NationStates Jolt Archive

Quite simply, do you agree with the Welfare State, that is free health care, Social Security, public schools and all the rest. If you come from a country with similar measures, would you get rid of it, extend it or keep it as it is? If you're from a country without such measures, would you introduce them?

The welfare state is great.

The UK has one and I would extend it.

Welfare states are cool. Too bad that they are working on getting rid of it in Germany.

Quite simply, do you agree with the Welfare State, that is free health care, Social Security, public schools and all the rest. If you come from a country with similar measures, would you get rid of it, extend it or keep it as it is? If you're from a country without such measures, would you introduce them?
I don't think of Canada as a Welfare State, but we do have (mostly) free education, free healthcare, and social security nets that make sure you don't fall in total poverty should you ever lose your job.

I'm a staunch defender of said institutions. I think they should be preserved, and in the cases of education and healthcare, bonified.

Oh, and I corrected all those horrific typing mistakes you made in your first post. Please take your time when you type.

No one actually has a pure welfare state. They are all blends, to some extent or another. Canada has some aspects of a welfare state, but they are being eroded. Some provinces charge user fees for health-care (though there is a point where you can get a subsidy if you are poor), on top of property taxes that fund schools, there are also school fees (which increase year by year...and even being just a few hundred dollars per student can cause real hardship for some families), and more and more our health care is being privatised. Also, the 'welfare state' does NOT make it easy to get 'benefits'. The government has had a huge surplies in Employment Insurance monies over the past decade, not because people don't need it, but because people aren't eligible. This is, of course, deliberate.

I'd like to beef up our social services...but I'd like even more to fix the bureaucracy that causes so much of the financial waste and mismanagement. I think that is the real barrier to making social services effective.

going with your definition of welfare state as healthcare, social security, and public schools, i would have to say its a good thing. we would be worse off as a country without it.

Strongly pro-welfare.

I'm from the UK and I think welfare should be very much extended and a lot of it changed back to how it was before the Tories.

I'd reduce, but not eliminate it. Broad-based social welfare is inefficent, costly, and stifling to economic growth and competition. The government should provide the means to use privately run healthcare/medicines but not the service itself because it simply isn't as good as the private sector. The government should have public schools and Social Security, but social security should be optional; people should have the option of private investment in exchange for paying a tax on that investment to ensure the sustainibility of the program for those wishing to use it.

I'd like to beef up our social services...but I'd like even more to fix the bureaucracy that causes so much of the financial waste and mismanagement. I think that is the real barrier to making social services effective.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind paying such high taxes if all the money went directly in social services, instead of perpetuating a culture of endless(and mostly useless) bureaucracy. Controlling where the money goes is important: but spending more money on controlling where the money than what is spent in actual funding of services is just plain stupid.

The welfare state is preferable to letting the poor starve, but it is not nearly as good as destroying capitalism altogether.

I don't sit well with a welfare state, because it takes too much power from the people and hands it right over to the government.

I am all for helping poor people, I just think there are better ways of doing it than having a huge government that is in control of everyone.

The welfare state is preferable to letting the poor starve, but it is not nearly as good as destroying capitalism altogether.

'If you give food to the poor they'll call you a saint
If you ask why the poor have no food they'll call you a communist'

Quoted from somebodies sig.

I don't sit well with a welfare state, because it takes too much power from the people and hands it right over to the government.

I am all for helping poor people, I just think there are better ways of doing it than having a huge government that is in control of everyone.

The power to starve for lack of food and to die for lack of medicine? Charity is too sporadic to be reliable.

The power to starve for lack of food and to die for lack of medicine? Charity is too sporadic to be reliable.
I believe that everyone can change thier own situation, sometimes they need a little help, but nobody is destined to starve to death. Charity is sporadic because everyone is relying on the government to do something, in my perfect world the role of the government would be a lot different than it is now.

I have seen too many problems with state sponsered health care (people waiting for 3 years for surgery that needs to be done immediatly) and government programs, ( the gov. decides they need more money elsewhere, so they cut funding and people who need help get denied), the public school system here is a joke, there are too many people with too many ulterior motives, money is misused, no matter how much we put in, the result gets worse.

The government has too many other things on it's plate to worry about helping the poor, they have a conflict of interest, private charity doesn't have that problem, thier job is helping people.

