From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Private Health (was Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking)
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:54:02 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <29180@castle.ed.ac.uk>, fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> 
> It's important to note here that for most people, Thatcher increased the
> government tax take while she did all this. That's not exactly the same
> as giving folks their money back and allowing them to opt-in.
> 
If I understand you right you are suggesting that the best-off will willingly
give up money to charity to pay for health care for the worst off. Thatcher
suggested that because she had reduced taxation for the best-off (which I don't
think you will deny) they could now afford to donate money to charity for the
causes I listed. The fact that they didn't suggests to me that you have a naive
belief that a lot of people agree with you and with me that if we had the
choice we would give up a lot of money (we're talking thousands each a year)
for those who can't afford it.
  
> And if charities were allowed to take over the business of government
> welfare, what makes you think that they couldn't do as well, or better
> than government. Nothing in your argument has indicated that they
> couldn't reasonably be expected to achieve this.
> 
I and other people have attacked this elsewhere. Basically speaking charities
are efficient because they are small and rely on volunteers.

> Which is also true at the moment. We just have the government running
> the charity system currently.
> 
It is not a charity system. By your implied definition, charities rely on
donations. Governments don't rely on donations (which are voluntary by
definition). So the NHS is not a charity.

> There are people who believe that there should be no government and
> people themselves will organise to protect themselves from criminals.
> I'm not, as I've said before, one of them. I think that in order to have
> an advanced economy, people have to be able to know that they'll keep
> whatever goods they work for. If they can't be sure of that, they won't
> work for them. That means that people's property (and their lives are
> included here as belonging to them) have to be protected. Call it the
> cost of having an advanced economy (and an advanced standard of living).
> 
But in order to protect people's goods we need a police force. And in order to
have a police force we need taxation. Or is the police going to be a charity
too? We will not arrest you if you give us a donation?

> 
> With private roads, I think you'll find that speed limits are imposed by
> the owners for the benefit of their customers. I guess we'll soon find out.
> 
Who has the right to impose speed limits on those who are not customers? Where
does the person go who wants to assert his right of not paying for road travel?

>>You need to engage your brain before you post such a blatantly flawed
>>suggestion again!
> 
> Am I just being sensitive or are my opponents here starting to resort to
> insult rather than debate?
> 
> We've had "stupid", "selfish", "greedy" and now "disengaged brain" and
> "blatantly flawed". 
> 
`Blatantly flawed' is not an insult: it is an analysis of your argument.
`Disengaged brain' suggests that I don't think you are thinking seriously about
the consequences of your views, but are putting them forward as blindly as a
Thatcher or a Hargreaves. None of the others is due to me. Certainly you do not
appear selfish or greedy. 
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: uk.misc