Hate On Me For Believing In A Minimalist Government

[Tikibonbon]

Yes, here is your opportunity to brag about health care, and whatever.

[vidcc]

your "minimalist" system is ripping you off (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2002/july/government_funds_60_.php)

As I said you and I are paying twice.

I certainly wasn't hating on you for liking our system, it was your opinion on people who find themselves less fortunate than yourself.

[GepperRankins]

Yes, here is your opportunity to brag about health care, and whatever.
um, ok....


NHS rulez!!!

[Tikibonbon]

your "minimalist" system is ripping you off (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2002/july/government_funds_60_.php)

As I said you and I are paying twice.

I certainly wasn't hating on you for liking our system, it was your opinion on people who find themselves less fortunate than yourself.

Can you please show me where I said I supported the current system? I don't remember implying it.

I do remember implying I was against federal medical plans, except for the disabled.

[vidcc]

Can you please show me where I said I supported the current system? I don't remember implying it.

I do remember implying I was against federal medical plans, except for the disabled.



Yup, I like being able to chose my own doctor. I also like being able to switch doctors if I feel my doctor isn't doing his darnedest to keep me at my best.

I also like not have to be put on a waiting list for the simplest things.

If I wanted the "common good" thing, I could just pretend I am in the UK and go to the free clinic like all the junkies, drunks, and women who can not keep their legs closed to prevent children from falling out.

[GepperRankins]

uh wtf? you'd rather pay OTT and not get the service then?

[Tikibonbon]

Yup, I like being able to chose my own doctor. I also like being able to switch doctors if I feel my doctor isn't doing his darnedest to keep me at my best.

I also like not have to be put on a waiting list for the simplest things.

If I wanted the "common good" thing, I could just pretend I am in the UK and go to the free clinic like all the junkies, drunks, and women who can not keep their legs closed to prevent children from falling out.

Ah, yes, I can plainly see where I said I support federal medical assistance.
How could I be so blind......oh wait, no where do it say that.

Do better next time.

[manker]

http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=97288

Vid is right. The American system works if you can afford medical premiums, if you cannot then it appears no-one cares if your kid is in need of urgent medical attention.

In the other thread, Tikibonbon, you said that you were middle class. This implies to me that it's a case of 'I'm alright, Jack'. Having a bit of money should not preclude you from caring about others less fortunate in your own society.

The scenario in the thread above would never happen in the UK. For that reason, and presumably thousands more of a similar nature, it is far better to have the Welfare State than the system that the US operates.

This totally over-rides any other consideration.

[JPaul]

http://www.filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=97288

Vid is right. The American system works if you can afford medical premiums, if you cannot then it appears no-one cares if your kid is in need of urgent medical attention.

In the other thread, Tikibonbon, you said that you were middle class. This implies to me that it's a case of 'I'm alright, Jack'. Having a bit of money should not preclude you from caring about others less fortunate in your own society.

The scenario in the thread above would never happen in the UK. For that reason, and presumably thousands more of a similar nature, it is far better to have the Welfare State than the system that the US operates.

This totally over-rides any other consideration.


I agree.

However I also agree with busy that those who are able to work but refuse to should get squat.

The number of times one hears, or reads in a newspaper "Why should I go out and work, I would get less than on the social" it really galls me.

Particularly when there are chaps who are not fit for work, but still insist on doing anything they can, to fend for themselves and be as little a drain as possible.

However I still say keep the system. I would rather feed the parasites than let the truly needy down. Just be more robust on identifying the parasites.

[Busyman]

Particularly when there are chaps who are not fit for work, but still insist on doing anything they can, to fend for themselves and be as little a drain as possible.

However I still say keep the system. I would rather feed the parasites than let the truly needy down. Just be more robust on identifying the parasites.
:01:

[vidcc]

I would also like to address what I think is a slight "myth" that welfare states take more tax than the USA. I am not saying that all are identical, but instead putting a theory.

Firstly a lot depends on where one lives in the USA as to what type of tax one pays and the amount, so please no individual "but I don't have to pay this or that"
Income tax, property tax (however it is manifested) etc is pretty close, so I will concentrate on gas/petrol tax as it "appears" to be heavily taxed in the UK.

