The NHS really is something to be proud of.

[Triggaaar]

well you commented on my post, so you must have some view.

No, I made a post with no reference to you. El Pres said 'don't let bushy hear you' and you responded saying 'has he contributed is the question', so you were commenting on my post, not the other way around. I assumed you were wondering if I'd paid tax, and I wasn't sure how relevant it was.

My point was, as you've decided to be difficult, is have you contributed, vi a tax, NI etc , or were you someone who'd just flown in to take advantage of the NHS

I wasn't being difficult, I think you've made assumptions that I know about previous posts you've made - I don't.

like the nigerian woman , pregnant with quins recently, who'se husband incidentally turned out to be a wealthy businessman back in nigeria.

That is pretty maddening

 

[DTES]

You are right. But you dont maintain your life, you maintain your health. Life is a right, health is not.

I think you are dead wrong here (pun genuinely not intended). If you have a life threatening disease or illness they are one and the same. You are ill/injured, gravely, and the only chance of maintaining your life (that you have a right to) is to pay someone to save you. If you can't afford it, you lose your life.

When it comes to those less fortunate in society I believe that medicine, like any other product or service, is best delivered through the market place. If this was the case medicine would be better quality and more affordable. There would still be those who would be unable to afford it, but it is my belief that medicine would be so readily available that anyone who could afford to live independantly would be able to afford healthcare (like most people can afford the internet or a mobile phone or water) and those who cannot work or have no income etc probably depend on friends and family, community, charity etc and I think that provides for the few who geniunely cannot support themselves. I think in a free society, with people keeping the fruits of their labour, there would be even more charity than there is today.

Fair enough - I disagree, and on these points we're obviously never going to agree. I would say though that before we (or any civilisation) moved to such a system, it would be a massive gamble, and the price if you were wrong would be people's lives. You would need some solid evidence (a lot more than belief) before it was the right thing to do to gamble with these lives.

 

[dingodan]

Yes, absolutely, you've hit the nail on the head. The idea of rights are IMHO entirely relative. Which is, I think, at the root of what we disagree on. Your view is that there are a small number of absolutely enshrined rights which should be preserved, and mine is that there are only rights that we are given by our society, that evolve over time. Therefore I can see healthcare as a right, which we have been bought up to believe is a positive thing and should maintain.

It is a positive thing. But yes this is where we disagree, on what a "right" is. You are saying that it is relative, if you believe you have a "right" to something then you do, and if you dont believe you have a "right" to something then you dont. But this has afew problems. The suspect who did not know and was not told his rights has none? People who are denied the right to free speech do not have the right to free speech?

You said that my view is that "there are a small number of absolutely enshrined rights which should be preserved". I want to be clear that what I am saying is that I dont believe in "enshrined rights", I dont believe that rights are rights because they are laid down, be it by law or constitution or divine doctrine or decree. A government (or a society) can identify and enumerate and "enshrine" rights, but they do not exist because of that. Its not about some correct or incorrect list of rights, its an understanding of the principles of equality and a rejection of force (or violence).

It is as simple as you, like everyone else, were born into this world equal to everyone else. You have a right to your life, that is where we start from. You can work, create build etc, and you have a right to the products of your endevours. You can speak, and sticks and stones etc so you have a right to voice your opinion. Now someone might like to come along as say "well I feel I have a right to be protected from your nasty opinion." That does'nt make it so. And it is not so, because that "right" requires that your right to your opinion is abrogated. My point is that its not about prescribed rights, its about the principles of freedom and applying them equally to all.

 

[dingodan]

Fair enough - I disagree, and on these points we're obviously never going to agree. I would say though that before we (or any civilisation) moved to such a system, it would be a massive gamble, and the price if you were wrong would be people's lives. You would need some solid evidence (a lot more than belief) before it was the right thing to do to gamble with these lives.

It always seems to come down to fear in the end.

 

[DTES]

It always seems to come down to fear in the end.

Refusing to gamble with human lives is fear? That's a little insulting.

And there was me thinking they had the right to those lives...

 

[public school boy]

Yes the NHS is world class. I collected a German who did his training in one of London's leading NHS hospitals and now he run private ones in Germany. He can't understand why we knock The NHS

 

[User removed 4]

No, I made a post with no reference to you. El Pres said 'don't let bushy hear you' and you responded saying 'has he contributed is the question', so you were commenting on my post, not the other way around. I assumed you were wondering if I'd paid tax, and I wasn't sure how relevant it was.

I wasn't being difficult, I think you've made assumptions that I know about previous posts you've made - I don't.

That is pretty maddening

fair enough !

 

[beorhthelm]

So those people in those countries that you talked about, are you saying that they dont have rights?

You are effectively talking relativism here, yes I believe rights are absolute and even someone who does not know or believe that they have rights, still has them.

thats very noble of you, but unfortunatly naive. you can argue for them, you can fight for them, but that doesnt mean they get those rights. earlier you said that there are natural rights, this is the flaw of your thinking, they are legal rights. we have fought for rights over centuries, we didnt simply have them from the dawn of time. some societies do not even want them, at least not in quite the same way as we do (for example, not every culture wants the right to a free vote, its a western cultural concept). i think you nearly get it, just dont realise the history and how we came to have these rights. go back to Magna Carta, understand how those rights were achived, and who they benefited (clue, it was not the peasants).

