PDA

View Full Version : The Welfare State - Good, Bad or don't really care?



Conservative,
24-11-2010, 10:54 PM
Britain is "The Welfare State". For those of you who do not understand...it means we give certain liberties to people for free or very cheaply...examples being:

Health Care. Several countries such as America & Ireland have to pay for health care, this means just going to see the doctor can cost in excess of 50 - but in Britain it is free.

Universities - Again, in America Prices vary but are often in excess of 15k per year for tuition fees. Scotland currently offers free University whilst England, Wales & N.I. offer cheap (3k soon to increase to 6k - or 9k with various grants ect. for poorer students) tuition.

Education - In some poorer countries even basic education is privatized and only the richest children are educated, but here in the UK every child gets it for free.

So is this "Welfare State" where everyone is equal - or so they say - really worth it?

Let's take a look...

Last year the UK spent 110bn. on Health.
Over 12bn on Higher (University) education and nearly 80bn on education in total...but it has debts of roughly 1tn.

So really...is it worth that cost?

In my opinion things like rises in tuition fees will be a good thing. Privitization of health care would destroy the point of it so that's a big no-no, and primary education is a foundation which every child needs so we cannot privatize that, but we need to find a way to reduce the debt and I think reducing the Welfare State is one way.


Discuss.

Eoin247
24-11-2010, 11:03 PM
I didn't realise your healthcare was totaly free. Does this mean anybody rich or poor in the uk can visit GPs as often as they like for free? Also are all perscrptions/non cosmetic operations free then?

Conservative,
24-11-2010, 11:18 PM
I didn't realise your healthcare was totaly free. Does this mean anybody rich or poor in the uk can visit GPs as often as they like for free? Also are all perscrptions/non cosmetic operations free then?

Seeing a gp is free yes. Prescriptions vary I think but I also think they are largely free and most operations are free :)

I forgot to add. I personally believe people who want gastric bands ect for obesity should be made to pay for their treatment if it is their fault they are fat. Eg; they over eat and don't exercise. But if it's a genetic problem it should be free..but yeah people who are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise should be made to pay for treatment.

Eoin247
24-11-2010, 11:24 PM
Seeing a gp is free yes. Prescriptions vary I think but I also think they are largely free and most operations are free :)

I forgot to add. I personally believe people who want gastric bands ect for obesity should be made to pay for their treatment if it is their fault they are fat. Eg; they over eat and don't exercise. But if it's a genetic problem it should be free..but yeah people who are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise should be made to pay for treatment.

Totaly agree, if people have a choice in whether they are fat then they shouldn't get these peaks.

Caution
25-11-2010, 12:37 AM
It's right that the UK helps people in need, but too many people are dependent on welfare. There's plenty of people that believe they don't need to work, as the government will just hand them money and pay their bills, and that's the attitude the government has created. The government shouldn't be there to substitute people paying their own way. As for Uni, I think it should be free as long as it's a subject that will help the student to get a well paid job to pay back in tax the money that has been spent on them (I mean the Govt. shouldn't pay for courses like Film Studies and Golf Course Management). More should be spent on the NHS, as the UK currently spends the least percentage of GDP on healthcare and has the poorest health in Western Europe. Cosmetic treatment shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayer, though. The welfare system should be changed, and there's plenty of areas that could be cut to provide better health.

Monopoly
25-11-2010, 02:32 AM
the welfare state is a great idea.
our welfare state is unfortunately broken, and needs fixed.

however, i don't think the coalition cutting everything is the way to fix it.

---------- Post added 25-11-2010 at 04:32 AM ----------

the welfare state is a great idea.
our welfare state is unfortunately broken, and needs fixed.

however, i don't think the coalition cutting everything is the way to fix it.

Inseriousity.
25-11-2010, 10:09 AM
Seeing a gp is free yes. Prescriptions vary I think but I also think they are largely free and most operations are free :)

I forgot to add. I personally believe people who want gastric bands ect for obesity should be made to pay for their treatment if it is their fault they are fat. Eg; they over eat and don't exercise. But if it's a genetic problem it should be free..but yeah people who are fat because they eat too much and don't exercise should be made to pay for treatment.

