The NHS ,in recent years has been underfunded by the government for one reason or another.This had led to staff cutbacks.Also the remaining funds are being leeched by drug companies. 40,000 unfilled nursing jobs. No wonder they can’t cope.

Yes, funnily enough our NHS has suffered since thousands of nurses jobs were cut. In no way does this undermine the incredible service the NHS has done the British people for 70 years. It provided cancer care for several family members. It saved my cousin after a car crash. It paid for operations for my partner that would have been prohibitively expensive under your rules. It has been used to safely birth my entire extended family including my son. It is not perfect by any means, but it is a system to be proud of, and a symbol of our willingness to care for each other.

Ok? Im not really concerned with your anecdotal points of view, rather that the NHS is failing, as displayed in the second link. Tax funded monopolized healthcare is a joke, and will always be inferior to spontaneous order.

Okay? I'm not interested in your opinion, even when you pretend it is fact. It is not struggling due to funding cuts by a conservative government, not failing because it is fundamentally flawed. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you're just making unsupported assertions. Your second link blatantly states that 'long term funding' is the issue. Also, 70 years of saving lives is not just "anecdotal". Out of interest, where are you from?

[quote]Okay? I'm not interested in your opinion, even when you pretend it is fact.[/quote] Im not asserting fact, rather logical inductive reasoning of a claim that: [quote]Tax funded monopolized healthcare is a joke, and will always be inferior to spontaneous order[/quote] [quote]It is not struggling due to funding cuts by a conservative government, not failing because it is fundamentally flawed.[/quote] Ok? You are making a semantics argument, but if it makes you feel better, I will use your asserted diction of "struggling"? But then you say: "It is not struggling", so what is it? Im not concerned with who is in office, because again, my point here is that: Spontaneous healthcare markets are far superior than any central planner could even imagine to emulate. The NHS claims that long term funding is the issue; however pursuant my displayed funding graph, the NHS is in fact not suffering from any kind of underfunding. The graph adjusted for inflation displays the NHS having an extraordinary increase in funding since the turn of the millennium. Also, that was the first link you were reading, the second displays the more in depth statistical reasoning on why the system is “struggling”. [quote]Also, 70 years of saving lives is not just “anecdotal”.[/quote] Referring to your personal storries, again, any system can save lives, especially one that legally grants itself the monopoly power to do so, but that in no way assures that the service is being provided in the most efficient manner possible. Again, my main point here is, spontaneous order is the most efficient interpersonal interaction to supply high quality service to the consumer at a low cost.

Firstly, my apologies, I added the word 'not' erroneously. I meant that it [i]is[/i] struggling. However you have made the bold claim that the system is flawed but provided no evidence for that assertion; pointing out it has problems does not in any way prove [i]why[/i] it is struggling. In no way can you be considered to have supported your claim that this sort of system cannot work [b]especially since you have to overlook the fact that it has worked for seventy years so far[/b]. Also, it's "pursuant [b]to[/b] my...", not just "pursuant my". If you're going to try to use language you think sounds clever, at least use it correctly. You made this error at least two or there times so far, indicating you don't know how to use the word rather than some text error. One thing I can't stand is people trying (and failing) to use 'clever' language to disguise the lack of substance in their arguments. You say the NHS is fundamentally flawed because of the concept. You have provided no evidence of this. Try harder.

