Education reform: Government to unveil new technical qualification in bid to ease UK skills shortage

[fcbforever]

If one thing has proved to be working, its public healthcare really.
The biggest fault of the German system is probably that there's still the option of private insurance.

 

[Carolina Red]

healthcare, I move towards privatising that too. Although, I would have my doubts with that

Why?

 

[africanspur]

@africanspur
Why doesn't it work? Because you are poor? Perhaps you were poorer 20 years ago. Maybe it's not actually being implemented. For example, with healthcare in the USA, people might say: look at the free market and how that's destroyed healthcare, when really, it hasn't been in place with regards to healthcare for a long time.

Family and charity is good; welfare is bad.

I don't really know much about Africa.

By you, do you mean Africa?

It doesn't work for literally all of those reasons I listed. People are left to fend for themselves. No police, army, utilities, education, roads, healthcare, safety net.

Its not as great for the little man as you seem to think it is.

Family can only get you so far. Especially in Western societies with the disintegration of the nuclear family. It isn't at all how we have it back home. You'll have the parents divorced somewhere in Kent and Somerset, the eldest kid up in Scotland, youngest down in Cornwall, grandparents in Newcastle and one aunt in Spain. This is obviously an exaggeration but the family units just aren't the same at all.

 

[Carolina Red]

There are free clinics. And people that bankrupt themselves go for the more expensive treatment. They think: well, this person I know went to a really expensive hospital so I need to go there.

You have no clue about what doctor bills are like do you?

 

[notcool]

The problem is some people don't have alot of family, not everyone comes from a family that can support them financially. I get the feeling you can't relate because you just don't understand what its like to be in that situation (that is an assumption I am making there though) I could be wrong.

Also Charity - Charity is such a great thing, that is why there are starving children in the world and people even living homeless in our country whilst we have billionaires driving around in Ferraris. You can't rely on charity to ensure peoples basic needs.

Well, why is the family in such a bad shape? Things like alimony, perchance? Child support, maybe?

Doctors can show charity easily. And you know what I think? I think government taking charge of everything has made people forget what their responsibility is. Before, you'd just help a person out. But now you think, the government will help. I don't know. Maybe it's the lack of religion.

 

[Cassidy]

Well, why is the family in such a bad shape? Things like alimony, perchance? Child support, maybe?

Doctors can show charity easily. And you know what I think? I think government taking charge of everything has made people forget what their responsibility is. Before, you'd just help a person out. But now you think, the government will help. I don't know. Maybe it's the lack of religion.

No, for instance, my mother migrated here from Nigeria, she worked two jobs as a cleaner to make ends meet. I can hardly ask her to bail me out when I need help financially. Since we migrated there is not a huge family network over here for instance. Plus the family we have are also migrants, and also the ones back in Nigeria are less well off than we are.

Now of course I am older and can fend for myself but what if I lose my job (it can happen) so what do I do then, there isn't anyone I could go to for help really since my family is not wealthy.

Like I said not everyone comes from a family that can support them financially and its pretty stupid to put that down to alimony or child support.

 

[notcool]

No, for instance, my mother migrated here from Nigeria, she worked two jobs as a cleaner to make ends meet. I can hardly ask her to bail me out when I need help financially. Since we migrated there is not a huge family network over here for instance. Plus the family we have are also migrants, and also the ones back in Nigeria are less well off than we are.

Well, you migrated. That's not usual.But if you have a brother or whoever, he can help you when times are tough.

You're right about the stupid part. I was thinking about something else and it has nothing to do with what you were saying.

Anyway, i'm out again. Someone pulled out a graph.

Thanks to the people who talked to me.

 

[ghagua]

You have no clue about what doctor bills are like do you?

I would be glad to send one of my bills if he needs my service

 

[fcbforever]

He doesn't even answer the most basic questions, like "Why is the German healthcare system vastly superior and also cheaper compared to the US one, although its a public system and the US one is largely privatized?"

 

[Carolina Red]

I would be glad to send one of my bills if he needs my service

Seriously, I'll pitch in to educate him. Would like to know what he thinks of my $1200 bill for 3 stitches put in my hand (after insurance paid its share).

"bankrupted because they go to the more expensive hospital"... what is he on about???

 

[Wooly Red]

notcool sounds like those American Libertarians. GOVERNMENT BAD PRIVATE GOOD!

 

[Zlatattack]

I step away from putting kids into work houses.

 

[Dobba]

Privatisation is good for everyone.

And healthcare, I move towards privatising that too. Although, I would have my doubts with that.

So you think [...]

Almost certainly not.