But this may just be an accounting illusion. The UK charges a lot in tax but they don't sell as much, so I bet that as a total tax take the US pays just as much in actual fuel tax per capita or at least close to the amount. This is possible because of our love of gas guzzlers the size of the country meaning we have to drive greater distances and our love of driving in general. If we all drove less and had fuel efficient cars it may be that fuel tax has to rise in proportion to meet the financial needs.
Just a theory

[JPaul]

The National Health Service if funded by National Insurance contributions, as far as I can remember.

[JPaul]

But this may just be an accounting illusion. The UK charges a lot in tax but they don't sell as much, so I bet that as a total tax take the US pays just as much in actual fuel tax per capita or at least close to the amount. This is possible because of our love of gas guzzlers the size of the country meaning we have to drive greater distances and our love of driving in general. If we all drove less and had fuel efficient cars it may be that fuel tax has to rise in proportion to meet the financial needs.
Just a theory

That doesn't make sense to me.

Top of the head figures here but say our duty and taxes are four times your's, but our cars are three times more economic (which I doubt) then our tax is still relativelty higher.

The actual miles driving shouldn't really matter that much on a pro rata comparison. In fact longer journeys would tend to up the efficiency.

[vidcc]

The National Health Service if funded by National Insurance contributions, as far as I can remember.
Yes it is but can you state that no other money raised from other sources goes to it?
The thread is titled "Believing In A Minimalist Government" which is why I have been talking tax take as well as healthcare.

[vidcc]

[QUOTE=vidcc]


That doesn't make sense to me.

Top of the head figures here but say our duty and taxes are four times your's, but our cars are three times more economic (which I doubt) then our tax is still relativelty higher.

The actual miles driving shouldn't really matter that much on a pro rata comparison. In fact longer journeys would tend to up the efficiency.

The efficiency is upped but Journey distances are generally far greater in the US than the UK and here people drive more. I don't know if you have been to the USA but it really is vast.

It works on the same theory that a hypermarket makes more profit selling stuff cheaper because of the amount it sells than a smaller store that sells the same stuff 25% more expensive but doesn't sell as much quantity.

[JPaul]

The National Health Service if funded by National Insurance contributions, as far as I can remember.
Yes it is but can you state that no other money raised from other sources goes to it?

That's a bit passive aggresive, old bean.

I am told that it is funded from National Insurance contributions, I posted as such. If you find this in some way offensive then you have my apologies.

I cannot state categorically that it is not bolstered by funds from elsewhere, but then neither do I really care if it is.

PS There is little that you, or anyone else, can state without doubt. We just take some things on trust. I believe China exists, but have never been. I just take it on trust.

[vidcc]

Yes it is but can you state that no other money raised from other sources goes to it?

That's a bit passive aggresive, old bean.

I am told that it is funded from National Insurance contributions, I posted as such. If you find this in some way offensive then you have my apologies.


why would I find it offensive? I merely pointed out that I believe you are not entirely correct. I believe it is indeed "bolstered" buy other means.



dial 911 .... there are reports of a missing "s"

[GepperRankins]

national insurance is just a tag. we pay 50% or 30% tax. contribution doesn't mean voluntery so i just think of it as a tag. maybe more than 10% of ones income goes to the NHS, maybe less.
really all the money gets tipped into the government purse then shared out.


also doesn't having more roads = more maintenance?



there's a situation in the UK now where they're planning to put congestion charges on trains. i always thought one major reason we paid so much road tax and fuel duty was to fund (subsidise?) public transport. shouldn't they spend that money on longer trains rather than force them off/charge people more?

hmm, maybe i should have started a new topic

[JPaul]

That's a bit passive aggresive, old bean.

I am told that it is funded from National Insurance contributions, I posted as such. If you find this in some way offensive then you have my apologies.


why would I find it offensive? I merely pointed out that I believe you are not entirely correct. I believe it is indeed "bolstered" buy other means.



dial 911 .... there are reports of a missing "s"
Just by your reaction to what was the most bland of bland posts I could muster. Which even had an "as far as I can remember" in it.

"The National Health Service if funded by National Insurance contributions, as far as I can remember."

Rather than a simple, "I believe that the NHS may be funded from elsewhere in addition to NI contributions" or similar.