The welfare state is preferable to letting the poor starve, but it is not nearly as good as destroying capitalism altogether.
Amen to that.

In a perfect world society (which should, itself, comprise the government) would help provide the basics for everybody, if they need them. By basics, I mean a basic education (I'm not looking for the government to fund higher education on anything other than a merit-basis), basic healthcare (a yearly checkup, necessary medicine, necessary procedures - nothing elective), and basic sustenance (a roof of some sort over everyone's head, enough food to get by, but nothing gourmet here, etc.).

Those who truly could not provide for themselves would be provided for. Those who had hit hard times and needed a little push to get back over the hump would get it. And all children would get healthcare and education.

Now, there are levels to where I think the government should be involved. Anyone should be able to get a public school education. Period. If they choose to pay for a more expensive school, so be it, let them do so. If they choose to go on to higher education and pay for that or compete for merit-based scholarships, let them do so.

Those who can pay for their own healthcare should do so. Those who cannot should have the basics paid for them. Anyone who wants elective procedures should pay for them out of pocket (or get an insurance company willing to cover them).

Those who can work and pay for their own room and board (and that of their children) should do so. If they cannot, they should be provided for until they can. This should include access to job training, resume workshops, and even possibly setting up job interviews. Unless they are physically incapable, anyone not trying to provide for themselves should be cut off from receiving funds to do so after a specified period of time. If they have children, and are not trying to provide for them, they should be charged with neglect and have the children taken away.

I believe that everyone can change thier own situation, sometimes they need a little help, but nobody is destined to starve to death. Charity is sporadic because everyone is relying on the government to do something, in my perfect world the role of the government would be a lot different than it is now.

I have seen too many problems with state sponsered health care (people waiting for 3 years for surgery that needs to be done immediatly) and government programs, ( the gov. decides they need more money elsewhere, so they cut funding and people who need help get denied), the public school system here is a joke, there are too many people with too many ulterior motives, money is misused, no matter how much we put in, the result gets worse.

The government has too many other things on it's plate to worry about helping the poor, they have a conflict of interest, private charity doesn't have that problem, thier job is helping people.

Well over here the NHS is doing pretty well. The major problem is the unhygenic condition of hospitals (which only cropped up after the cleaning was privitised). Even now Blair is trying to force through legislation to make schools partly privitised, allowing any company, church or rich individual with enough spare money to influence the education given to children. I'd also argue that while people in rare cases may have to wait for operations it is better than the situation before the NHS when many people couldn't even afford to see a doctor.

In my ideal society all business would be state owned so nobody would be able to get welfare by claiming they couldn't find a job, everyone would be offered a job. Those incapable of working would be supported by the population as a whole through welfare.

Even now Blair is trying to force through legislation to make schools partly privitised, allowing any company, church or rich individual with enough spare money to influence the education given to children.
which is complete BS and should be immidetly stopped. it's the same as what the tories wanted, the fact is if you vote for any of the two main partys you vote for the tories!

The welfare state is preferable to letting the poor starve, but it is not nearly as good as destroying capitalism altogether.

Communism lost. Get over it and move on.

In my ideal society all business would be state owned so nobody would be able to get welfare by claiming they couldn't find a job, everyone would be offered a job. Those incapable of working would be supported by the population as a whole through welfare.
that's terrifying to me.

Communism lost. Get over it and move on.
Communism never statrted, Stalinism did...

that's terrifying to me.
Why?

that's terrifying to me.

Much like pure capitalism, it relies on people "being better than they've ever been."

The only way pure socialism or pure capitalism could ever work is if people were perfect. Of course, we're not. No human beings are perfect.

Some capitalists will always be dirty bastards who will stomp all over everyone else and corrupt everything they can if it means they make a few more dollars. Most people don't want just what they deserve for their work. They always want more. Most people don't want to pay fair wages for the work done for them. They always want to pay the least amount they can get away with. Most people won't admit when another's work is better than theirs. They'll do everything to prevent that person from selling. And so on.....

Some communists will always be lazy people who are willing to sit and act like they can do nothing and receive everything. Most people don't want to do as much work as they can. Most don't want to give what they can. Most want to do the least amount necessary to get what they want. Most people don't want to get what they need. They want what they need and then some. They want more. And many would be perfectly content to do everything they can to give the least amount they can whine their way into and get the most amount they can out of the system. And so on.....