You have responded to nothing I just said. Yes, the system is struggling. I provided MUCH evidence of this. To quote from above [i]Was doing a little research. 68 senior doctors sent a newsletter to the prime minister describing details of inhumane conditions that seem to be normal occurrences in NHS’s hospitals. The letter contained some stats and the following details: ```In December alone over 300,000 patients were made to wait in emergency rooms for more than four hours before being seen, with thousands more suffering long waits in ambulances before even being allowed into the emergency room. The letter further noted that it had become “routine” for patients to be left on gurneys in corridors for as long as 12 hours before being offered proper beds, with many of them eventually being put into makeshift wards hastily constructed in side-rooms. In addition to this, it was revealed that around 120 patients per day are being attended to in corridors and waiting rooms, with many being made to undergo humiliating treatments in the public areas of hospitals, and some even dying prematurely as a result. One patient reported that, having gone to the emergency room with a gynecological problem which had left her in severe pain and bleeding, a lack of treatment rooms led hospital staff to examine her in a busy corridor, in full view of other patients.``` > [NHS] First week of 2018, over 97% of its trusts in England reported overcrowding so great, hospitals were deemed “unsafe”[/i] To directly quote from the second link: https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/3101/production/_94254521_proportionofbudgetonnhscorrectedheading.png “Governments over the years have had to invest more and more of the public purse into it. Today 30p out of every £1 spent on services goes on health. Even during years of deep austerity in the UK, extra money has been found for the health service - £8bn more this parliament in England alone. Yet it seems no matter how much is invested, it's still not enough. The NHS is creaking at the seams.” https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/13FCA/production/_99466818_nhs_waiting_times_640-nc.png “The rest of the UK is not immune either. Four-hour performance is worse in Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland is performing a little better, but is still some way short of the target - its major hospitals have been hovering below the 90% mark in recent weeks.” https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/BCCC/production/_94223384_ageing_population_624gr.png “The ageing population is certainly a major factor - and it's one that all health systems in the world are struggling with. Medical advances have meant that people are living longer. When the NHS was created, life expectancy was 13 years shorter than it is now. This is something to celebrate. Infectious diseases are no longer a significant threat. Heart attacks do not claim the lives of people early in the same numbers. Even cancer is not the death sentence it once was - half of people now survive for a decade or more. But this progress has come at a cost. People are living with a growing number of long-term chronic conditions - diabetes, heart disease and dementia. These are more about care than cure - what patients usually need is support. By the age of 65, most people will have at least one of these illnesses. By 75 they will have two.” You have not directly responded to any of the arguments I have made, instead bitch about a typo I made and complain I haven’t provided any actual substance. I really don't know HOW MANY TIMES I am going to have to say this: I understand the NHS has been around for the past 70 years, and so has the United States Interstate highway system, and it has “worked” but that in no way supports some idea that said service is being supplied in the most efficient manner. If anyone isn’t providing substance, it is you. What you failed to respond to in my last response, and seemed to have ignored “Spontaneous healthcare markets are far superior than any central planner could even imagine to emulate. The NHS claims that long term funding is the issue; however pursuant my displayed funding graph, the NHS is in fact not suffering from any kind of underfunding. The graph adjusted for inflation displays the NHS having an extraordinary increase in funding since the turn of the millennium. Also, that was the first link you were reading, the second displays the more in depth statistical reasoning on why the system is “struggling”.” “any system can save lives, especially one that legally grants itself the monopoly power to do so, but that in now way assures that the service is being provided in the most efficient manner possible. Again, my main point here is, spontaneous order is the most efficient interpersonal interaction to supply high quality service to the consumer at a low cost.” Please, continue to ignore everything Im saying and then simply respond with: “It has worked for the past 70 years.” Also, if you want me further give logical reasoning why NHS is flawed so be it: Do you like monopolies supplying your services, especially one that is supposed to be in the interest of your own health? Of course not, monopolies that use compulsory force to restrict market competition are able to exploit the consumer through higher costs and low quality services. Socialised services, since the means of production are owned by the public or the state, have no actual ability to produce sufficient economic calculation and can not accurately gage whether or not the service is meeting the consumer demand. Revenue inflow for the service is through taxation, making it a guaranteed stream if income that does not reflect consumer demand, unlike freely competing businesses in the market.This not only leads to mass misallocation of scarce resources on the supply side, but also distorts market prices so the consumer can not calculate what purchase will be most efficient for them. All this is prevalent on the market, and as I have said many, many times now: spontaneous order is the most efficient interpersonal interaction to supply high quality service to the consumer at a low cost.

My pointing out you don't know how to use a phrase (or "typo" as you call it) is perfectly legitimate; you will use it correctly from now on I'm sure. I haven't used it to dismiss your argument, I merely pointed out you're using it wrong. It says quite a lot about a person when they use what they think is impressive sounding language but don't really understand it. However this is merely an aside; it doesn't address your 'argument '. Your entire argument seems to revolve around the premise that the NHS costs more now than it did because it is a flawed system. This is still an unproven assertion. There are too many confounding factors (such as increased longevity and the burden it places on healthcare) that can be claimed to be responsible for the increased costs and you have conveniently overlooked these. As such, you haven't proved your premise. Cost And waiting times are not the only metric by which we judge healthcare. We place an emphasis in this country on how many people are covered. We compromise some quality in order to ensure everyone is covered because we value people over money. I cannot see the NHS simply in terms of financial cost and ignore the human cost. I'm not sure I'd trust anyone that did.

I feel like you are just ignoring everything I am saying and blindly responding to me. Everything you have just said has ALREADY been addressed. Your first point is strawman, I am simply saying that the NHS is not suffering from any proposed “chronic underfunding”. From earlier I said: [quote]The NHS claims that long term funding is the issue; however pursuant my displayed funding graph, the NHS is in fact not suffering from any kind of underfunding. The graph adjusted for inflation displays the NHS having an extraordinary increase in funding since the turn of the millennium. Also, that was the first link you were reading, the second displays the more in depth statistical reasoning on why the system is “struggling”.[/quote] Instead of actually responding to this, you decided to address my grammatical error, and now are misrepresenting my point. You are not directly responding to anything Im saying, instead making general remarks with your emotions. Again, and I'm really getting sick of repeating myself: The spontaneous healthcare market is far superior than any monopolized, centrally planned, or tax funded service. I have explained my logical reasoning behind this already. I literally posted the graph links, along with the captions BBC used explaining a multitude of reasons why the NHS is struggling. Again to make this VERY CLEAR - this is my assertion: A free market healthcare industry is far superior to any central planned one. That is it, done. I have explained this in great detail in a previous post I have made : https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/238884485/0/0 I'm not overlooking anything, YOU ARE. Three times now you have failed to directly address any of the points I have made. You are right, we can look at healthcare from many different perspectives: Insurance, equipment, infrastructure, technology. Medications, doctors, wait times, research and development, etc..and all of these different “sectors” are scarce resources that are most efficiently allocated through the freed market. You have almost created a false dichotomy between quality and coverage. This is futile, we can have both of these, there is no need to sacrifice one for the other. You seem to make some ethical appeal here, but fail to understand that a profit/market driven healthcare system is the MOST ethical through voluntary exchange. And you must have some pretty large boundaries on “sacrificing some quality” when it turns into this letter written by 68 senior doctors to the prime minister: “In December alone over 300,000 patients were made to wait in emergency rooms for more than four hours before being seen, with thousands more suffering long waits in ambulances before even being allowed into the emergency room. The letter further noted that it had become “routine” for patients to be left on gurneys in corridors for as long as 12 hours before being offered proper beds, with many of them eventually being put into makeshift wards hastily constructed in side-rooms. In addition to this, it was revealed that around 120 patients per day are being attended to in corridors and waiting rooms, with many being made to undergo humiliating treatments in the public areas of hospitals, and some even dying prematurely as a result. One patient reported that, having gone to the emergency room with a gynecological problem which had left her in severe pain and bleeding, a lack of treatment rooms led hospital staff to examine her in a busy corridor, in full view of other patients.” If you are interested on my economic view on healthcare, I have posted it through that link above.