You went for

" Yes it is but can you state that no other money raised from other sources goes to it?"

Which is rather more interrogatory.

No big deal tho'.

[vidcc]

there's a situation in the UK now where they're planning to put congestion charges on trains. i always thought one major reason we paid so much road tax and fuel duty was to fund (subsidise?) public transport. shouldn't they spend that money on longer trains rather than force them off/charge people more?

hmm, maybe i should have started a new topic

On trains?????????????

I thought the congestion charge in cities was to get people onto trains :blink:

[lynx]

there's a situation in the UK now where they're planning to put congestion charges on trains. i always thought one major reason we paid so much road tax and fuel duty was to fund (subsidise?) public transport. shouldn't they spend that money on longer trains rather than force them off/charge people more?

hmm, maybe i should have started a new topic

On trains?????????????

I thought the congestion charge in cities was to get people onto trains :blink:You better believe it.

Now the train companies are saying they won't be able to cope, so they will have to put in some sort of congestion charge too.

Just an excuse for a price hike really.

[GepperRankins]

i don't really think it's a case of "how much do we need" as "how much will these suckas pay"


does stelios whatsisname do trains? he should, show those barstewards up :fist:

[vidcc]

so is it the private companies or government doing the train charge?

[GepperRankins]

i don't really know enough about it. i know the train companies are private, and i think they might even be subsidised by the government. i think this thing about congestion charging is private companies approaching the government or something along those lines :unsure:


just make longer trains i say, but i'm not incompetent or greedy :fist:

[Rat Faced]

JPaul,

believe it or not.. out of the 7.25% GDP spent on Health in this country in 2000 (according to National Audit Office)...

5.25% was through Taxation

0.5% was through Social Insurance (NI)

0.25% was through Private Insurance

1% was through out of pocket patient expenses

0.25% was through "Other Private Payments" (I assume that this is when you go private but dont have insurance and pay cash)


These figures are approximate, as i've translated them by eye from a bar chart in this (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/Int_Health_Comp.pdf) document.


This comparison shows that the USA pays more from Government, per head of population, to cover 33% of the population than we do to cover everyone.

The "benefits" i cant see... we have more hospital beds per 1000 population and the length of stay in hospital for acute illness is longer, hence our life expectancy is longer.

Out of the 10 countries compared, and the UK was not the best by far... The USA appears to have the highest child mortality and the least life expectancy.



I've said it before and i'll say it again... the only thing wrong with the US system is the backhanders to politicians from the drug companies and other medical institutions to ensure they make big profits.

As i said before, the government money per head spent is higher in USA..and they spend the same amount in Private Insurance which means they have almost double the amount per head of funding... for what?

They are getting ripped off.

This is even more relevant when you look at the cost of Private insurance here and there... its twice as expensive for similar cover in the USA on average.

[Busyman]

JPaul,

believe it or not.. out of the 7.25% GDP spent on Health in this country in 2000 (according to National Audit Office)...

5.25% was through Taxation

0.5% was through Social Insurance (NI)

0.25% was through Private Insurance

1% was through out of pocket patient expenses

0.25% was through "Other Private Payments" (I assume that this is when you go private but dont have insurance and pay cash)


These figures are approximate, as i've translated them by eye from a bar chart in this (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/Int_Health_Comp.pdf) document.


This comparison shows that the USA pays more from Government, per head of population, to cover 33% of the population than we do to cover everyone.

The "benefits" i cant see... we have more hospital beds per 1000 population and the length of stay in hospital for acute illness is longer, hence our life expectancy is longer.

Out of the 10 countries compared, and the UK was not the best by far... The USA appears to have the highest child mortality and the least life expectancy.



I've said it before and i'll say it again... the only thing wrong with the US system is the backhanders to politicians from the drug companies and other medical institutions to ensure they make big profits.

As i said before, the government money per head spent is higher in USA..and they spend the same amount in Private Insurance which means they have almost double the amount per head of funding... for what?

They are getting ripped off.

This is even more relevant when you look at the cost of Private insurance here and there... its twice as expensive for similar cover in the USA on average.
There are many ways of getting ripped off. America has (as most do) government bloat but...


LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Details of the British royal family's travel budget -- including a £300,000 ($550,000) trip by Prince Charles -- have been revealed, prompting critics to demand the monarchy trim its spending.