Thus, in the end, we have to find some sort of happy medium. Problem is, any time you try to go with a combination, people will disagree on where to set the line. But we do the best we can.

Opposed to the welfare state

Opposed to the welfare state
explination?

Why?
I suppose I am too much of a capitalist.

That and I believe in a very limited government.

I suppose I am too much of a capitalist.

That and I believe in a very limited government.
As good as any, I respect people for there views, i know epopel don't always agree with me and it's quite fun to ahve a good sensible debate.

As good as any, I respect people for there views, i know epopel don't always agree with me and it's quite fun to ahve a good sensible debate.
Oh, I didn't want you to think that you terrify me or anything, I just came from a family where everyone owns thier own business, so state controled business seems a bit drastic to me.

I was raised with the motto "You should make enough money to have everything you need and most of what you want, if you don't then either work harder or want less" ;)

I was raised with the motto "You should make enough money to have everything you need and most of what you want, if you don't then either work harder or want less" ;)

What a wonderful motto!

Wouldn't it be great if everyone lived by it? ((Assuming here that "work" doesn't include lying, stealing, cheating, etc.))

What a wonderful motto!

Wouldn't it be great if everyone lived by it? ((Assuming here that "work" doesn't include lying, stealing, cheating, etc.))
if it isn't 100% honest, then you aren't working.

if it isn't 100% honest, then you aren't working.

Lot of lawyers, accountants, politicians and people involved in buisness who haven't done a days work in their lives under your definition. ;)

I've seen a load of this rubbish about "oh the poor, the poor!"

a. the poor must be poor for a reason. why don't they get jobs? if you ask me the only excuse for not getting a job is illness.

b. the poor might be poor because they have no money skills. theres free education, use it to your advantage, actually get money skills!

/rant that will make me more unpopular than i already am.

I've seen a load of this rubbish about "oh the poor, the poor!"

a. the poor must be poor for a reason.

No shit!

why don't they get jobs?

For lots of reasons. Though the major one is that they cannot find one at a particular time. Sometimes there are no jobs available in the area they are in.

b. the poor might be poor because they have no money skills. theres free education, use it to your advantage, actually get money skills!

The object of free education is to train skilled and willing workers not to teach us how to manage money. Unless it is relevent to our training, and by extention, our job/career.

I accept I have been out of school for a few years now, but to the best of my knowledge, "Money Management" is not part of any mainstream class.

I accept I have been out of school for a few years now, but to the best of my knowledge, "Money Management" is not part of any mainstream class.
It really should be, but I have a job that deals with people's financial stuff, so I probably have seen some of the worst examples (just by the quantity of stuff I get to see)

It really should be, but I have a job that deals with people's financial stuff, so I probably have seen some of the worst examples (just by the quantity of stuff I get to see)

Oh I totally agree. It really should. But I was just stating what the purpose of education is in Britain at the moment (as I see it).

I've seen a load of this rubbish about "oh the poor, the poor!"

a. the poor must be poor for a reason. why don't they get jobs? if you ask me the only excuse for not getting a job is illness.

How very, very naive.

Let me ask you a question. How do you get a steady job without an address and phone number? When you can answer that question, you can solve the problems of most homeless people out there.

b. the poor might be poor because they have no money skills. theres free education, use it to your advantage, actually get money skills!

Free education? For adults? Where?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Free education that is useful? For poor people? Where?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Assumption that the poor are poor because they "have poor money skills"? Freaking idiotic.

Assumption that the poor are poor because they "have poor money skills"? Freaking idiotic.

It is amusing to see this arguement still. It has been around for about 400 years and seems impervious to all reason.

The welfare state is preferable to letting the poor starve, but it is not nearly as good as destroying capitalism altogether.
So you don't want the poor to starve unless everybody else is starving?

How very, very naive.

Let me ask you a question. How do you get a steady job without an address and phone number? When you can answer that question, you can solve the problems of most homeless people out there.Why should everyone need a steady job? Unsteady jobs pay money too.

Why should everyone need a steady job? Unsteady jobs pay money too.