 

[africanspur]

Well, you migrated. That's not usual.But if you have a brother or whoever, he can help you when times are tough.

You're right about the stupid part. I was thinking about something else and it has nothing to do with what you were saying.

Anyway, i'm out again. Someone pulled out a graph.

Thanks to the people who talked to me.

Migration is not at all unusual, either internally within a country or to other countries. Approx 13% of our population in the UK is not from this country initially and in London, over half of the population are born outside of the UK. As I said in my rather extreme example above, people move within their countries too. Still a problem even within small countries like the UK, even worse in bigger countries like France, Germany, Australia or the USA.

I think this is a slight problem tbh. I have tried to engage you, without insults, without derision, without any hint (I hope) of a patronising tone. I don't believe that opinions can be changed by mocking others or by ignoring them and though I have been slightly disheartened by some of the recent political developments, I will continue to attempt to do so.

But surely, if you put ideas out there like kids shouldn't learn science unless its relevant to their jobs, you should expect questions about at what age we will stop teaching them? if you're going to show a lack of research on saying things like American bankrupt themselves because they try to get healthcare they can't afford, you should surely expect comments clarifying the facts?

I don't see what the problem is with someone producing a well researched graph which is particularly pertinent to the point we are currently discussing? Surely we should be basing major decisions like healthcare and education on facts as much as possible?

 

[fcbforever]

Almost certainly not.

 

[x42bn6]

@notcool - Show me a person who says their success is down to their hard work and their hard work only and I'll show you a liar. We are not an individualist species, but a communal one.

Let's say I run a successful restaurant. There is a very good chance I worked hard for this business to become a success but that's not the only reason:

1. I'm dependent on my customers having enough disposable income to come into my restaurant.
2. I'm dependent on my employees working hard to cook the meals, serve the diners, clean the floors, unload and load the goods, and so on.
3. I'm dependent on a working police system to help make myself, my customers and my employees safe; and when crime does happen, it helps reduce the risks of further crime and to catch the perpetrators and enforce the rule of law.
4. I'm dependent on a fire service reducing my chances of losing life and property entirely due to fire.
5. I'm dependent on roads and pavements being maintained so that people can get to and from my business.
6. I'm dependent on my suppliers being able to give me quality goods at a reasonable price.
7. I'm dependent on laws and regulations creating a fair market for me to operate in.
8. etc.

And these are just the "primary" effects. There are "secondary" effects too. My suppliers have suppliers, so point 6 applies there too. I have an indirect interest in my tomato suppliers having fertiliser supplies. My employees need to feel safe at home, so I have an indirect interest in point 3 for them. I have an interest in my neighbour having good fire service as well, because if his business burns down, my business suffers. I have an interest in the laws being enforced, so I have an indirect interest in the police being well-funded.

This massive tangled web of concerns is what our species is about - community and relationships. We care about - and rely upon - society and the state a lot more than we'd like to admit.

Now, of course, this isn't as clear as "quadruple taxes, crime drops by 75%". I believe that a level of private sector involvement is necessary - and beneficial - but the line between private and public sector varies depending on circumstance. The private sector is more innovative and efficient, but the public sector has one massive benefit: It's not profit-driven - its only interest is quality-of-service. So for each service, there is a "line" at which the balance between public and private sector makes sense. Nobody, for example, is going to suggest public sector cigarettes - that's stupid, even if you got rid of the NHS. However, the public sector argument is stronger for the likes of police and roads; there is a debate to be had on where that line is for healthcare.

Also, the idea that we should be free to do whatever we want is downright-stupid. Our actions can be bad on society. Pollution, for example, has an annoying habit of ignoring personal property boundaries and country boundaries, so turning my house into a nuclear waste dump is probably not a good idea for my neighbours and is quite-rightly regulated against. There are also areas where the private sector has a perverse incentive, such as prisons - it is literally in their financial interests that crime is kept constant or increasing. Your beliefs will turn a state-based society into one full of civil lawsuits, exchanging red tape for lawyers - because none of us can envisage this network of relationships easily.

The day corporations prove they are capable of solving issues such as climate change and inequality is the day I agree with what you say. Right now, they can go above-and-beyond government regulations and the public sector to the benefit of society, but all we get is lobbying to water those rules down in the name of money. Your beliefs require a level of altruism that simply doesn't exist in society.

We are not an individual species, we are a communal one, and society's norms and laws need to reflect that. This is why we have welfare - it provides a safety net, and when people have a safety net, they take more risks and have more disposable income, which benefits us all. This is why we have a degree of public healthcare, because a healthy population is good for society and business. And this is why we pay taxes and absolutely should not shirk from paying them - because there is more to society than "me".