Not everyone who wants a gastric band gets one free on the NHS. They have to be assessed first.

As for the welfare state, can't believe people are asking these questions in the 21st Century. Of course it's good that we are helping the disadvantaged in society. The problem only occurs when people abuse that trust.

I also think it'll be career suicide for any politician who tries to get rid of it completely.

Mathew
25-11-2010, 10:54 AM
It would be stupid to suggest the Welfare State is a bad idea; it is the foundations for our so-called freedom in this country and it is generally one of the icons of Britain (just look at the mess the USA got into with their private health care :P)

In theory, the welfare state is brilliant. As Mike said, it's the people who break the trust and take advantage of their "freedom" that may put such a bad tag on the phrase.

@Monopoly - taking into consideration that 110bn is spent on Health, 80bn on education and millions in debt.. you think cuts shouldn't be made? :S

Monopoly
25-11-2010, 11:48 AM
there is a difference between saving and ruthless cutting. the coalition is doing the latter.

Conservative,
25-11-2010, 05:26 PM
I agree it would be ridiculous to get rid of the welfare state, but it needs to be changed radically:

Anyone who has a problem that is self-inflicted (obesity through fatty foods, cancer through smoking ect.) should NOT get free health care - that will save millions a year.

People who CAN work but chose not to should not get any money from the Government except for a job seekers allowance for 1 year after being made redundant - then revoke it unless special circumstances.

That will save us a lot of money there...I should totally be Chancellor :)

-:Undertaker:-
25-11-2010, 06:03 PM
Not everyone who wants a gastric band gets one free on the NHS. They have to be assessed first.

As for the welfare state, can't believe people are asking these questions in the 21st Century. Of course it's good that we are helping the disadvantaged in society. The problem only occurs when people abuse that trust.

I also think it'll be career suicide for any politician who tries to get rid of it completely.

Concerning the NHS, before the NHS the poor were treated for free anyway but the rich had to pay. The only change the NHS brought about was to make health care monopolised (meaning more expensive as it is at the mercy of the drug companies), create a giant bureaucracy and gave the rich free treatment. The same applies to the introduction of the grammar schools, but driven by an obession with equality you fail to see that (despite the effects actually being the opposite, the laws of unintended consquences).

Mathew
25-11-2010, 06:06 PM
there is a difference between saving and ruthless cutting. the coalition is doing the latter.
Examples of ruthless cutting?
There's been cuts made since the coalition was in power and we seem to be doing fine; so why did the money need to be spent in the first place? Don't tell me you'd rather have Labour in power.. :rolleyes:


Anyone who has a problem that is self-inflicted (obesity through fatty foods, cancer through smoking ect.) should NOT get free health care - that will save millions a year.
You can't track someone and say they've eaten fatty foods and gained cancer through smoking. For a start it can't be proven and in addition, it totally goes against the rest of the "Welfare State's" morals; which is to help and give people equal opportunity.

Conservative,
25-11-2010, 06:12 PM
Examples of ruthless cutting?
There's been cuts made since the coalition was in power and we seem to be doing fine; so why did the money need to be spent in the first place? Don't tell me you'd rather have Labour in power.. :rolleyes:


You can't track someone and say they've eaten fatty foods and gained cancer through smoking. For a start it can't be proven and in addition, it totally goes against the rest of the "Welfare State's" morals; which is to help and give people equal opportunity.

You can tell whether it's genetic or not though, and you can ask them whether they smoke. Really it's down to common sense. If people have inherited some sort of genetic deformity so that they're fat - then obviously let them have treatment - it is through no fault of their own. But if they have stuffed their face with McDonalds 3 times a day since they were 10 then no - I'm against them having treatment. I don't really care about equality if people think they can take advantage of the system - ruin their health then get it all patched up because it's free?

Same with cancer, if someone has cancer through inheritance or just through unluckiness - give them treatment. Someone who smokes and has lung cancer or something which is related to smoking - don't give them treatment. Tough luck if the cancer is not caused by smoking - it will discourage smokers if they don't get free health care when they clog up their arteries and get cancer.