Unsteady jobs pay tiny amounts of money and are sporadic. In other words, you might have enough money to eat tonight, but you won't have enough to eat tomorrow unless you are lucky enough to find a job tomorrow. And luck plays into those types of things much moreso than anything else. Migrant workers sit for entire days *hoping* someone will come to hire them. Occasionally, they get a single day's work, but that isn't enough to even pay for their food for more than a day, much less allow them to do anything more than that.

It is amusing to see this arguement still. It has been around for about 400 years and seems impervious to all reason.
It was the basis of the old poor law I balive, you know it was disproved in the 18000's but still ahngs around to day.

Unless they are physically incapable, anyone not trying to provide for themselves should be cut off from receiving funds to do so after a specified period of time. If they have children, and are not trying to provide for them, they should be charged with neglect and have the children taken away.
AMEN my brother! No doubt you're going to get a lot of flack for this. (still catching up on the thread)

I've seen a load of this rubbish about "oh the poor, the poor!"

a. the poor must be poor for a reason. why don't they get jobs? if you ask me the only excuse for not getting a job is illness.

This is A reason, but not the only reason. Also understand that "poor" is also usually refering to a income level and not necessarily relavant to one's status and ability. There are people out there living very happy lives on less than half of what the poverty level is. They don't consider themselves poor.

b. the poor might be poor because they have no money skills. theres free education, use it to your advantage, actually get money skills!

I believe that Blu was refering to the free education of the youth and how they should be taking advantage of it instead of being socially advanced through the grades, dispite not having the ability that school is supposed to grant to one. I in part agree with this. The solution is a reform in the education systems. When children are permitted to pass without being able to read or write or parents sue because little Johnny got an 89 instead of a 90 or higher, then of course we're going to turn out adults who can't survive financially nor in the work force.

Now my feelings on the subject:
A Welfare state is a very bad thing. It fosters reliance on government rather than self. When something is free people will take advantage of it and get as much as possible.

Medical for example. If you aren't paying for the doctor (i.e. the state is doing it) then you are going to run to the doctor for every little twinge. This will fill up the doctor's time and thus with the increase in demand his prices go up. Therefore the state has to pay more and taxes go up. Or if the state says you make x amount then either the doctor doesn't try very hard or doesn't bother being a doctor.

now with financial aid, I'm with Dempublicents1 on most of it. I also believe in using a graduated weening odd system. Currently from what I can see of the system there are cut off points such that if you advance in the workforce you actually lose money overall and effectively slide back, thus destroying incentive. I think that as your private job salary increases then your state funds decrease but such that you still move ahead. Ex: state pays you $500 a month. Your job earns you $300. Total $800 The you get a raise to $400. The state then drops you down to $450. Total $850. You're less dependant on the state but you are still moving ahead.

Education needs lots of reform. There is too much social teaching and not enough actual academics. That thread about the schools that were "too asian" I think was a good example. Both teachers and parents are to blame. Don't get me wrong, some of these social classes are alright, but the child needs the firm foundation in the basics in order to really benifit from them. Who cares if you never felt like you failed when you can't read? Oh and heven forbid that little Suzy got a single black mark on her school record that will prevent her from getting into Yale! Sue to get that off there!



It was the basis of the old poor law I balive, you know it was disproved in the 18000's but still ahngs around to day.
Hey Look Ma! I caught the time traveler! ;)

I can't imagine paying for any of those things. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems really primitive to not provide a "welfare state"

Welfare states are good things and they can work in a capitalistic society. It's much easier to get business done when you have subsidized housing, healthcare, and education. This way, you are not having to trip over stupid, sick, homeless people sleeping in front of your business.

It was the basis of the old poor law I balive, you know it was disproved in the 18000's but still ahngs around to day.

Also had roots with Christian moralism.

The poor were seen as poor because they spent the money they got got of alcohol and other frivolities.

It was only when Seebohm Rowntree came along that poverty was seen to have been many reasons and that there was a difference between primary poverty and secondary poverty.

The basis of the poor law was similar. It was thought that if you frighten people enough about being poor they won't become poor in the first place. There were other things it was based on too, less eligibility etc. But I think I am drifting slightly off topic.

I don't sit well with a welfare state, because it takes too much power from the people and hands it right over to the government.

I am all for helping poor people, I just think there are better ways of doing it than having a huge government that is in control of everyone.