Watch this. Yes, it's comedy, but the principle behind it remains and it's not a world I want to live in.


Off-topic but whatever, there is a reason why libertarianism barely exists in Europe and your posts were seriously annoying me.

 

[buckooo1978]

You're assuming that people won't have more money to spend because of less taxes and that if all schools were private, the cost wouldn't be less. As it is now, it's the elite who are able to spend taxes AND then send their kids to a private school. It's the way it is now which is unfair.

do you live in the UK? if you do you should understand this

if not I'll let you know - we get a breakdown of how our taxes are spent when we receive our tax codes - i pay almost 10k in tax a year of which just over 1k goes to education

i work in a school who are under serious financial pressure with lots of people laid off and we have large class sizes - 30 is the norm for some

money goes on salaries which aren't great - weve been in industrial action for years and pay rises frozen since 2009 I think

our budget for around 750/800 kids is over 3 million.... thats the cost of running a no frills school on a budget

as well as that we teach a lot of low income families who would pay far less than me in tax so how on Earth could they afford it.....

if i was to pay for my childrens education Id be expected to pay over 3k per child to contribute towards the budget.... I and my wife have good jobs but for 3 kids you are talking 10k for 3 kids which we would struggle to pay

how on earth could a low income family pay that or a family struggling with unemployment

there are some people busting their balls in a zero hour contract job at the mercy of some big company - how are they expected to be able to pay

no offence mate but your suggestion is like a throwback to Victorian times when kids used to clean chimneys - i couldn't disagree more and as a society we are fecked with the way food queues get longer, hospital waiting lists get longer and education, the ticket to a better future, becomes unaffordable

 

[Skills]

I don't see what the problem is with someone producing a well researched graph which is particularly pertinent to the point we are currently discussing? Surely we should be basing major decisions like healthcare and education on facts as much as possible?

They probably remind him of all those useless science classes, making him angry and confused.

 

[berbatrick]

@notcool

Your principles (which I detest and completely disagree with) aside, your logic also fails on its own terms. Graduates of humanities fields earn more than school graduates, so the market has decided that those degrees are indeed worth something. For the govt, the expenditure will be recouped by increased tax collection (not that expenditure recovery should be the main aim of increasing education).

Sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-12983928
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/05/new-data-what-humanities-majors-earn

 

[berbatrick]

I've glanced through the thread, just adding a general comment:
I don't like arguments for welfare, education, and health, based on workforce efficiency (I'm sure they're valid though). It plays into the hands of people like notcool, since you can then start chipping away at these principles. Perhaps disabled people being euthanised makes a more efficient workforce, so we should stop disability payments. Maybe treatment after loss of limbs costs far more than the person who suffered can put back into the economy. Hence, by the logic of efficiency, he should be left to rot. Similarly, one day soon, studying history may be worthless in terms of a career. So it will be prudent to argue that all non-STEM studies should stop.


IMO the core defence of social spending must be on principle not on its efficient outcome.

@africanspur
@Wibble

 

[Wibble]

He's talking about parents paying directly to the school they chose for their kid. Remove any tax for education and pay a school fee.

So lower and working class families would be resigned to sending their kids to shite schools. Keep poor people poor.

Don't worry.They are poor so don't count.

 

[Wibble]

I've glanced through the thread, just adding a general comment:
I don't like arguments for welfare, education, and health, based on workforce efficiency (I'm sure they're valid though). It plays into the hands of people like notcool, since you can then start chipping away at these principles. Perhaps disabled people being euthanised makes a more efficient workforce, so we should stop disability payments. Maybe treatment after loss of limbs costs far more than the person who suffered can put back into the economy. Hence, by the logic of efficiency, he should be left to rot. Similarly, one day soon, studying history may be worthless in terms of a career. So it will be prudent to argue that all non-STEM studies should stop.


IMO the core defence of social spending must be on principle not on its efficient outcome.

@africanspur
@Wibble

There are certain things government should do and private enterprise should be let nowhere near.

1) Health
2) Education
3) Public transport
4) Utilities like water and electricity

The only thing privatising these sorts of things does is that the government of the day get some cash to pay off debt from bad previous decisions. Afterwards you get decreasing education standards combined with reduced social mobility, poorer health outcomes at greater cost for all but the rich. Equally shit but more expensive public transport, large road tolls and utility prices skyrocketing.

 

[Bury Red]

The problem is some people don't have alot of family, not everyone comes from a family that can support them financially. I get the feeling you can't relate because you just don't understand what its like to be in that situation (that is an assumption I am making there though) I could be wrong.

