The Welfare State - Good, Bad or don't really care?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not everyone who wants a gastric band gets one free on the NHS. They have to be assessed first.

As for the welfare state, can't believe people are asking these questions in the 21st Century. Of course it's good that we are helping the disadvantaged in society. The problem only occurs when people abuse that trust.

I also think it'll be career suicide for any politician who tries to get rid of it completely.

Concerning the NHS, before the NHS the poor were treated for free anyway but the rich had to pay. The only change the NHS brought about was to make health care monopolised (meaning more expensive as it is at the mercy of the drug companies), create a giant bureaucracy and gave the rich free treatment. The same applies to the introduction of the grammar schools, but driven by an obession with equality you fail to see that (despite the effects actually being the opposite, the laws of unintended consquences).

[Mathew]

there is a difference between saving and ruthless cutting. the coalition is doing the latter.

Examples of ruthless cutting?
There's been cuts made since the coalition was in power and we seem to be doing fine; so why did the money need to be spent in the first place? Don't tell me you'd rather have Labour in power.. :rolleyes:

Anyone who has a problem that is self-inflicted (obesity through fatty foods, cancer through smoking ect.) should NOT get free health care - that will save millions a year.

You can't track someone and say they've eaten fatty foods and gained cancer through smoking. For a start it can't be proven and in addition, it totally goes against the rest of the "Welfare State's" morals; which is to help and give people equal opportunity.

[Conservative,]

Examples of ruthless cutting?
There's been cuts made since the coalition was in power and we seem to be doing fine; so why did the money need to be spent in the first place? Don't tell me you'd rather have Labour in power.. :rolleyes:


You can't track someone and say they've eaten fatty foods and gained cancer through smoking. For a start it can't be proven and in addition, it totally goes against the rest of the "Welfare State's" morals; which is to help and give people equal opportunity.

You can tell whether it's genetic or not though, and you can ask them whether they smoke. Really it's down to common sense. If people have inherited some sort of genetic deformity so that they're fat - then obviously let them have treatment - it is through no fault of their own. But if they have stuffed their face with McDonalds 3 times a day since they were 10 then no - I'm against them having treatment. I don't really care about equality if people think they can take advantage of the system - ruin their health then get it all patched up because it's free?

Same with cancer, if someone has cancer through inheritance or just through unluckiness - give them treatment. Someone who smokes and has lung cancer or something which is related to smoking - don't give them treatment. Tough luck if the cancer is not caused by smoking - it will discourage smokers if they don't get free health care when they clog up their arteries and get cancer.

So in summary:

If it is YOU that has made yourself ill ie; cancer through smoking - of course you shouldn't get free health care? That's like a rapist saying they should get compensation for getting an STI. It was their choice, they didn't have to do it, but they did and they suffered the consequences.

However if you are born with the disease/genetic deformity then you SHOULD get treatment - because you did not chose to be that way.

[Inseriousity.]

Concerning the NHS, before the NHS the poor were treated for free anyway but the rich had to pay. The only change the NHS brought about was to make health care monopolised (meaning more expensive as it is at the mercy of the drug companies), create a giant bureaucracy and gave the rich free treatment. The same applies to the introduction of the grammar schools, but driven by an obession with equality you fail to see that (despite the effects actually being the opposite, the laws of unintended consquences).

Firstly, I'm not driven by an obsession with equality. I am aware we're in a capitalist society. You seem to think I'm some sort of Marxist who'd love communism in place as soon as possible but I don't think Marx was completely right. Marx refers to history in that people were generally living in communist societies (much like tribes do now) and would love us to all just have a revolution and go back to that however what he fails to notice is how much society has evolved and developed. Society is just too complex now and that's why I think communism attempts have failed.

However, to say that rich paid, poor got free from charities is a very simplistic statement. If only in practice, that worked. It is much simpler to go into a hospital waiting room and wait that everyone pays for than queue up for hours on end waiting for a charity (often Church led - which would probably cause a lot of social problems nowadays too. Would they treat homosexuals as an example? A fundamentalist church might not, the same way they refused to give children to homosexual wannabe-parents) service. I do believe in America there are 'dentist tents' where the poor are offered a free checkup in a tent but they get hundreds of people queueing up that they have to turn people away. They can't keep up with demand. I think if we went back to this system, we'd have many poor people just ignoring symptoms of ill-health and dealing through the pain. This happens already so to make it worse by removing free healthcare is barbaric and draconian imo.

PS. I am so glad you're not chancellor Robbie. As Mathew said, good luck trying to prove someone got cancer because of smoking.

[Conservative,]

PS. I am so glad you're not chancellor Robbie. As Mathew said, good luck trying to prove someone got cancer because of smoking.

The whole point would be if they smoked they gave up their free health care for any POSSIBLE smoking related disease. If it was a leg tumour nothing to do with it - of course they'd get free treatment. However if it was lung cancer directly caused by smoking - they wouldn't get it free and even if they tried to prove it wasn't caused by smoking - they gave up the free health care when they picked up their first cigarette.

[Inseriousity.]

The whole point would be if they smoked they gave up their free health care for any POSSIBLE smoking related disease. If it was a leg tumour nothing to do with it - of course they'd get free treatment. However if it was lung cancer directly caused by smoking - they wouldn't get it free and even if they tried to prove it wasn't caused by smoking - they gave up the free health care when they picked up their first cigarette.

So would they still have to pay the part of the tax to health even if they weren't entitled to it? And if yes, why should they pay for something they don't get back? And if no, I wonder how many poor people would start smoking just to save money?

If someone quit smoking THEN got lung cancer, would they get the healthcare? If yes, how come? It was due to the smoking! You can't prove otherwise! If no, but why not? They quit! They went through all that effort to quit so they could be entitled to free healthcare!

Say in the future, there's a new scientific paradigm shift and it turns out that actually smoking is proved to not directly cause lung cancer. What would you do then? How would you compensate all those lives lost because of you? And trust me, they'd sue your backside so hard that the courts will be your second home.

And finally...
If someone got cancer because of smoking, would you watch them die?
If someone you knew got cancer because of smoking, would you want to watch them die in pain?

Honestly, you have no idea of the practicalities of these messed-up ideas you're proposing.

[Conservative,]

Lol I know there are complications but there are if any proposal.

Both my remaining grandparents smoke and if one of them got cancer I would of course be upset but I'd also say I told you so but if Cameron were to implement my proposal I would stand by him and tell them it's their fault for smoking in the first place. Of course it'd be horrible to watch them die like that but it was their choice in the end.

I won't answer all your questions now because I'm on my iPod and it would be 3am before I'd finished giving the answers so sorry

[Inseriousity.]

Complications? Deaths that could be prevented is a bit more than a "complication".

[karter]

Totally worth the cost , the government works for the people and will have to serve the people.

[Conservative,]

Complications? Deaths that could be prevented is a bit more than a "complication".

Deaths that could be prevented by not smoking in the first place.