[i]this is my assertion: A free market healthcare industry is far superior to any central planned one.[/i] Yes, and you haven't backed up that assertion to my satisfaction. I understand you're frustrated that I don't agree, but don't assume that's because I'm lacking understanding of your points; I simply find your argument unconvincing. The main reason is that you could argue that your system is better because queues are shorter and care is cheaper per capita, but I would still argue that your system is inferior because it leaves millions lacking healthcare. I could improve the NHS to provide me a better service, but if it meant my peers might not have any coverage, I could only consider it better from a very selfish viewpoint. I am happy to pay extra to ensure that everyone else is also covered, and this is a common (and laudable) sentiment in the UK. So unless you can come up with a system that is quick cheap [i]and[/i] universal, I'll still be in favour of the more moral system. You can be in favour of a cheaper system or a more efficient one, that is fine. But I draw the line at you claiming it is objectively [i]better[/i]. Edit - also, I love how you objected to my 'anecdotal evidence ' then blatantly used anecdotes yourself. At least be consistent. Are we allowed anecdotes or not? Or do you have different rules than you apply to me?

[quote]Yes, and you haven't backed up that assertion to my satisfaction. I understand you're frustrated that I don't agree, but don't assume that's because I'm lacking understanding of your points; I simply find your argument unconvincing.[/quote] [quote]The main reason is that you could argue that your system is better because queues are shorter and care is cheaper per capita, but I would still argue that your system is inferior because it leaves millions lacking healthcare. I could improve the NHS to provide me a better service, but if it meant my peers might not have any coverage, I could only consider it better from a very selfish viewpoint. I am happy to pay extra to ensure that everyone else is also covered, and this is a common (and laudable) sentiment in the UK.[/quote] Ah, ok, now I see a miscommunication. Im not defending the American healthcare system, or any statist healthcare system. This does account for a strawman on your part, but I think in fact, you have not been understanding my points. I am referring to the free market brought about spontaneous order. Spontaneous order, is an order, that emerges through interpersonal voluntary exchange outside of the state and coercion. This is what we would call the free market, simply, a network of voluntary exchange. Chase Rachels defines free market more specifically: [i]THE NOTION OF a “freed market” or an “unhampered market” is a conception of a market operating quickly, spontaneously, and unpredictably. It is a market where every person can negotiate the terms of every exchange he makes and fully owns every good he intends to trade. It is a system of maximally free trade. Taxes, tariffs, quotas, price restrictions, mandated licensure, labor regulation, and intellectual property never exist in this market. Everyone is free to copy and remix others' work, acquire cheaper materials, and produce a good in any industry. With the absence of aggressive barriers to entry into any industry, competition becomes fierce and unrelenting. Without occupational licensing or securities regulations or taxes by which to abide, even small discrepancies in customer satisfaction can allow newcomers to instantly topple an established giant. Operations that produced the same service indefinitely would be rare and unsuccessful. These dynamic markets organically emerge from the free, spontaneous interplay of people.[/i] This concept is very different from the status quo. This is what I am asserting, this process, not some current day state mandated healthcare. To give three quick points on why the status quo is not representable of the free market: 1) Most people wonder why there are no visible prices in medicine. You only find out what the charge has been after the service has been delivered. There actually are prices — controlled prices — but you aren’t supposed to know what they are. Each year a committee of the American Medical Association recommends a set of prices to Medicare. The committee is dominated by medical specialists, so specialists tend to do particularly well. Medicare is actually run, not by government, but by private insurance companies, and these companies adopt these prices for private insurance purposes as well. Congress further sweetened this price controlled system for hospitals by requiring Medicare to pay more for the same service if provided by hospital employees. This has inevitably led to local hospitals buying out most of the surrounding private medical practices, which has in turn created local medical service monopolies that feed patients to the hospital for its more costly services. 2) These monopolies are further sweetened for doctors by legally barring nurses, chiropractors, four-year trained naturopathic doctors, and other health professionals from using the full extent of their medical training. In this way, the supply of medical services is constrained, which further raises prices. 3) Notwithstanding all the preceding, it is not the American Medical Association, which is itself financed by a monopoly in medical coding granted by the US government department of Health and Human Services, nor the hospitals, nor the medical doctors as a group that actually run the medical system. The top spot is reserved for the drug companies, which in turn share their largesse with the AMA, doctors, medical journals, media companies, and especially with politicians. In return, drug companies are granted a series of powerful monopolies, monopolies that drive up the cost of medicine and, given the employer role in healthcare, destroy jobs, raises, and economic opportunity as well. [quote]So unless you can come up with a system that is quick cheap and universal, I'll still be in favour of the more moral system. You can be in favor of a cheaper system or a more efficient one, that is fine. But I draw the line at you claiming it is objectively better.[/quote] The free market case for healthcare IS objectively better in every possible situation. Again, here is my case for healthcare supplied on the free market: https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/238884485?sort=0&page=0 This addresses all of your points. [quote]Edit - also, I love how you objected to my 'anecdotal evidence ' then blatantly used anecdotes yourself. At least be consistent. Are we allowed anecdotes or not? Or do you have different rules than you apply to me?[/quote] Um? What anecdotes have I used? Anecdotal evidence is logically fallacious. The only remotely close context I think you are referring to is my Healthcare post....No, my post builds a premise based on the incentives of liberty and strips away the status quo. It inst some empirical argument, rather logical inductive reasoning, that inst what an anecdote is. An anecdote is the use of personal experience to prove a point rather than statistics and hard facts. [url=https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/239775927?page=0&sort=0&showBanned=0&path=1]Here is a link to another one of my replies explaining why profit and voluntary exchange are inherently more moral and ethical than any central planned economy.[/url]

