amount alloted to each school per voucher would have to be high enough to guarantee a strong education system, which would either be marginally more expensive or marginally cheaper depending on what's more prevalent: cost increases due to decentralization, or cost decreases due to increased efficiency.
Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the Trident program, though I would think the UK has larger problems than constructing an arsenal at the moment.
This is exactly it. I believe the phenomenon is called Group Think. One feels as though other voters won't vote the same way as you, so you vote for another party to avoid "wasting your vote". This effectively ensures a 2 party system in each constituency. If everyone would vote for the party that they actually wanted to win then the Liberal Democrats would stand a much greater chance.tk1989 said:
Maybe on your side of the Atlantic. Here, NI rates (on an average salary of £30,000/annum) would come to around £40/week, I'm not sure what the current rate is for a private plan, but I can't imagine it being vastly different over here, (apologies if I calculated anything incorrectly, the National Insurance system is a nightmare to work outEzraPound said:Actually, public medicare is of a comparable quality to private medicare, and usually cheaper. Canadians, for example, spend significantly less than Americans on medical fees via taxation per capita, and receive similar quality treatment. In this regard, I believe either a fully public system - like Canada - or a two-tier system - like the UK - would be most desirable, depending on their respective effects. And remember that the "competition = high quality & lower prices" theory is just that: a theory, and subject to negation due to outside factors.LockHeart said:I find it supremely hypocritical that the Government passes laws against monopolies but has a stranglehold on education and healthcare: sure you can go private, but the taxman rips you off for ineffective services that you'll never use, at a much higher rate compared to what you'd pay in a competetive market.Wicky_42 said:
A voucher system with schools would allow parents to choose where they send their children to school instead of having it dictated to them by local councils. Free of government influence, these schools could actually get on with educating children and poorer schools would be encouraged to restructure themselves similar to the schools where parents actually want to send their children, else they'll lose valuable income.
I don't want to see a huge and sudden fire sale of NHS assets. I'd prefer it if healthcare was devolved to local companies who, free from central control and targets, are able to gear the local healthcare system to what is really needed by the people around them, all while competing in a free market: providing efficient, effective care for patients. Another upside is that citizens will stop being shamelessly ripped off by the massive Ponzi scheme that is National Insurance.
People pay much less tax, are freer to make the choices they want without being dictated to by the government, and allows companies to engage in a more free market.
Ironically, I disagree with you on the Trident point as well
I agree with you on education vouchers, which were implemented effectively by the Centre Party in Sweden, but I think if the system were brought to Canada or the UK it should be legislated similarly, thusly enforcing: 1) a uniform curiculum to which components can be added by varying schools, 2) schools taking whatever students apply and not handpicking, to ensure they have a socially equalizing effect, and 3) the closure of all private schools that will not adopt themselves to the voucher system. Also, the individual amount alloted to each school per voucher would have to be high enough to guarantee a strong education system, which would either be marginally more expensive or marginally cheaper depending on what's more prevalent: cost increases due to decentralization, or cost decreases due to increased efficiency.
Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the Trident program, though I would think the UK has larger problems than constructing an arsenal at the moment.
). On top of this, we have to pay for our prescriptions (when we can get the drugs we need, i.e. cancer and Alzheimer's drugs), and most of our dental work on top of what we are already taxed for. I'd much prefer to be able to choose my healthcare provider and hold them to account, over a State monopoly which really doesn't care how many people die a year from blunders or infections, because they'll get the money either way.What form of outside factors negate competitiveness? From what I've seen, it seems to work: in a competetive market, companies are forced to maximise returns to investors which means attracting as many customers as possible. The easiest way? Produce the best product possible for the lowest price.
I agree with a Swedish-style voucher system but I don't believe in continuing with a national curriculum: the only contact the State should have with education is ensuring that every child gets one. Private schools would be free to charge whatever rates they choose if they refuse to accept vouchers, they aren't harming anyone, and educational establishments would be free to set up wherever they wish. Schools would exist as independent entities and would not be administrated by Local Educational Authorities. I think that the schools should be allowed to choose which students they want though, just the same as any other business. To compete with the good schools, others will have to follow their practices or face a drop in students.
Also, I don't see the logic in which you argue that decentralisation increases costs. Surely cutting needless links out of a chain improves efficiency and minimizes the waste that occurs with each further link?
Ah, Trident is our nuclear-sub deterrent. It's being replaced over the next few years, defence of the realm and all that...
Eh, I've got a mate who goes out at weekends and gets ruined, usually ends up in hospital for a stomache pump, and has on occasion ended up in a cell for getting involved in a fight. When I asked him if he'd still get THAT drunk if he had to pay for using the NHS, he said no. So I know that paying up front (rather than through taxes) would reduce the load, even if only slightly.Kevvers said:
The idea that you have people who are wage slaves, earning for their family and kids futures give over almost half their income to pay for other people to go out, get wrecked and end up in hospital, makes me feel sick, who the hell thought that was a fair idea? You can say 'but its there so that wage slave doesnt have to do that much work!' but then what happens if all the big earners just decide it's not worth it? It's a stupid society that has that kind of system.
Car insurance parallel - Mostly there to illustrate the sense of personal responsibility, but let's say I am. Make it so if you don't have health insurance you get taxed 20% of any income (incl. benefits) and get base-line service, if you choose to buy your own higher quality insurance/healthcare you don't pay the extra tax (Because you don't use the system). Is that such a horrid idea?
Edit:
For our US friends looking, so you can see what we're talking about here in terms of the cost of these systems. Basically we have 2 taxes on income, Income Tax (IT) and National insurance (NI), and they scale as follows.
None upto ~£5500 ($8000) 0% total
20% IT 11% NI from £5500 ($8000) to £34000 ($50000) 31% total
40% IT 12% NI from £34000 ($50000) 52% total <- Note at this level your £5500 tax free starts to be reduced/removed, so ALL your income gets taxed
And...as of next year too
50% IT 13% NI from £150000 ($220000) 63% total
So while yes, it is nice to have a safety net for the poor, keep in mind that when you get a decent career (And £34000 is upper working/lower middle class) you start to pay almost half your income in taxes, and all you'll get out of it is mediocre medical care. You can buy private medical care but you'll still be paying for the free stuff. It's a LOT of money that goes straight to the Government, because that's "fair" and "social justice".