As i'm from the UK i know this to be true. I personally like the idea of a Welfare state, but i think things should be tightened up a bit, alot of people just sponge off of it which ruins it for those that really need it. Of course you only have to look at how good a job Thatcher did when she totally screwed everybody, she messed it up good and proper. If most things hadn't been nationalised already when she gained power things would not be as bad as they are now because she couldn't have totally destroyed all the industry and transport systems of the country. But she'll die one day and the north of Britain will rejoice and throw parties and say good riddance to a monster.

One other problem with nationalised industries is that if the government is not committed to them then they can fall into the category knows as; 'lack of funding', as governments cream off the profits and put no money into them. Private companies are no better all they care about is their shareholders. So you get British Railways as was, people have to use them to get from A to B and commuting to work. Nationalised you generally get service cuts and lines been shut to curb expenditure. Privatised you get bean counting miserliness from companies that put their shareholders first. Passengers lose both ways. Same can be said of the health service. NHS gets it done free but you have to cope with lack of funding in certain areas and long waiting lists. Private gets you done pretty quick (it costs alot too), but once they've treat you and more importantly got your money they couldn't give a stuff about how you recover... if you have to go back for further treatment well they get the calculator out before they get out the medicine.



Idea of Welfare state is good but it doesn't square with a governmental system that includes the Tory party.

Well, I said "Other", because right now, none of the options appeal to me.

I'm from Germany, which has a large welfare state. It is not well-managed, it is ineffective in providing the poor and unemployed with reasonable chances and it costs billions that the government can't spend on other things.

Does that mean I want to get rid of the welfare state? Of course not, I'm not a sociopath.
But I want it to be seriously modernised and completely reformed.

If you're up for it, read this article about how a welfare state turned sour.
It was not written by some libertarian organisation, but by a relatively neutral established German news organisation, so you won't have to scream bias (although there obviously is a little).

The German Defect (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,366938,00.html)

Medical for example. If you aren't paying for the doctor (i.e. the state is doing it) then you are going to run to the doctor for every little twinge. This will fill up the doctor's time and thus with the increase in demand his prices go up. Therefore the state has to pay more and taxes go up. Or if the state says you make x amount then either the doctor doesn't try very hard or doesn't bother being a doctor.

Strangly enough this dosn't happen, I don't know why but people don't go running to the doctor at every little thing.

As i'm from the UK i know this to be true. I personally like the idea of a Welfare state, but i think things should be tightened up a bit, alot of people just sponge off of it which ruins it for those that really need it. Of course you only have to look at how good a job Thatcher did when she totally screwed everybody, she messed it up good and proper. If most things hadn't been nationalised already when she gained power things would not be as bad as they are now because she couldn't have totally destroyed all the industry and transport systems of the country. But she'll die one day and the north of Britain will rejoice and throw parties and say good riddance to a monster.

One other problem with nationalised industries is that if the government is not committed to them then they can fall into the category knows as; 'lack of funding', as governments cream off the profits and put no money into them. Private companies are no better all they care about is their shareholders. So you get British Railways as was, people have to use them to get from A to B and commuting to work. Nationalised you generally get service cuts and lines been shut to curb expenditure. Privatised you get bean counting miserliness from companies that put their shareholders first. Passengers lose both ways. Same can be said of the health service. NHS gets it done free but you have to cope with lack of funding in certain areas and long waiting lists. Private gets you done pretty quick (it costs alot too), but once they've treat you and more importantly got your money they couldn't give a stuff about how you recover... if you have to go back for further treatment well they get the calculator out before they get out the medicine.



Idea of Welfare state is good but it doesn't square with a governmental system that includes the Tory party.
Your right, and with Labour in power things are just as bad.

Unsteady jobs pay tiny amounts of money and are sporadic. In other words, you might have enough money to eat tonight, but you won't have enough to eat tomorrow unless you are lucky enough to find a job tomorrow. And luck plays into those types of things much moreso than anything else. Migrant workers sit for entire days *hoping* someone will come to hire them. Occasionally, they get a single day's work, but that isn't enough to even pay for their food for more than a day, much less allow them to do anything more than that.If that was true, migrant workers wouldn't bother migrating. If one day's work only pays enough for food that day, they must not be eating the other days and are apparently starving to death. Why come here when you can starve to death in Mexico?