Quick question to better understand your position since a full reply will take some time: What mechanism in this purely theoretical framework you are advocating would allow for the care of a person with no money? Surely, free exchange of goods and services would inevitably lead to a person without anything to exchange being denied healthcare? If this is the case, I consider the system inferior. But I'm willing to listen. I was referring to the final part of the article you quoted being anecdotal. It was literally a story of one woman who couldn't have a private gynaecological exam. It just seemed amusing and a tad hypocritical that you'd quote that as evidence after claiming 70 years of a functioning NHS was anecdotal evidence.

[quote]What mechanism in this purely theoretical framework you are advocating would allow for the care of a person with no money?[/quote] [quote]Surely, free exchange of goods and services would inevitably lead to a person without anything to exchange being denied healthcare?[/quote] First off, the framework is one of the incentive structure built around freedom, it inst entirely theoretical, as I can cite and recognize economically more or less free countries and their current state of affairs. An individual with no money, hm, let me rearrange this. You need to depict two distinct economic models. In one case, we have a compulsory monopoly, and the other is a flourishing market in healthcare. The former holds the power to forcefully exclude any competition from the market, economics tells us, the monopolist will be able to perform his service badly and inefficiently. As the monopolist is protected from competition, he can provide his service in a costly manner, and have zero repercussions for doing so. On the latter, we have unrelenting (don't take this word out of context) competitive market, that ever aspires to the affinities of the consumer. It should be quite clear which economic model is most efficient at providing any good or service demanded by the market. This is a universally accepted idea among economists: Every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is here understood in its classic meaning as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service, or as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. Only one agency, A, may produce a given good or service, X. Such a monopoly is "bad" for consumers, because, shielded from potential new entrants into a given area of production, the price of the product will be higher and its quality lower than otherwise, under free competition. It should also be clear, what economic model do you think is more incentivized on treating an individual without payment? Free clinics, treatment, and charity is much more prevalent due to the absence of state mandated licensure and taxation. On the free market, one of the largest incentives for consumer choice is a firms reputation. Denying an individual healthcare is a inimical choice, as this would bring along severe reputation loses and mass community social pressures. This is only possible when the revenue to the firm is voluntary; however as I have mentioned before, your state centrally planned and [b]tax funded[/b] system does not feel these forces. There revenue is forced and when the, perhaps the NHS, leaves patients dying in hospitals corridors, they call for you (force you) to bring out more money of your wallet and fund them even more! This is ethical!? This is moral!? No! It is pernicious! Disgusting! Tyrannical! The individual without money (which is a stretch in the first place) will have a much, much [b]greater[/b] chance of receiving healthcare under free competition, and at a higher quality than again, any centrally planned system. [quote]I was referring to the final part of the article you quoted being anecdotal. It was literally a story of one woman who couldn't have a private gynaecological exam. It just seemed amusing and a tad hypocritical that you'd quote that as evidence after claiming 70 years of a functioning NHS was anecdotal evidence.[/quote] There is difference between stating facts and statistics, and then using a personal account to reinforce the stat and blindly stating an individual experience outside of statistics. So no, that wouldn't be anecdotal in that context. I also didn't claim that "70 years...." was anecdotal, rather: [quote] It provided cancer care for several family members. It saved my cousin after a car crash. It paid for operations for my partner that would have been prohibitively expensive under your rules. It has been used to safely birth my entire extended family including my son.[/quote] I understand the NHS has probably helped you out man, and this sounds great. I am simply asking the question, is this the best possible model (can we make it better), and if so (make it better), what is the superior model?