So in summary:

If it is YOU that has made yourself ill ie; cancer through smoking - of course you shouldn't get free health care? That's like a rapist saying they should get compensation for getting an STI. It was their choice, they didn't have to do it, but they did and they suffered the consequences.

However if you are born with the disease/genetic deformity then you SHOULD get treatment - because you did not chose to be that way.

Inseriousity.
25-11-2010, 09:22 PM
Concerning the NHS, before the NHS the poor were treated for free anyway but the rich had to pay. The only change the NHS brought about was to make health care monopolised (meaning more expensive as it is at the mercy of the drug companies), create a giant bureaucracy and gave the rich free treatment. The same applies to the introduction of the grammar schools, but driven by an obession with equality you fail to see that (despite the effects actually being the opposite, the laws of unintended consquences).

Firstly, I'm not driven by an obsession with equality. I am aware we're in a capitalist society. You seem to think I'm some sort of Marxist who'd love communism in place as soon as possible but I don't think Marx was completely right. Marx refers to history in that people were generally living in communist societies (much like tribes do now) and would love us to all just have a revolution and go back to that however what he fails to notice is how much society has evolved and developed. Society is just too complex now and that's why I think communism attempts have failed.

However, to say that rich paid, poor got free from charities is a very simplistic statement. If only in practice, that worked. It is much simpler to go into a hospital waiting room and wait that everyone pays for than queue up for hours on end waiting for a charity (often Church led - which would probably cause a lot of social problems nowadays too. Would they treat homosexuals as an example? A fundamentalist church might not, the same way they refused to give children to homosexual wannabe-parents) service. I do believe in America there are 'dentist tents' where the poor are offered a free checkup in a tent but they get hundreds of people queueing up that they have to turn people away. They can't keep up with demand. I think if we went back to this system, we'd have many poor people just ignoring symptoms of ill-health and dealing through the pain. This happens already so to make it worse by removing free healthcare is barbaric and draconian imo.

PS. I am so glad you're not chancellor Robbie. As Mathew said, good luck trying to prove someone got cancer because of smoking.

Conservative,
25-11-2010, 09:29 PM
PS. I am so glad you're not chancellor Robbie. As Mathew said, good luck trying to prove someone got cancer because of smoking.

The whole point would be if they smoked they gave up their free health care for any POSSIBLE smoking related disease. If it was a leg tumour nothing to do with it - of course they'd get free treatment. However if it was lung cancer directly caused by smoking - they wouldn't get it free and even if they tried to prove it wasn't caused by smoking - they gave up the free health care when they picked up their first cigarette.

Inseriousity.
25-11-2010, 11:26 PM
The whole point would be if they smoked they gave up their free health care for any POSSIBLE smoking related disease. If it was a leg tumour nothing to do with it - of course they'd get free treatment. However if it was lung cancer directly caused by smoking - they wouldn't get it free and even if they tried to prove it wasn't caused by smoking - they gave up the free health care when they picked up their first cigarette.

So would they still have to pay the part of the tax to health even if they weren't entitled to it? And if yes, why should they pay for something they don't get back? And if no, I wonder how many poor people would start smoking just to save money?

If someone quit smoking THEN got lung cancer, would they get the healthcare? If yes, how come? It was due to the smoking! You can't prove otherwise! If no, but why not? They quit! They went through all that effort to quit so they could be entitled to free healthcare!

Say in the future, there's a new scientific paradigm shift and it turns out that actually smoking is proved to not directly cause lung cancer. What would you do then? How would you compensate all those lives lost because of you? And trust me, they'd sue your backside so hard that the courts will be your second home.

And finally...
If someone got cancer because of smoking, would you watch them die?
If someone you knew got cancer because of smoking, would you want to watch them die in pain?

Honestly, you have no idea of the practicalities of these messed-up ideas you're proposing.

Conservative,
25-11-2010, 11:32 PM
Lol I know there are complications but there are if any proposal.