Buckingham Palace said Wednesday that the figures, which showed the royal family cost each taxpayer just 61 pence ($1.12) a year, proved Queen Elizabeth and her household were providing good value for money.

But critics seized on details of the £5 million transport costs.

The most expensive was a trip to Sri Lanka, Australia and Fiji by heir-to-the-throne Charles which involved chartering a plane costing more than £292,000.

It also showed the queen's second son Andrew, who was criticized last year for expenses incurred on his golf trips, spent £125,000 chartering a flight to the Far East to promote British interests.

Lawmaker Ian Davidson, a member of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party, said the monarchy provided "reasonable value" but called the expenditure of the junior members of the royal family "indefensible".

He also described the royal train, used just 19 times over the year, as "a gross extravagance".

"We ought to have more of the royals using normal trains then perhaps they would put pressure on the powers that be to make sure the train service was improved for everyone," he told the BBC.

The death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997 marked a turning point in public opinion and led to attacks on the monarchy's wealth and demands that it become more open and accountable.

Shortly afterwards, the queen agreed to scrap her beloved royal yacht Britannia rather than ask the public to pay £60 million for a replacement.

The Royal Public Finances annual report said the queen's family cost the taxpayer £36.7 million in 2004-5, a £100,000 saving from the previous year, with the vast bulk of the money going towards the upkeep of the royal palaces.

It was also 60 percent less than in 1991-2 when the expenditure amounted to £87.3 million.

"We believe this represents a value-for-money monarchy," said Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, who looks after the queen's finances.

"We're not looking to provide the cheapest monarchy. We're looking at one of good value and good quality."

You guys pay for upkeep of the Royal Family? :blink:
Why? Parliament already gets paid and they are your legislature, right?

[MCHeshPants420]

You guys pay for upkeep of the Royal Family? :blink:
Why? Parliament already gets paid and they are your legislature, right?

Apparently they are good as a tourist attraction, so we get our moneys worth out of them. Only £36.7 million? I thought it would have been much more.

[Busyman]

You guys pay for upkeep of the Royal Family? :blink:
Why? Parliament already gets paid and they are your legislature, right?

Apparently they are good as a tourist attraction, so we get our moneys worth out of them. Only £36.7 million? I thought it would have been much more.
I can understand the assets just not the people.

$67.1 million in the last financial year. :ohmy:

[MCHeshPants420]

Apparently they are good as a tourist attraction, so we get our moneys worth out of them. Only £36.7 million? I thought it would have been much more.
I can understand the assets just not the people.

$67.1 million in the last financial year. :ohmy:

It does look like their free-loading days are coming to an end if you see the drop in what they got over 10 years ago.

Personally I think we should sack the lot of them and get impersonators to do the job for minimum wage.

[vidcc]

Apparently they are good as a tourist attraction, so we get our moneys worth out of them. Only £36.7 million? I thought it would have been much more.
I can understand the assets just not the people.

$67.1 million in the last financial year. :ohmy:

the money you talk of is spent on official duties as well as for official (supposedly heritage and owned by the country) assets.


Under the Civil List Acts, The Duke of Edinburgh receives an annual parliamentary allowance to enable him to carry out public duties. Since 1993, The Queen has repaid to the Treasury the annual parliamentary allowances received by other members of the Royal Family.

In 2000 the annual amounts payable to members of the Royal Family (which are set every ten years) were reset at their 1990 levels for the next ten years, until December 2010. Apart from an increase of £45,000 on the occasion of The Earl of Wessex's marriage, these amounts remain as follows:

Parliamentary annuity (not repaid by The Queen)
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh £359,000

Parliamentary annuities (repaid by The Queen)
HRH The Duke of York £249,000
HRH The Earl of Wessex £141,000
HRH The Princess Royal £228,000
TRH The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, TRH The Duke
and Duchess of Kent and HRH Princess Alexandra
*£636,000

* Of the £636,000, £175,000 is provided by The Queen to The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, £236,000 to The Duke and Duchess of Kent and £225,000 to Princess Alexandra.