I have to say I find your argument that private corporations will give away their services for free to be utterly and completely unconvincing. It seems the system you propose has no provision for caring for the people that find themselves with no money, other than what I think is an incredibly naive idea that they'll get it out of the goodness of the private companies hearts. If that were true, we'd never have needed to set up the NHS in the first place. You keep pushing this ridiculously unrealistic pipe dream, but I'll be over here in the real world where you don't fix the world's woes by crossing your fingers.

[quote]I have to say I find your argument that private corporations will give away their services for free to be utterly and completely unconvincing.[/quote] You find my argument unconvincing, ok? Can you explain to me what you don’t agree with or refute anything? We aren’t going to get anywhere if you call my logic unconvincing, then don't give me further questions or refutation to respond to. The point of debate is to have an exchange of logic back and forth and to learn from each other, but like I said, I can't give you specifics if you aren't directly quoting and responding to me.   [quote]It seems the system you propose has no provision for caring for the people that find themselves with no money, other than what I think is an incredibly naive idea that they'll get it out of the goodness of the private companies hearts.[/quote] No, I explained two distinct economic models, and the incentive structure surrounding them. I made it quite clear on the difference between a state centralized system and a freed market provision. Monopoly vs Market. Also, you do realize that the state, is made up by the individuals also, just like any business man. Again, the fundamental difference between the state apparatus and a entrepreneur under free competition is the incentive structure. The individual within the state has a guaranteed revenue as his payment is not voluntary rather forcefully collected with a gun to your head. The business man under free competition must actively seek to meet the affinities of the consumer and align the their interest with the demand...this is the inherent motive behind profit: it is what allows business to align their incentives with the greater interest of society in harmony, voluntarism. You are being illusioned by the state, you are under some impression that, without the state having a forceful monopoly on a service, everyone will have access to it. This clearly isn't the case right now, as patients are dying in hospital corridors. And it will never be because again, A compulsory MONOPOLY does not have the incentive structure I explained under free competition. And if you are seemingly certain that your amazing NHS is so great at providing all universal access to healthcare, then why not monopolize [i]every single need, so all citizens will have “guaranteed” access.[/i] [quote]If that were true, we'd never have needed to set up the NHS in the first place. [/quote] What is your logical basis for this, most of public isnt educated on such a voluntary free market as I have described, you certainly seemed not: You are supporting a single, politically influenced, bureaucratic, and monopolised entity. All of these make the consumer worse off, again, none are even relevant in the free market.   [quote]You keep pushing this ridiculously unrealistic pipe dream, but I'll be over here in the real world where you don't fix the world's woes by crossing your fingers.[/quote] You seem to be saying Im throwing out crazy ideas, but you are yet to refute anything I have said. If you are going to say I'm naive, at least provide reasoning.  

I don't have to refute your unproven assertions. Surely you must understand how burden of proof works. It is not my job to prove you wrong when all you've done is assert something. I find your assertion thoroughly unconvincing and unrealistic because you cannot demonstrate that it would work, other than to claim that it would be in the best interest of private companies to give away their services for free. Well you're assuming that people will act rationally, that people are generally good, that you can rely on people to do the right thing. This is pure naivety. It is naive of you to think that the system you propose would do anything other than improve service [b]for those that can afford it[/b], whilst leaving the poor unprotected. The NHS, for example, was set up because Bevan could see that the poor did not have access to healthcare. Before 1948, healthcare was a private affair in the UK, and it meant that millions were not able to afford it. Surely this calls into question your bold claim that private companies would help the poor. They didn't do it then. They won't just randomly start now. It's a nice idea but its just not realistic because lots of people are greedy and lots don't care about other people. We will never achieve these lofty ideals because we are flawed ourselves.