I sincerely hope the Tory government introduced at the next election dispenses with the welfare state for an institution infinately more efficient and laudable, and requiring considerably less expenditure upon the behalf of the populace. Were we to be fortunate, the NHS would be utterly privatised concurrent to this, compelling the parasytic, proletarian, deplorable ingrates who subist upon the benevolence of such institutions, upon a pretext of incapacity, to work for a living.

I sincerely hope the Tory government introduced at the next election dispenses with the welfare state for an institution infinately more efficient and laudable, and requiring considerably less expenditure upon the behalf of the populace. Were we to be fortunate, the NHS would be utterly privatised concurrent to this, compelling the parasytic, proletarian, deplorable ingrates who subist upon the benevolence of such institutions, upon a pretext of incapacity, to work for a living.

What the hell's the privatisation of the NHS got to do with benefit abuse, Mr Roget?

What the hell's the privatisation of the NHS got to do with benefit abuse, Mr Roget?

Similar concepts,the NHS and the Welfare State. And frankly, both ought to be abolished and replaced.

Similar concepts,the NHS and the Welfare State. And frankly, both ought to be abolished and replaced.

The NHS is part of the welfare state. Of course they're similar concepts. That doesn't mean that privatisation of the NHS would compel the people you're railing against to get a job. It means they'd have to pay for healthcare. Using their government benefit money, mayhap?

The NHS is part of the welfare state. Of course they're similar concepts. That doesn't mean that privatisation of the NHS would compel the people you're railing against to get a job. It means they'd have to pay for healthcare. Using their government benefit money, mayhap?

Indeed not, with finances accrued from full time employment.

Indeed not, with finances accrued from full time employment.

But why? Basic medical procedures aren't that expensive. And, according to the most virulent anti-welfare types, they get paid sooo much dole that they'd have enough anyway. You're not showing any reason why having to pay for medical treatment would suddenly cause them all to leap into employment.

alot of people just sponge off of it which ruins it for those that really need it.

How many people do you consider "a lot?"

I ask because according to "Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South," by A. de Haan and S. Maxwell only 4% of the country are persistenly poor (so can therefore be considered to be "sponging off." And similar results have been recorded in other European country. Not really that much, well, not as much as the yellow press make out anyway.

Of course you only have to look at how good a job Thatcher did when she totally screwed everybody, she messed it up good and proper. If most things hadn't been nationalised already when she gained power things would not be as bad as they are now because she couldn't have totally destroyed all the industry and transport systems of the country. But she'll die one day and the north of Britain will rejoice and throw parties and say good riddance to a monster.

Just the North of England? :p

(Reminds me of a typical question for A-level Politics, "'Margaret Thatcher did more for the Scottish Independence movement then any other politician.' Discuss.")

Similar concepts,the NHS and the Welfare State. And frankly, both ought to be abolished and replaced.

Replaced with what?

But why? Basic medical procedures aren't that expensive. And, according to the most virulent anti-welfare types, they get paid sooo much dole that they'd have enough anyway. You're not showing any reason why having to pay for medical treatment would suddenly cause them all to leap into employment.

Well indeed not, however the cancellation of all unnecessary welfare for all those capable of working would compel such fellows to work.

Strangly enough this dosn't happen, I don't know why but people don't go running to the doctor at every little thing.

In fact it does. To the extent that the NHS also offers homeopathy and other "alternative medicines" (read - quakery) to the 'worried well'/'malade imaginaire' (pick own your label of choice), which cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot and do. Nothing.

Of course that cost pales into insignificance when compared to the cost of 'management.'

If that was true, migrant workers wouldn't bother migrating. If one day's work only pays enough for food that day, they must not be eating the other days and are apparently starving to death. Why come here when you can starve to death in Mexico?

I never realised that developing countries had such a developed news service to report to them the economic state of countries they plan to migrate to.

I sincerely hope the Tory government introduced at the next election dispenses with the welfare state for an institution infinately more efficient and laudable, and requiring considerably less expenditure upon the behalf of the populace. Were we to be fortunate, the NHS would be utterly privatised concurrent to this, compelling the parasytic, proletarian, deplorable ingrates who subist upon the benevolence of such institutions, upon a pretext of incapacity, to work for a living.

So you wish to eliminate the Welfare state because 4% (well probably slightly less) abuse the system, and fail to work.

