Anonymous asked: 1) Education doesn't have to be paid for at the point-of-service (to borrow the term usually applied to healthcare), and can therefore be funded privately via loans which can be paid pack after education is complete. University education in the UK is currently partially funded in this way for most students, and although the state functions as the loan provider, this is by no means necessary.
2) While it is apparent from the relative performance of the healthcare systems used in the world (past and present) that this is one of the few areas where a state monopoly (or at least state dominance) is superior to a privately controlled system, it is nonetheless possible to run both.
2.1) As of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act 1986, ambulances and hospitals must provide emergency medical treatment to anyone who requires it, regardless of their ability to pay
3) If people need services that the state provide (i.e. they exist for the greater good) then there must be a demand for them. If they are not provided by the state then this demand does not go away, and it therefore benefits individuals to fill those gaps – there is no need for taxation to make up for a lack of goodwill towards others as self-interest leads them to work for the “greater good” without coercion.
4) Not really much to do with the rest of the post, but it would feel wrong to leave the statement that communism is “perfect in theory” uncontested. As the most extreme form of collectivism, communism requires all individuals to act for the “greater good” of the collective. Since there can only be one “greater good”, absolute conformity to the collective opinion is required, forcing individuals to give up liberties as essential as freedom of thought. As this situation (which is repulsive to the individualists who make up the majority of the post-enlightenment West) is required for communism to exist, I certainly wouldn’t call it “perfect in theory”.
I should also add that I don’t wish to contest the idea that the world is better off with taxes, simply the idea that it would not be able to function without them.
1)The education system, for higher education, used to be free. Completely funded by the government. Then it became heavily subsidised. Now, from 2012, almost the full cost of the education is being shown to the student. They loan system does work. It allows students to borrow money to pay for their education. It however does not allow you to borrow all the money that you need. I’m unsure increasing the amount this is done is a good thing. If the loans for all education are to be like the ones currently available for university students then you would not need to pay them back until you earn more than £xx,xxx per annum. I don’t think we should increase the amount of money being borrowed that needn’t be paid back.
2) While it is true that the health service would continue to function if it were privatised. It would not serve those in less fortunate financial circumstances to the same degree as everyone else. While you are correct that it is possible to run both, only one way does not entrench class divide.
2.1) As it should be. However, how do the hospitals pay for the emergency medical treatment? If the only people who needed the emergency treatment were unable to pay would it continue to exist? or would it disappear due to a lack of funding? The cost of these things are funded out of the money paid by the richer people needing health care. This is not abolishment of taxes but hiding it.
3) Although people may fill these gaps with a service to fill their own pocket. It is going to be at the expense of those requiring that service. If a few hundred people attend a service that is funded by everyone in that town then the cost goes almost unnoticed. However, if an individual, working for personal gain, is providing that service and the money is no longer coming from the masses then it is coming from the few who need that service. This either making the service unusable for the poor or the cost far more apparent for those who have no other choice. Also, if a company is set up to fill a gap left by the state post tax abolishment do you think it will be not-for-profit? The service will, of course, be more expensive because the users are paying to line the pockets of the provider.
4) The definition of Communism somewhat differs depending on where you look. It does not require people to become mindless drones, devoid of personality and individuality. (This however was not part of the original discussion)
You have some really good arguments and I think you are right. The world would not cease functioning but would function to a lesser standard and therefore is hardly worth consideration.