[quote]I don't have to refute your unproven assertions. Surely you must understand how burden of proof works. It is not my job to prove you wrong when all you've done is assert something.[/quote] I didn't realize I was appealing to empiricism on my economic analysis. I have logically proven everything I have said: please, quote me on what I haven’t provided proof for, and I will address it...I don't need to empirically prove axiomatically true logical statements. [quote]I find your assertion thoroughly unconvincing and unrealistic because you cannot demonstrate that it would work, other than to claim that it would be in the best interest of private companies to give away their services for free. [b]Well you're assuming that people will act rationally, that people are generally good, that you can rely on people to do the right thing. This is pure naivety.[/b][/quote] So we agree, people will not act rationally and for the general good. These are the same people you are talking about making up the state mandated NHS. Again, the only difference between the greedy individuals in the state and ones under free competition is the incentive structure as I have explained many, many, many times now, how those under free competition are more aligned with the interest of greater society. [quote]It is naive of you to think that the system you propose would do anything other than improve service [b]for those that can afford it[/b], whilst leaving the poor unprotected.[/quote] You need to drop this illusion that only the government can provide a service to the poor through force, they are a unneeded middle, you are creating a false dichotomy of “Government control = Universal free access for all” and “no Government = the poor dies out”. This is naive and show your lack of economic understanding. First, you are asserting that a monopoly can provide universal free access in an absolute. Go tell any economist from those who agree with me to the polar opposite Keynesians, and they will laugh at you. Now you haven't formally made this claim, but it really is the only possible assertion you could be resting on, and I say to you: prove this claim, as I have already debunked it, and you have failed to logically refute my refutation. To economically explain how the poor are at an advantage in a purely market provided system: Naturally, in such a free environment, there would be disparities in the quality of services just as sunglasses from Walmart are of considerably lower quality than those offered by Versace. The difference, however, is that those devices, products, and services which are currently only accessible to the rich would, over time, tend to become accessible to the middle class and eventually the poor. When the middle class and the poor witness the luxuries enjoyed by the rich, they begin to yearn for them. With this new demand comes an impetus for entrepreneurs to discover a way to provide these luxuries to the lesser socio-economic classes at prices they can afford...In other words, the envy of the middle class and the poor represents a business opportunity for entrepreneurs that drives the market to find cheaper and more efficient ways to make these goods more accessible. This has been the case with automobiles, computers, colored televisions, cell phones, and every other type of consumer electronic. [quote]The NHS, for example, was set up because Bevan could see that the poor did not have access to healthcare. Before 1948, healthcare was a private affair in the UK, and it meant that millions were not able to afford it. Surely this calls into question your bold claim that private companies would help the poor. They didn't do it then. They won't just randomly start now.[/quote] This has absolutely nothing to do with the free market. I have already explained how the status quo has always been in the interest of the corporate state, my other healthcare post goes through this and explains it in more depth. [quote]It's a nice idea but its just not realistic because lots of people are greedy and lots don't care about other people. We will never achieve these lofty ideals because we are flawed ourselves.[/quote] [b][i]lots of people are greedy and lots don't care about other people.[/b][/i] The same people who make up the state apparatus. Free your mind man, and drop this beautiful painted picture you have over those in the government. You call people greedy, and then turn around and call for the same people in a monopolised political institution to provide you healthcare. Again, you can have greed be inherent in the interest of harmonizing profit with the interest of the consumer in a market, or let the same greedy people be free of competition and any sense of market demand. I'll choose the former over the latter in every instance for reasons I have explained many times.

And I'll choose the latter over the former until such a time as someone can convince me that the free market will not lead to the poor being effectively barred from proper healthcare. You talk a good talk, and I'm sure it's impressive/intimidating to some people, but its purely theoretical and will not survive contact with the real world. Bluntly put; it will never happen.

[quote]And I'll choose the latter over the former until such a time as someone can convince me that the free market will not lead to the poor being effectively barred from proper healthcare.[/quote] A questioned I asked you earlier: If you are sooooooo sold on the state being able to universally supply life needing goods and services, then why don't we just nationalize all consumer goods? Surely then all in the world shall have the same access to to these services! You tell me, what do you think is correct and wrong about this. [quote]You talk a good talk, and I'm sure it's  impressive/intimidating to some people, but its purely theoretical and will not survive contact with the real world. Bluntly put; it will never happen.[/quote] First off, I'm not trying to impress or intimidate anyone. Also, it isn't purely theoretical, I explained this earlier,[url=https://www.heritage.org/index/] I can point to more and less economically free countries, and compare and contrast.[/url] I am making these assertions based on economic incentive. I hope you realize that the free market is an absolute. It is simply the condition of freedom and a network of voluntary exchange. Every move you make right now free of force and coercion demonstrates a condition of liberty and freedom. This network is in the nature of man, not the other way around.

[i]If you are sooooooo sold on the state being able to universally supply life needing goods and services, then why don't we just nationalize all consumer goods?[/i] I have not said that at any point. I am not in favour of nationalisation in most areas, because it is generally less effective than a competitive market. I am not disputing this; most of what you keep telling me is very obvious. Painfully so. Please don't feel the need to explain basic economics to me again. However, sometimes services are so important that I believe they have to be controlled to ensure they are accessible to everyone. Yes, this inevitably leads to less competitive costs etc. but I will happily pay more for a less effective system (on an individual basis) if it covers the people who cannot contribute. This is a moral decision based on the fact that I believe we have a [b]duty[/b] as human beings to look after each other. This is a duty that is often overlooked and therefore has to be enforced for the benefit of a stable society. And because it is the right thing to do. You seem to want a system that gives [b]you[/b] a better service, even though it will come at the cost of no healthcare for others. I will not agree to that. If i find my healthcare lacking I can still go private - it's not like private healthcare ceased to exist with the advent of the NHS. And I'm not going to moan about a couple of thousand pounds a year going to keep other human beings alive. Basically, I feel I have a responsibility, as a decent human being, to help people that can't help themselves. And yes, I believe you have that obligation too.