Indeed not, with finances accrued from full time employment.

You make it sound like there is full employment.

So you wish to eliminate the Welfare state because 4% (well probably slightly less) abuse the system, and fail to work.

Evidently not, I propose to abolish it upon the lunacy of its underlying principles.

Evidently not, I propose to abolish it upon the lunacy of its underlying principles.

Well that's understandable. I have similar views.


Though I bet not quite the same :)

You make it sound like there is full employment.

There is, join the army/ navy/ airforce.

or, evict all immigrant workers, and emply British workers, then deport the immigrant workers. Two birds with one legislation, I rule.

Medical for example. If you aren't paying for the doctor (i.e. the state is doing it) then you are going to run to the doctor for every little twinge. This will fill up the doctor's time and thus with the increase in demand his prices go up. Therefore the state has to pay more and taxes go up. Or if the state says you make x amount then either the doctor doesn't try very hard or doesn't bother being a doctor.
Actually, I find people with private health care "go run[ning] to the doctor for every little twinge" far more. Partly because, if you're paying for something, you want to make the most of it and feel like you deserve as much attention as you want. Also, a doctor in the private sector's main priority is probably going to be money so they'll see people for minor things, knowing they'll get their money.

NHS gets it done free but you have to cope with lack of funding in certain areas and long waiting lists. Private gets you done pretty quick
I've actually found the opposite to be true in all my experiences. Of course, that's only my experience and purely anecdotal but I thought I'd point out that going private isn't always quicker.

I sincerely hope the Tory government introduced at the next election dispenses with the welfare state
That will never happen (fortunately). It would be political suicide. People wouldn't allow it. There'd be uproar.

That will never happen (fortunately). It would be political suicide. People wouldn't allow it. There'd be uproar.

Whyever not, I sincerely doubt any parliamentary legislative bill, implemented correctly, would not influence and overcome the masses, moronic as they are.

or, evict all immigrant workers, and emply British workers, then deport the immigrant workers. Two birds with one legislation, I rule.

But ... but ... I don't want want my parents to leave this country.

Actually - on second thoughts...

<.<
>.>

Well indeed not, however the cancellation of all unnecessary welfare for all those capable of working would compel such fellows to work.

Which Dickens novel are you from?

In any case, I'm going to ask again: WHY WHY WHY? Why would these 'fellows' have to work, suddenly? They'd be getting the same benefit. Only particularly expensive medical treatment would be that shocking, and that would clearly be the minority. Are you capable of showing any evidence to support your claim?

Which Dickens novel are you from?

In any case, I'm going to ask again: WHY WHY WHY? Why would these 'fellows' have to work, suddenly? They'd be getting the same benefit. Only particularly expensive medical treatment would be that shocking, and that would clearly be the minority. Are you capable of showing any evidence to support your claim?

No they most certainly would not were all benefits interdicted, beyond those who could adequately attest to being incapacitated.

No they most certainly would not were all benefits interdicted, beyond those who could adequately attest to being incapacitated.

You didn't say anything about stopping all benefits, though. You said the privatisation of the NHS would lead to higher employment rates.

You didn't say anything about stopping all benefits, though. You said the privatisation of the NHS would lead to higher employment rates.

concurrent to the cessation of all welfare payments, as I outline above, yes.

Whyever not, I sincerely doubt any parliamentary legislative bill, implemented correctly, would not influence and overcome the masses, moronic as they are.
A party which supported totally wiping out the NHS would never ever get voted in. And if they decided they were going to do it after getting voted in, there would be huge uproar for such a dramatic, unpopular and undemocractic move.

Plus, there's no reason for any party to. Parties rarely seem to hold much to their supposed ideology, they just want power. If they want power, they have to please people. Generally, people like the NHS. Even if they feel it's a mess or should be cut back, generally, people would not support abolishing it.

(I could explain why people like the NHS but I doubt you want to hear that....)

I know you'd like to believe the Tories truly will implement right-wing policies (just like I'd like to believe Labour will implement more and better left-wing policies) but they won't. Power > Principles.

However much I hate the Tories, they're not stupid enough to propose totally abolishing the NHS. Sorry.

I was responding to your line about the NHS. You seem to have back-pedalled on that now, though, so I'll stop.

How many people do you consider "a lot?"