 

[dingodan]

Refusing to gamble with human lives is fear? That's a little insulting.

And there was me thinking they had the right to those lives...

I was making a general observation about social change. You say its a gamble with human life. Like it would be callous, cold, uncaring. We should stick to the status quo out of fear of the terrible things that might happen if we change the system. This is always the way social change is resisted, it is what makes change so hard.

 

[dingodan]

thats very noble of you, but unfortunatly naive. you can argue for them, you can fight for them, but that doesnt mean they get those rights. earlier you said that there are natural rights, this is the flaw of your thinking, they are legal rights. we have fought for rights over centuries, we didnt simply have them from the dawn of time. some societies do not even want them, at least not in quite the same way as we do (for example, not every culture wants the right to a free vote, its a western cultural concept). i think you nearly get it, just dont realise the history and how we came to have these rights. go back to Magna Carta, understand how those rights were achived, and who they benefited (clue, it was not the peasants).

But you are saying the rights you have are the rights that are upheld. Rights exist only by virtue of their being granted to you. We are really getting into an essestential and theological discussion here, lets not because I doubt it would be constructive.

 

[Triggaaar]

fair enough !

Can't find a group hug, so you can have a instead

 

[DTES]

I was making a general observation about social change. You say its a gamble with human life. Like it would be callous, cold, uncaring. We should stick to the status quo out of fear of the terrible things that might happen if we change the system. This is always the way social change is resisted, it is what makes change so hard.

Maybe I should have worded it differently. You're right that much social change is resisted, but point was simply this: Before a change (any change to any system) is made, it should be certain that that change won't cause the loss of innocent human lives. A basic criteria that should go unspoken. That isn't controversial, surely?

But yes, I believe that gambling with human lives would be "callous, cold & uncaring".

 

[dingodan]

Maybe I should have worded it differently. You're right that much social change is resisted, but point was simply this: Before a change (any change to any system) is made, it should be certain that that change won't cause the loss of innocent human lives. A basic criteria that should go unspoken. That isn't controversial, surely?

But yes, I believe that gambling with human lives would be "callous, cold & uncaring".

I never suggested changing the system overnight or without any due diligence.

 

[FreeMarketsSuck]

Yes, because this is a touchy subject.

And yes, the goal of a company is to create money - if a health service is going to make profit is must first and foremost set boundaries. Those boundaries are set to ensure that healthy people can acquire the service, because they're the ones less likely to use the service. Giving money out left, right and centre is the least a company wants to do unless it's investment. It's not going to gain them money if they're handing out money to the ill.

Isn't access to water and food a right? It isn't a service, because they're fundamental needs of a human being, it's a rational action to seek food and water. As is seeking medical attention.

Now, will you please answer the rest of the post and stop avoiding specific examples in the text, such as Milton Friedman.

I'm still baffled by the fact you argue that the markets will offer a better quality of service....Where's evidence to suggest this?

It appears to me that you shoot off to wikipedia to find basic answers to questions...

 

[FreeMarketsSuck]

But you are saying the rights you have are the rights that are upheld. Rights exist only by virtue of their being granted to you. We are really getting into an essestential and theological discussion here, lets not because I doubt it would be constructive.

It's not constructive to not give evidence...

 

[FreeMarketsSuck]

When I say it is self evident that you have a right to the fruits of your labour I mean exactly that. If you did not have a right to the fruits of your labour, if you worked and somebody came along every now and again to take what you had earned, that is what it is to be a slave. Nobody owns you, so nobody owns the things you create or earn etc. That is what it is to be free.

So being paid a wage that's barely liveable is 'freedom'?

The libertarian views of freedom are hilarious, because it isn't the state that controls you, but the corporations that you must abide by. Libertarian theory of law seems to value property of life, similar to the libertarian view of healthcare.

And yes, you'd be owned under a free market economy. The company you'd work for would own you - because that company has the right to change the conditions and contract of your work without notice. This can cause severe problems if unemployment is high, and the chance of getting a new job is low. You'd be forced to complying with the company's expectations of yourself. You'd have to work 9-5 in order to receive a wage at the end of the month, which won't be nearly as much as those who own the business, despite all your time and effort put into the success of the company. There'd be very little rewards: is money freedom?

Debt controls you, and debt would be rampant because people would need to find means to live a life which would be comfortable. Once then, you'd be giving your money to everyone because you're forced into such a situation because of the rights fought to give people a more comfortable life would be taken away. Minimum wage would be abolished, and how many under-achieving businesses would jump straight to slashing salaries in order to keep up with other companies in terms of profit, making it for your ordinary person's life more expensive. There's no evidence to suggest that free markets would bring prices down. Why would the pharmaceutical industry drop prices and loss profit..?