[quote]I have not said that at any point. I am not in favour of nationalisation in most areas, because it is generally less effective than a competitive market. I am not disputing this; most of what you keep telling me is very obvious. Painfully so. Please don't feel the need to explain basic economics to me again.[/quote] Why is it less effective? In what ways does nationalizing goods/services end up being worse for the consumer? You aren't being specific and making a grey area between other services and healthcare (and then proceed to an appeal to pathos) , so at what point do you want services nationalized? [quote]However, sometimes services are so important that I believe they have to be controlled to ensure they are accessible to everyone.[/quote] How…? How can a communally supplied service guarantee access universally? I have done my part explaining economically how it can’t rationally allocate resources nearly as spontaneously and efficiently as a centrally planned economy, and this includes access to the poor, but you are yet to explain how a NHS is more efficient at supplying healthcare to the poor. You are falling into the very propaganda the state wants you too. The state posits itself as the the protector of the week and the poor, the indigent, and you are falling for this illusion. Once it captures your trust, along with everyone who aligns with your position on this matter, the state claims to be necessary, a much needed institution to carry out this purported role. Through this illusion the state has taken great strides to indict unfettered markets, you seemingly agreed are effective [and stopped here]. They are the most effective at allocating demanded resources, setting rational prices, and pushing high quality products. These consequences just dont stop once we enter the realm of healthcare. Lets analyze another sector, look at the education system in America. It is entirely left to the state, again, a state monopoly on education. It is proclaimed that the US allows the same universal access for education across the country. This demonstrably false, simply look to a white suburb community vs the city the philadelphia. This is a result of enforced coercive population homogeneity, simply the consequence of leaving a monopoly up to supply a service to an entire population. [b]To demonstrate the illusion you are under: It has generally been stated that the state is needed to provide essential goods and services. As these services are VERY important - defense, army, police, courts, law, firefighters, mail, water, healthcare, roads, etc… - and you have fallen prey to their propaganda: the state has become, in the public mind, identified with the provision of these services. It merely APPEARS that an attack on funding or the state is an attack on the service itself. So to use an analogous example: If the state, and only the state had a monopoly of the production of shoes, how would you be treating me now as someone attacking this monopoly and calling for it to open to free competition? You would being crying: “HOW COULD YOU?” “YOU DISLIKE AND OPPOSE THE PUBLIC AND THE POOR?” “WITHOUT THE STATE, WHO WOULD SUPPLY SHOES???” “HOW MANY STORES WOULD THERE BE?” “HOW MANY BRANDS WOULD THERE BE?” “WHAT WOULD THE PRICING BE?” “WOULDN'T REGULATION BE NEEDED TO MAKE SHOE PRODUCTION IS SOUND?” “WHO WOULD SUPPLY THE POOR WITH SHOES OR THOSE WITHOUT MONEY?” These questions seem ridiculous when applied to industry of shoes, yet I get the same questions in the nature of the long list of state monopolized services above. You must understand, I am not under the same illusion as you, my mind is free, and when you beg these questions for...defense, army, police, courts, law, firefighters, mail, water, healthcare, roads, etc…I still find them absurd. This is the point of the market: individual firms and businesses, competing on the market, provide an ever-changing orchestration of efficient and progressive goods and services: continually improving products and markets, advancing technology, cutting costs, and meeting changing consumer demands as swiftly and as efficiently as possible. I know for a fact that, and you seemingly agree that, by economics - that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government. This then of course begs the question: [i]What could such a monopoly possibly do better than the free market?[/i] How will the poor pay for anything??? Lets answer this question with another question: [i]How do the poor pay for anything they now obtain on the market?[/i] The free market will provide healthcare far more cheaply, in greater abundance, and of much higher quality than such a monopoly could ever hope to do so. And this natural, spontaneous process isn’t just beneficial to me, it would ESPECIALLY benefit the poor. Not to mention the lifted tax burden and mass wealth expropriation and redistribution (price distortion) on everyone including the poor.[/b] To quote Murray Rothbard: [i]The grave inefficiencies and the intense conflicts are all inherent in government operation. If the government, for example, provides monopoly services (e.g., in education or in water supply), then whichever decisions the government makes are coercively imposed on the hapless minority— whether it is a question of educational policies for the schools (integration or segregation, progressive or traditional, religious or secular, etc.), or even for the kind of water to be sold (e.g., fluoridated or unfluoridated). It should be clear that no such fierce arguments occur where each group of consumers can purchase the goods or services they demand. There are no battles between consumers, for example, over what kind of newspapers should be printed, churches established, books printed, records marketed, or automobiles manufactured. Whatever is produced on the market reflects the diversity as well as the strength of consumer demand. On the free market, in short, the consumer is king, and any business firm that wants to make profits and avoid losses tries its best to serve the consumer as efficiently and at as low a cost as possible. In a government operation, in contrast, everything changes. Inherent in all government operation is a grave and fatal split between service and payment, between the providing of a service and the payment for receiving it. The government bureau does not get its income as does the private firm, from serving the consumer well or from consumer purchases of its products exceeding its costs of operation. No, the government bureau acquires its income from mulcting the long-suffering taxpayer. Its operations therefore become inefficient, and costs zoom, since government bureaus need not worry about losses or bankruptcy; they can make up their losses by additional extractions from the public till. Furthermore, the consumer, instead of being courted and wooed for his favor, becomes a mere annoyance to the government, someone who is “wasting” the government’s scarce resources. In government operations, the consumer is treated like an unwelcome intruder, an interference in the quiet enjoyment by the bureaucrat of his steady income.[/i]

