EMA/ALG how the hell do you get out of this? :l

[-:Undertaker:-]

I love how people instantly think that people getting EMA are spending their money, even though my mum works and pays tax too.

I can imagine my mum works a lot harder than most parents, considering she does a lot of unpaid overtime.

As for getting a job, you must really not watch or read the news.

The difference is that in order to 'organise' EMA and benefits in general, lets take EMA; in order to 'give you' your own money back that your mum already paid in overly high taxes, the government will take say £50 from your mum in tax, spend £20 on the EMA service itself (staff, the organisation) and then give you back £30 and it then makes you think that you are getting something when in reality you are your mother are loosing out as are the rest of us. It will also apply (still) when you are out of education, your mother will still be paying for EMA when you do not recieve it - so again she is losing out.

As for jobs going, it depends where you live I guess - in Liverpool shop jobs are plentiful.

Totally agree. Most people complaining or their families have had the benefit of a free national health service, a free education and been paid child benefit at the least. This is all paid with other people's money. Somehow, they seem to forget that.

Infact it is usually paid for with their own money, the poor/lower classes are often condemmed to remain poor under socialist-style welfare as they are always trapped and saddled with high taxes in order to provide for the underclass (as in those who are workshy, often with criminal convictions) along with themselves. If the poorest only had to pay for themselves (and weren't taxed in the first place), it would mean they would have more money to spend and thus better themselves rather than be forced to live on knifes edge concerning high taxation funding a compulsory large state.

I have explained in the past how the NHS for example put the poor at a disadvantage and still does; before the NHS the poor recieved free healthcare and the rich had to pay, when the NHS came in the poor then had to contribute in higher taxes for something they previously had free from charitable sources along with having to pay for the healthcare of the rich aswell as the rich were now entitled to free healthcare, thus burdening them. That is not to mention the fact that doctors wages were 'bribed' (forget the name at the moment, but the man who brought the NHS about actually admitted this) in order to work for the NHS - and thus who pays in the end? the taxpayer, of which the vast majority are not rich.

Often these things just need a look into, and they crumble before you.

[Technologic]

The difference is that in order to 'organise' EMA and benefits in general, lets take EMA; in order to 'give you' your own money back that your mum already paid in overly high taxes, the government will take say £50 from your mum in tax, spend £20 on the EMA service itself (staff, the organisation) and then give you back £30 and it then makes you think that you are getting something when in reality you are your mother are loosing out as are the rest of us. It will also apply (still) when you are out of education, your mother will still be paying for EMA when you do not recieve it - so again she is losing out.

As for jobs going, it depends where you live I guess - in Liverpool shop jobs are plentiful.



Infact it is usually paid for with their own money, the poor/lower classes are often condemmed to remain poor under socialist-style welfare as they are always trapped and saddled with high taxes in order to provide for the underclass (as in those who are workshy, often with criminal convictions) along with themselves. If the poorest only had to pay for themselves (and weren't taxed in the first place), it would mean they would have more money to spend and thus better themselves rather than be forced to live on knifes edge concerning high taxation funding a compulsory large state.

I have explained in the past how the NHS for example put the poor at a disadvantage and still does; before the NHS the poor recieved free healthcare and the rich had to pay, when the NHS came in the poor then had to contribute in higher taxes for something they previously had free from charitable sources along with having to pay for the healthcare of the rich aswell as the rich were now entitled to free healthcare, thus burdening them. That is not to mention the fact that doctors wages were 'bribed' (forget the name at the moment, but the man who brought the NHS about actually admitted this) in order to work for the NHS - and thus who pays in the end? the taxpayer, of which the vast majority are not rich.

Often these things just need a look into, and they crumble before you.

Your depiction of the NHS makes me laugh

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your depiction of the NHS makes me laugh

I'm only giving you historical facts, not the marxist dribble you've been fed via conventional few which paints some sort of picture that pre-1945 was full of poor people sitting on grimey steps in bombed out houses, dying due to lack of healthcare. I will repeat; before the NHS taxation did not go to healthcare as the health service was provided by private and charitable trusts where the poor recieved free healthcare and the wealthy had to pay for their healthcare.

When the NHS was created, in order to pay for this (both the rich and poor now recieved healthcare free of charge) taxes increased across the board, and like it or not there were not and never will be enough rich people to pay for the kind of welfare state that was setup which included the NHS - if you want a NHS and a welfare state then you have to tax the poor, there isn't any other way you can raise enough revenue to run the thing.