As with the Civil List itself, most of these sums are spent on staff who support public engagements and correspondence.

source (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page318.asp)

the money isn't just handed out as a freebie, it is to perform duties and pay for employment of those that support those duties..... It does not go to the royal family pockets

Our president (one man) probably costs us more in one year in personal flights/security when he heads to his Crawford ranch than the entire household bill of all the UK royal family costs for official duties.

[Rat Faced]

Busy, their official travel is organised and paid by the Government; their private travel is organised and paid by themselves (well, their aids).

To compare:

Whitehouse Spending = Royals

Senate Spending = House of Lords

Congress = House of Commons.


You'll find that the Whitehouse wastes a lot more than the palace does.. however neither Government will say any of its a waste, as they are "Entertaining" other Heads of State, or being "Embassadors" etc etc etc

[JPaul]

I still want rid of the Royal family, but not for financial reasons.

It is because I believe that a Republic is a better thing than a Monarchy.

For the reasons I have stated before.

[GepperRankins]

we don't really have an active monarchy. let them attract tourists i say :snooty:

[JPaul]

we don't really have an active monarchy. let them attract tourists i say :snooty:
Whether they are active or not isn't really my point.

You and I are subjects of Her Majesty as head of State. We should be citizens of our own country.

She gives permission for a Parliament to be formed, by the people who we elected to do it.

It is an anachronism.

I also consider the tourist attraction argument to be specious. I believe the bulk of tourists come to see the buildings, the museums, the art work, the pomp and ceremony. All of which could still exist without them.

[DanB]

I've lived in one of Her Majesty's Palaces, two in fact

[Rat Faced]

The palace bars are to keep people out not in; must have been some other establishment :ph34r:

[JPaul]

I've lived in one of Her Majesty's Palaces, two in fact
Good use of the PA (and omission of), not bad for a 3 squares a day and pish in a pail chap.

[Busyman]

the money isn't just handed out as a freebie, it is to perform duties and pay for employment of those that support those duties..... It does not go to the royal family pockets

Our president (one man) probably costs us more in one year in personal flights/security when he heads to his Crawford ranch than the entire household bill of all the UK royal family costs for official duties.

Busy, their official travel is organised and paid by the Government; their private travel is organised and paid by themselves (well, their aids).

To compare:

Whitehouse Spending = Royals

Senate Spending = House of Lords

Congress = House of Commons.


You'll find that the Whitehouse wastes a lot more than the palace does.. however neither Government will say any of its a waste, as they are "Entertaining" other Heads of State, or being "Embassadors" etc etc etc
Jeez guys I'm not attacking your monarchy or nothin'. :dry:

I was asking valid questions..You gotta keep readin'. Jeez.


There are many ways of getting ripped off. America has (as most do) government bloat but...
You guys pay for upkeep of the Royal Family? :blink:
Why? Parliament already gets paid and they are your legislature, right?
Isn't your monarchy outdated?

[JPaul]

Isn't your monarchy outdated?
You know, I think you may just have something there.

[Rat Faced]

:lol: :lol:

I didnt take it as an attack mate..

The truth is both Governments, including the Heads of States waste millions..

One of the best examples is Portculus House, an Office Block that was built way over budget for our MP's to work in..

One of the things they have is a huge Lobby with large plants within to add character and look good for visitors. This is fair enough; except they LEASED the plants for 5 years paying £100,000's. The same plants could have been bought at a Garden Centre for about £15 each.

I'm sure you wouldnt have to look far for similar examples in your own Government....

"Budgets" are only for the actual workers :angry:

[JPaul]

I suspect a Govt building may actually be called Portcullis House, given that the Portcullis is a sort of governmental symbol in the UK.

But that's just me being picky.

[Busyman]

:lol: :lol:

I didnt take it as an attack mate..

The truth is both Governments, including the Heads of States waste millions..

I'm sure you wouldnt have to look far for similar examples in your own Government....

"Budgets" are only for the actual workers :angry:
I have already pointed out that my government (among others) is wasteful (that's been known for years.....$300 screwdrivers (yes I know it's cover-up)).

However, the topic was your government and tbh from what I see it's really government figureheadershipness.

Your government has changed yet your monarchy makes no real decisions (from what I understand) yet gets paid for............

It seems like the real government keeps the old structures fixed up as historical monuments and the monarchy are included as old structures.