You sound like the Unabomber dude. Intelligent and idealistic but utterly unrealistic. Yes, you can imagine a wonderful system but it just wouldn't work, sorry. And you keep assuming stupid things like I buy into government propaganda just because I disagree with you. Let's be straight here; you're seemingly under the impression you're smarter than everyone else (yes yes, I know you'll deny it), but you're not. You're smart but you're young and naive. Once you get out of your twenties you'll likely realise all this. Your system would not provide for the poorest in society. It would rely on the generosity of private companies to look after the millions that wouldn't be able to afford it. History has shown you cannot rely on people to do the right thing. You can keep wittering on about your utopian ideal but its just a pipe dream. It will never happen and it renders your mini essays utterly worthless. Sorry bud but I've heard it all before and I'm not impressed.

You are ignorant. [i]argumentum ad lapidem[/i]. Pooh Pooh Informality. [quote]You sound like the Unabomber dude. Intelligent and idealistic but utterly unrealistic.[/quote] Im merely an advocate for freedom and liberty. Im not idealistic, or unrealistic, have you heard of a black or grey market? Exchange outside of the realm of coercion? If you are going to call me idealistic, at least provide context. Here we are AGAIN, calling me things with absolutely no context or quotes with refutations. [quote]Yes, you can imagine a wonderful system but it just wouldn't work, sorry.[/quote] This is pathetic. Again: [i]argumentum ad lapidem[/i]. Pooh Pooh Informality. >No context, or refutations to anything I have said [quote]buy into government propaganda just because I disagree with you. [/quote] No, I am asserting this claim because you are holding a false notion - only the state can guarantee access - which I have logically shown incorrect. [quote] You're smart but you're young and naive. Once you get out of your twenties you'll likely realise all this.[/quote] [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i] [quote]Your system would not provide for the poorest in society. It would rely on the generosity of private companies to look after the millions that wouldn't be able to afford it.[/quote] I have already multiple times proven you wrong, and thoroughly explained my logic. [quote]History has shown you cannot rely on people to do the right thing.[/quote] No context, you have made a predication, with no evidence or proof. Funny how you called me out for providing nothing to back my claims up, and even then you mistakenly interrupting them as some empirical position. But I will present texts on how mutual aid and voluntary welfare is far superior than the state mandated system: [u]Reinventing Civil Society: The Rediscovery of Welfare Without Politics[/u] http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw17.pdf [u]From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967[/u] https://www.amazon.com/From-Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State/dp/0807848417 [u]Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution - Pëtr Kropotkin[/u] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution Usually I would quote specific parts, but Im not going to waste my time on someone who thinks he can dismiss logic by calling myself "young and naive". [quote]You can keep wittering on about your utopian ideal but its just a pipe dream. It will never happen and it renders your mini essays utterly worthless.[/quote] Again, not context, no quotes. I love how I am being called utopian, yet you are advocating for a political monopoly to supply health services to a mass populace. Comical. I have already demonstrated that every move you make right now, every action you do free of force and coercion demonstrates a condition of freedom and liberty. My notions aren't unrealistic, they are the MOST realistic for freedom is in the nature of man. [quote]Sorry bud but I've heard it all before and I'm not impressed.[/quote] No context.

We can all name [b]informal[/b] logical fallacies mate, but being [b]informal[/b] they are not necessarily fallacies. I'm sure you must understand that just because it fits the definition of a fallacy does not mean it is definitely a fallacy. Naming fallacies does not prove a damn thing. The entire concept of informal fallacies is currently being heavily criticised because they cannot be properly defined and are still too open to interpretation. I submit that you only [i]think[/i] they are fallacies because you think you are right. I wholeheartedly disagree. Giving my opinion that you are naive and unrealistic on this subject would not be an ad hominem fallacy. If you actually understand what the fallacy entails, you will be aware that is be dismissing your argument based on your personal characteristics. I am not doing that [b]at all[/b]. I am saying that your argument is naive and unrealistic because it is based on the assumption that private companies will help poor people. I'm sure you'll write some long rambling reply to the above. I don't care. If you want to convince me your utopian system is realistic, answer my questions about the system you propose (and please try to be concise for once). [b]Under your system of paid healthcare, a significant proportion of the population will not have the finances to afford that health care (this is surely not debatable) You propose that the companies will give it away, correct? Do you think this will affect the price the paying customers will have to pay or do you think the companies will accept reduced profits in exchange for giving away healthcare? If it puts prices up, won't more people be unable to afford it, thus increasing the number that require free healthcare, thus increasing cost, thus increasing the number of people that can't afford it and so on? How would this be different from the NHS, a system where the well off pay for the poor people? It sounds like the same system to me....[/b]