I know you don't like what i'm telling you and the facts i'm giving you as it shatters the conventional thought you've been fed and which you have believed for so long, but I will now finish with the quote from Nye Bevan the man behind the creation of the NHS;

"I stuffed their mouths with gold." - Around 1948, Nye Bevan engineered a notorious "bribe" to win the support of hospital consultants. The father of the NHS made his famous declaration after he brokered a deal in which consultants were paid handsomely for their NHS work while allowing them to maintain private practices.

And who paid for this gold? (bribe) - the taxpayer did, bare in mind that the lowest paid make up the vast majority of the taxpayer. So again what is the lesson learnt? that nothing is 'free' that government provides for you, infact government only serves to give you back less whether its concerning healthcare, welfare or EMA.

[alexxxxx]

Dan a lot of UKIP policies sound like they would work well in theory. In fact they would work well if competition and big business did not exist. But the problem is that their ideology believes that somehow private companies' management is somehow better than government management. This is simply not the case as true competition only exists in certain markets - health is definitely not one of them. Look at US healthcare - it is not any better than UK healthcare yet is much more expensive. Can you imagine what would happen if we reverted to a US-style healthcare system? US health giants (or maybe european companies) would come in and we'd all end up paying more. This is true with almost all of UKIP's policies, they have a hatred of regulation and would prefer a more market-driven economy, yet without regulation big companies are allowed to drain your pockets without any sort of accountability and without any sort of competition.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan a lot of UKIP policies sound like they would work well in theory. In fact they would work well if competition and big business did not exist. But the problem is that their ideology believes that somehow private companies' management is somehow better than government management. This is simply not the case as true competition only exists in certain markets - health is definitely not one of them. Look at US healthcare - it is not any better than UK healthcare yet is much more expensive. Can you imagine what would happen if we reverted to a US-style healthcare system? US health giants (or maybe european companies) would come in and we'd all end up paying more. This is true with almost all of UKIP's policies, they have a hatred of regulation and would prefer a more market-driven economy, yet without regulation big companies are allowed to drain your pockets without any sort of accountability and without any sort of competition.

But theory is reality, the western world is being overtaken by the East because we are now so uncompetitive due to regulation and high taxation.

The NHS is the exact same, its a government monopoly that is also at the mercy of big business which drives up costs not only because government is inefficent and cannot run things in general, but because of the monopoly the NHS is forced to pay higher prices for drugs from drug companies than they would do in a market economy. The problem with the US system is the fact that the US government is too heavily involved in terms of regulation. Before masses of regulation and red tape (the old British system, similary the old American system) the free market worked perfectly well but it is only since regulation that the western world has suffered decline and soaring costs such as in healthcare itself - we have in the west reached a point where you now have some sectors so heavily regulated (healthcare being a prime example) that they are public sector in all but name.

UKIP don't currently have as policy the breakup of the NHS, but Farage hinted at a more Ron Paul/libertarian approach in the policy review coming in 2011 when he spoke the other day at the IEA. I do however think the NHS could be run by the state if the right people got in, but again - its state run and usually ends in soaring costs and badly run management.

Regulation only serves to help big business/corporations, look at the lobbying that goes on in the U.S./Westminister and Brussels.

[Technologic]

But theory is reality, the western world is being overtaken by the East because we are now so uncompetitive due to regulation and high taxation.

The NHS is the exact same, its a government monopoly that is also at the mercy of big business which drives up costs not only because government is inefficent and cannot run things in general, but because of the monopoly the NHS is forced to pay higher prices for drugs from drug companies than they would do in a market economy. The problem with the US system is the fact that the US government is too heavily involved in terms of regulation. Before masses of regulation and red tape (the old British system, similary the old American system) the free market worked perfectly well but it is only since regulation that the western world has suffered decline and soaring costs such as in healthcare itself - we have in the west reached a point where you now have some sectors so heavily regulated (healthcare being a prime example) that they are public sector in all but name.

UKIP don't currently have as policy the breakup of the NHS, but Farage hinted at a more Ron Paul/libertarian approach in the policy review coming in 2011 when he spoke the other day at the IEA. I do however think the NHS could be run by the state if the right people got in, but again - its state run and usually ends in soaring costs and badly run management.

Regulation only serves to help big business/corporations, look at the lobbying that goes on in the U.S./Westminister and Brussels.

Have you ever spent time in an NHS hospital? I have several family members who work within the NHS at various levels as well as many family friends doing the same thing, i spend a lot of time doing work experience in hospitals and surgeries and what you are saying is absolute bull.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Have you ever spent time in an NHS hospital? I have several family members who work within the NHS at various levels as well as many family friends doing the same thing, i spend a lot of time doing work experience in hospitals and surgeries and what you are saying is absolute bull.