Both my remaining grandparents smoke and if one of them got cancer I would of course be upset but I'd also say I told you so but if Cameron were to implement my proposal I would stand by him and tell them it's their fault for smoking in the first place. Of course it'd be horrible to watch them die like that but it was their choice in the end.

I won't answer all your questions now because I'm on my iPod and it would be 3am before I'd finished giving the answers so sorry :)

Inseriousity.
26-11-2010, 08:55 AM
Complications? Deaths that could be prevented is a bit more than a "complication".

karter
26-11-2010, 11:13 AM
Totally worth the cost , the government works for the people and will have to serve the people.

Conservative,
26-11-2010, 04:24 PM
Complications? Deaths that could be prevented is a bit more than a "complication".

Deaths that could be prevented by not smoking in the first place.

-:Undertaker:-
28-11-2010, 12:21 AM
Firstly, I'm not driven by an obsession with equality. I am aware we're in a capitalist society. You seem to think I'm some sort of Marxist who'd love communism in place as soon as possible but I don't think Marx was completely right. Marx refers to history in that people were generally living in communist societies (much like tribes do now) and would love us to all just have a revolution and go back to that however what he fails to notice is how much society has evolved and developed. Society is just too complex now and that's why I think communism attempts have failed.

No we are not in a capitalist society, we live in an increasingly socialist-corporatist economic world which I guess you could place in the same basket as communism, just that offically many companies are labelled as 'private' when infact they are run by the state and run for the state. I am heartened you've denounced Marx, but most likely only due to the fact he carries a stigma along with other socialists; Mao/Stalin/Pot/Hitler that is best dropped when possible by the left which remains highly idealogical.

The obsession with equality is seen with your stance on the grammar schools, despite the fact that the current system appears fair - it is all but fair. The poor are left with little chance in the comprehensive system which serves not as a place of learning, but more so as large camps where teachers spend most of their time as acting social workers trying to sort out the vast number of problems that those who go to that school are involved in.


However, to say that rich paid, poor got free from charities is a very simplistic statement. If only in practice, that worked. It is much simpler to go into a hospital waiting room and wait that everyone pays for than queue up for hours on end waiting for a charity (often Church led - which would probably cause a lot of social problems nowadays too. Would they treat homosexuals as an example? A fundamentalist church might not, the same way they refused to give children to homosexual wannabe-parents) service. I do believe in America there are 'dentist tents' where the poor are offered a free checkup in a tent but they get hundreds of people queueing up that they have to turn people away. They can't keep up with demand. I think if we went back to this system, we'd have many poor people just ignoring symptoms of ill-health and dealing through the pain. This happens already so to make it worse by removing free healthcare is barbaric and draconian imo.

It did work and Canada and the United States actually copied our health system which was the best system in the world at the time. The Church example, this is where your (yourself and the left in general) obsession with minorities and so-called equality comes in;- I very much doubt any Church would do that and if it did, thats not to stop some other charitable hospital taking on that person along with the Church in question being severely demonised (not that they could do this anyway in real life, due to ridiculous equality laws which stamp all over liberty and freedom of choice). To add onto this, treating somebody in a potentially life or death situation is far more different than gay adoption - which I have no doubt you yourself fully support the situation now where we have Catholic adoption centres closing because they will not allow gay couples to adopt - another example of blind marxoid faith if that is the case.

You do pick out some far-fetched examples which do exist I agree, but also exist in the NHS - people waiting for beds, hospitals invested with superbugs not to mention a massive bungling bureaucracy that surrounds the entire thing. Infact the idea was never popular in the first place, the Attlee government spent vast sums bribing doctors into joining the NHS at a time when the nation was broke (famous quote i'll provide below). It's often said (I believe you've spoke out against industry closure in the 80s before) that Britain should have kept its industry going - well we could have, had Attlee and his Labour government used those American loans to keep British industry competitive in a post-war world. But of course this is simply brushed aside.


When the consultants rejected Bevan's national health service in 1947, he had to convert them, famously, promising to "stuff their mouths with gold".

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!