Blair was never a socialist, and it was Maggie and Fatty (now Lord Skinny) Lawson who deregulated them in the 80s (The Big Bang), so hardly an issue of socialist causation!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Socialist paradise: Britain cancels 50,000 surgeries
- Thread starter carpro
- Start date
- Status
You guys are just plain ignorant. ObamaCare was modeled after a proposal by the Heritage Foundation (yes, THAT Heritage Foundation) several years earlier as THE FREE MARKET SOLUTION. It stood in contrast to the government solution which is single-payer. [snipped]
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't even know the difference do you? Just because democracy sounds like Democrat and Republic sounds like Republican you associate those terms with the parties. Nothing could be further from the truth.
www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.
Most modern nations are democratic republics with a constitution, which can be amended by a popularly elected government. This comparison therefore contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a "pure democracy", mainly to highlight the features of a republic.
Gee. Did you click the link? That provides the reference on the internet. You learned som,ething today.
Our National Heath Service doesn't stop you taking out private health insurance, although the labour party has said in the past that they want to stop that. A friend of mine had two knee replacements done on the NHS but in a private hospital.
In the past many hospitals were charities,
In the past many hospitals were charities,
Do you take out insurance to have your road, street, lane, etc repaired, or do your taxes pay for them?
I don't own the roads, but my body does belong to me.
Not sure why I would insure something that doesn't belong to me.
If you are going to have a system that allows you to buy superior care privately, then it would be best if the government refunded your money collected from you for a system that you don't use.
I once worked for a billionaire. His medical care was the best. On the other hand, government medicine is designed for only the poorest of the poor.
Government is not a god and government does not bring us together but divides us, as you know.
LBJ said that he was going to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. What he actually did was loot the middle class and give to his political party constituents. Government healthcare is also subject to political intrigue, is it not?
I don't use schools as I'm an adult but I don't believe the proportion of taxes I pay for them should be refunded. Seems like a pretty silly argument to me.
So if the person or organisation who owns the road says you can't use it anymore as it's their road not yours, you'd be totally cool with that, right?
If you send your children to private schools (non-government in US), you should get your taxes back for a government school that you don't use. Same for medicine--you should not have to pay for a system that does not benefit you.
Why should I pay for a road I don't use? If I'm a pacifist, why should I pay for the military?
I don't know how UK finances roads. As for the pacifist issue, there again I do not know how the UK works.
The UK socialized medicine is charging people for services that they have already provided personally. We have a like problem in the US in that our government schools are the worst in the industrialized world, yet you are forced to pay the outrageous high costs even if you send your children to much better non-governmentsl schools.
The UK should not ask people to pay twice.
It's your choice if you pay twice. No-one forces you to pay for private education or private healthcare. I thought you'd be all in favour of people having choice?
What choice is it when the government confiscates one's money for a worthless product and one is forced to provide something adequate on one's own?
Government, as you know, Matt, is not a god.
But it is treated as such by the left.
Roads are financed by vehicle tax & local authorities.
Only the rich can opt out of paying taxes - the poor & middle classes have tax deducted from income.
Some s/e prefer to be paid in cash to avoid paying tax.
Self employed should declare tax annually & are fined if they are late paying.
The rich s/e use accountants & legal tax avoidance systems. Tp stay on topic, Branson of Virgin Health is in the forefront of acquiring medical services & charging for them pays very little tax relative to income. The hospitals pay him & that money is lost to the health service, instead of medical staff being paid, & the money staying in the system.
How much of his money are you entitled to?
How does the US insurance system pay for chronic conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, heart defects, that start in childhood.
- Status