What has being in a NHS hospital got to do with how the NHS was created, and the cost of the NHS?

Please explain that to me because i'm giving you historical facts and economic facts and you are simply dismissing them.

That reminds me and i'll just add it in, a prime example (the PFI) of why government is incapable of running healthcare;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1991037.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ill-repayments

[alexxxxx]

you see dan. you have just explained WHY UKIP policies won't work in this situation. Or even a libertarian stance. What do you plan on doing, breaking up multinational pharmaceutical giants? The reason why they exist is because it is impossible for a medium-sized company to make drugs. The costs of making a drug (which has a LARGE chance of failing or being unsafe) runs in billions of dollars. Medium sized companies do not have the capital to take these risks - they require large organisations (which can make cost reductions in many many areas). Breaking them up (which is regulation!) would only mean that certain drugs are never made due to risks and drug development is stifled. It is unlikely that the drug industry could be broken up that competition would ever exist. It is a classic oligopoly. The NHS is a monopsony which counteracts this (to an extent). Both large organisations have management inefficiencies, but that is the same in every large organisation. In THEORY, less regulation would make it would work, but in REALITY in THIS and CERTAIN OTHER situations the idea that deregulation and privatisation would improve matters is just wrong.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you see dan. you have just explained WHY UKIP policies won't work in this situation. Or even a libertarian stance. What do you plan on doing, breaking up multinational pharmaceutical giants? The reason why they exist is because it is impossible for a medium-sized company to make drugs. The costs of making a drug (which has a LARGE chance of failing or being unsafe) runs in billions of dollars. Medium sized companies do not have the capital to take these risks - they require large organisations (which can make cost reductions in many many areas). Breaking them up (which is regulation!) would only mean that certain drugs are never made due to risks and drug development is stifled. It is unlikely that the drug industry could be broken up that competition would ever exist. It is a classic oligopoly. The NHS is a monopsony which counteracts this (to an extent). Both large organisations have management inefficiencies, but that is the same in every large organisation. In THEORY, less regulation would make it would work, but in REALITY in THIS and CERTAIN OTHER situations the idea that deregulation and privatisation would improve matters is just wrong.

The reason why these giants exist is exactly because we have too much state interference in healthcare, the NHS for example holds the monopoly - the corporations cuddle upto the government (or get into bed with them) and thus you end up with one corporation which is out to make money ripping off the state monopoly and because there's no competition in either sectors, there is no room for anybody to get a slice of the action - its all set in concrete between the two of them as it suits them well.

As for competition, history shows us that competition usually advances variety rather than slimming it down (look at the U.S. economy during the Cold War to the Soviet economy, the U.S. probably had hundreds even thousands of ranges of tins of beans yet the Soviets only had a few if not one). Just look at it, the NHS is a gigantic expensive monpoly that is at the mercy of the large drug companies - the same applies to the U.S. system, these things just aren't affordable.

When corporations and government get into bed together you get fascism.

[alexxxxx]

The reason why these giants exist is exactly because we have too much state interference in healthcare, the NHS for example holds the monopoly - the corporations cuddle upto the government (or get into bed with them) and thus you end up with one corporation which is out to make money ripping off the state monopoly and because there's no competition in either sectors, there is no room for anybody to get a slice of the action - its all set in concrete between the two of them as it suits them well.

Look at the USA then! You have massive healthcare giants, massive hospital giants (which some insurance companies require you to have treatment at those particular hospitals) and big drug companies which again charge the earth to the insurance companies. Regulation is/was sparse! For reasons explained before the optimum size of companies in the health sector is massive, yet the market is, in comparison, small. Do you think the government should have a say in whether or not companies can merge?

As for competition, history shows us that competition usually advances variety rather than slimming it down (look at the U.S. economy during the Cold War to the Soviet economy, the U.S. probably had hundreds even thousands of ranges of tins of beans yet the Soviets only had a few if not one). Just look at it, the NHS is a gigantic expensive monpoly that is at the mercy of the large drug companies - the same applies to the U.S. system, these things just aren't affordable.

When corporations and government get into bed together you get fascism.

So you expect that de-regulation will somehow stop this!? In 'The East' (in particular hong kong) companies are more 'in bed' with the governement. In HK, companies are actually represented in government! Mr Murdoch went rent to mr cameron's for dinner one night and soon after it was announced that The Sun would officially support the tories and the conservatives would reel in the powers of OFCOM, which were in collision with BSkyB (part owned by Mr Murdoch's News Corp). Who's to say if we had UKIP who would likely rip up a lot of regulation allowing companies to own and run EVERYTHING preventing any sort of competition. UKIP's theories work in theory, but not in practice. They are way too ideological.