"Yes Meme" It is called welfare, that you may or may not use.
Ideally no. Unfortunately, some of the same people that want to shutdown public services for the sake of it, would fight against helping them too.
That said, what happened to "free market"? I thought that was the answer to everything. What happen to not paying for services you are never going to use?
You can't guarantee everyone will still be covered nor do you seem care if people lose their healthcare if the NHS falls.
This is just an excuse to not do or care about anything.
You already posted this. Regulates prices, mandatory healthcare (as pointed out) and the government still covers you, if you don't have enough income.
This is not the complete free market you are looking for, try again. Not to mention, they are still better healthcare systems.
Missing the point. So I'll just say, the healthcare here is also profitable, too bad that's at the expense of healthcare being more expensive and still not covering everyone.
Just not about the people that risk not having healthcare or any other needs met because the private market decided to price gouge them instead.
"We" push for what makes sense and not just anti-government for the sake of it. They are painting themselves, at the center of it all, greed seems to be the only real reason why some people want to take these programs down.
Or maybe stuff like "not responsible for strangers" and “covering everyone isn’t and shouldn’t be a must.", when it comes to health, despite being able to, is inherently showing a lack empathy? Yeah, a lot of countries figured out that it is better to do universal services than let private companies not only price people out the wazoo, but price these people out of getting the services altogether. I don't think most people care that you play make believe, as long as it isn't making real victims.
As I said, this same argument can be use on anyone that chose not to have kids. Not to mention, the opposite could be true, give birth to someone that change the whole world, for the worse.
There is no national food service, electricity service, or even water service anywhere in the UK - all of those industries are privately ran. The government may purchase goods and services from private companies and/or individuals for the purposes of welfare, it does not actually provide any goods or services in and out of itself because that’s retarded - the government isn’t a bakery, or a power company, or a water company, and has zero expertise in any of those sectors. You could argue that council housing is a form of an actual government-ran service, but even that is built by private contractors. If the government built those houses, they would fall apart (like the ones in the Soviet bloc) because, surprise, the government is also not a construction company. Everything you’ve said so far is either inapplicable to the NHS scenario or wrong, so good job on the first paragraph, you’re totally not embarrassing yourself.
Healthcare should not be a public service. It doesn’t serve “the public”, it serves individual customers. Selling young people on the idea that this is not the case was an amazing achievement, but scandal after scandal people are slowly catching on - it’s a money pit, and a honey pot for those involved.
Me ensuring that my front yard isn’t littered with homeless people is a part of the free market, I pay for garbage collection too. Moreover, the government has a duty of care over its citizens and should probably ensure that they don’t die in the absence of means of payment. Those who have means of payment and use public funds regardless overburden the system. It’s called overhead - a given healthcare provider can and should profit from the business endeavour, but by the same token must not refuse service, so means of payment are of secondary importance. Healthcare isn’t the only industry where the government picks up the tab when no other payer is available, we call those critical industries, not that the socially-minded people would know.
I have indeed mentioned the Swiss, because their system is both more fair and objectively better based on outcome rankings. If you don’t have a counter-argument, you can just say so. It is indeed not a complete free market free-for-all, but it would be a step in the right direction. Not that it matters considering the NHS will be largely privatised not just in my lifetime, but in the immediate future, judging by the healthcare legislation and private contracts signed within the last 5 or so years, so the bear is already skinned.
I didn’t “miss the point”, you just made a very poor point. The private sector always takes over in the absence of government service, and usually does a better job.
Nobody controls the whims of the market, not even the government. If you think price gouging is exclusive to private enterprise, you should probably look into the size of the bonuses doctors receive in the NHS. The money is spent wastefully, and that’s a fact. There’s a reason why doctors from all over the world migrate to the UK and wrestle for government contracts.
What you’re pushing for doesn’t make sense, for a myriad of reasons I’ve mentioned and a lot more that I haven’t.
You’re the one showing lack of empathy - I’m the guy who doesn’t want people to be slaves for large swathes of the year, since their hard-earned money being taken away by the government without recourse to fund boondoggles effectively means they are working for free.
In any case, this argument is getting lengthy, and is straying further and further away from Austria and their mandates. We’ve had this conversation before countless times, and it’s exhausting to have to repeat myself over and over. If you want to discuss the benefits of private healthcare (which are numerous, as seen in Switzerland, Netherlands, Israel and many, many more countries with excellent healthcare), you can make a thread about it. I’m not particularly interested in detailing this thread just to give you a platform to pontificate from. What I’ve said is very simple - expecting other people to devote the fruits of their labour on a public service that they do not use just because it lets you sleep better at night is indistinguishable from theft. The government isn’t Robin Hood, it is not its job to rob its citizens just because it believes that it knows how to spend it better. If *you* think you know how to spend my money better, you’re delusional to begin with - you come across as someone who’s very young, somewhat naive and probably with no significant assets of your own, so it’s easy for you to give speeches on how other people’s money should be spent. Me, I’d rather if they spent it themselves, considering it is their money, and they’ll always know better what it should be spent on.