I ask because according to "Poverty and Social Exclusion in North and South," by A. de Haan and S. Maxwell only 4% of the country are persistenly poor (so can therefore be considered to be "sponging off." And similar results have been recorded in other European country. Not really that much, well, not as much as the yellow press make out anyway.



Just the North of England? :p

(Reminds me of a typical question for A-level Politics, "'Margaret Thatcher did more for the Scottish Independence movement then any other politician.' Discuss.")


I did say 'Britain' rather than England! ;) I know Scotland really got screwed by her, in fact Scotland was unfortunate enough to be her chosen testing ground for all her stupid policies.

Someone in another post asked why some people are 'poor'? Because they can't be arsed to get a job? Some yeah perhaps, but there's alot out there in the old industrial and mining towns that can't get jobs because Thatcher closed all the bloody factories down. I know well my father got made redundant about five times in the 1980s, twice with British Rail.

There was a time in the 1960s when you could leave school with no qualifications at all and go straight into a job at a factory or down a pit, heck it was a crap job but it was a job afterall and they trained you to do it. These days you can leave college/uni with a degree and you'll all be fighting for jobs. If you left school without any qualifications then you'll have to become another shelf stacker in a supermarket like everyone else, if you can get a place along with the other 12 applicants for the one job.

Population has increased significantly in the last 40 years, people are living longer and having to work longer. Equals more competition for jobs. Number of employment opportunities outside of 'shopwork' has decreased significantly in the last 20.

I did say 'Britain' rather than England! ;) I know Scotland really got screwed by her, in fact Scotland was unfortunate enough to be her chosen testing ground for all her stupid policies.


Ahh, sorry 'bout that. [insert embarressed smiley here]

Yes to the welfare state...within reason.

I agree with "free" healthcare, because I would have been shafted without it....

No really, the NHS is a good thing. Unfortunately it is a beurocratic group toss-off. Less beurocracy is definately needed. Along with more hospitals too. Double effect of creating more jobs and lessening waiting lists.

Benefits. Tough call. I do agree with giving money to people who cannot work. People who cannot work should have to do soemthign to earn their benefits. Picking up litter, cleaning civic buildings. Things that need doing but that people dont want to do. That way, A) The place is cleaner B) People get their money and C) If they dont like it they can go and get a real job, incentive see?

Benefits. Tough call. I do agree with giving money to people who cannot work. People who cannot work should have to do soemthign to earn their benefits.

They do. They have to prove that they are actively looking for a job.

Picking up litter, cleaning civic buildings. Things that need doing but that people dont want to do.

The only thing is, people already do those jobs. And it would make no sense to make them unemployed simply so the unemployed can do a bit of menial labour to earn their benefits.

Also, if that plan was implemented, how do they go about looking for jobs, going to interviews etc.?

Yes to the welfare state...within reason.

I agree with "free" healthcare, because I would have been shafted without it....

No really, the NHS is a good thing. Unfortunately it is a beurocratic group toss-off. Less beurocracy is definately needed. Along with more hospitals too. Double effect of creating more jobs and lessening waiting lists.

Benefits. Tough call. I do agree with giving money to people who cannot work. People who cannot work should have to do soemthign to earn their benefits. Picking up litter, cleaning civic buildings. Things that need doing but that people dont want to do. That way, A) The place is cleaner B) People get their money and C) If they dont like it they can go and get a real job, incentive see?


Sounds sensible to me.

One area that really irritates me is dental fees. People on benefits get to go and everything done free of charge, people who work get to pay stupid amounts. Not much of an incentive to get a job. Major dental work for someone who is unemployed for a reason other than 'can't be arsed' then yeah i think the NHS should cover that. People that are just unemployed with no inclination to get a job or have show no willingness to get one in say 10 or 20 years, well frankly at the very least they should be made to pay their dental fees out of their benefits... if they find they can't get enough funds together then maybe it's incentive for them to go out there and do some graft.

Actaully theres every incentive to get a job because Benfits amount to just about nothing, around £350 a month I thinK? You try to live off that. Yes some people do sponge off but they are getting found aut more and more regually.

Do you really want to get rid off the NHS.


PErsonally I balive the NHS should be about vital treatment, you want anti-biotics, fine, you want your broken leg set, fine you want herble remidy, get F***ed