Also Charity - Charity is such a great thing, that is why there are starving children in the world and people even living homeless in our country whilst we have billionaires driving around in Ferraris. You can't rely on charity to ensure peoples basic needs.

The other problem with charity is that its donations are invariably given primarily by those least able to afford them. They'll merrily tug at the heartstrings of middle England and little Britain with their comic relief and children in need appeals and rake in millions but the royal family, the big businesses and their shareholders will chip in sweet feck all.


And to think, I once condemned the Housemartins as a bunch of heartless cnuts for cancelling Cities in the Park beacause they found out 20% of the ticket price went on charity, I'd rather have seen the Fall again though anyway so no great loss.

 

[711]

There are certain things government should do and private enterprise should be let nowhere near.

1) Health
2) Education
3) Public transport
4) Utilities like water and electricity

The only thing privatising these sorts of things does is that the government of the day get some cash to pay off debt from bad previous decisions. Afterwards you get decreasing education standards combined with reduced social mobility, poorer health outcomes at greater cost for all but the rich. Equally shit but more expensive public transport, large road tolls and utility prices skyrocketing.

Privatisation in the UK was essentially about raising money, Macmillan was quite correct about selling the family silver.

 

[Bury Red]

Privatisation in the UK was essentially about raising money, Macmillan was quite correct about selling the family silver.

Even the makers of the Monopoly Game got it right but the capitalists who seem to have been suckled on the silver baby bottle charm of the games' playing pieces seem to have forgotten that and instead subscribed to the Thatcherite "greed is good" mantra.

 

[Wibble]

The point is that socialism, however implemented, doesn't meet demand and that it doesn't allow things to get better.

I can't think of a socialist country. Certainly not the ones I'm sure that you are thinking about which will have some element of social democracy e.g. UK, France, Germany, Australia, where some essential services like health and education are government funded to varying degrees but the rest is mainly the slightly managed/regulated free market stuff you love.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Convinced @notcool is on a WUM and has had everyone over

 

[berbatrick]

Convinced @notcool is on a WUM and has had everyone over

I take it you've never argued with a libertarian before

 

[Carolina Red]

I take it you've never argued with a libertarian before

Indeed. They start quoting Ayn Rand and it all goes to crap

 

[Drainy]

There are certain things government should do and private enterprise should be let nowhere near.

1) Health
2) Education
3) Public transport
4) Utilities like water and electricity

The only thing privatising these sorts of things does is that the government of the day get some cash to pay off debt from bad previous decisions. Afterwards you get decreasing education standards combined with reduced social mobility, poorer health outcomes at greater cost for all but the rich. Equally shit but more expensive public transport, large road tolls and utility prices skyrocketing.

Correct. Capitalism works when there is proper competition, those industries are impossible for there to be enough worthwhile competition for standards to be raised.

Instead you have captive markets where people are forced to pick between 3-4 organisations that treat them like nothing, with only limp regulators between the companies and them doing what they want, or occasional tender processes with no real incentive perform for x number of years.

 

[notcool]

I don't see what the problem is with someone producing a well researched graph which is particularly pertinent to the point we are currently discussing? Surely we should be basing major decisions like healthcare and education on facts as much as possible?

There's no problem with someone whipping out their graph. It's just I had been fighting on multiple fronts for a few hours and I had developed battle fatigue. So I quit for a while.

 

[notcool]

Spoiler: Healthcare Inflation in the USA

Anyone want to guess what happened in 1966, where the lines begin to diverge?

 

[Bobcat]

Correct. Capitalism works when there is proper competition, those industries are impossible for there to be enough worthwhile competition for standards to be raised.

Instead you have captive markets where people are forced to pick between 3-4 organisations that treat them like nothing, with only limp regulators between the companies and them doing what they want, or occasional tender processes with no real incentive perform for x number of years.

Another thing is that those four things are a necessity. For example if you get sick you need healthcare so it creates a situation where the seller, not the consumer has the upper hand. On other consumer goods like coffee and burgers you don't need them, so the impetuous is on the seller to give the consumer a product they want

Spoiler: Healthcare Inflation

Anyone want to guess what happened in 1966, where the lines begin to diverge?

You have to give some kind of context here, like for example which country we are talking about. Edit: Also, where did you pull that graph from? I tried reverse image searching it and found nothing

 

[notcool]

You have to give some kind of context here, like for example which country we are talking about. Edit: Also, where did you pull that graph from? I tried reverse image searching it and found nothing

The country is the USA. You're right, I should have given that information. Edited the original post now.

I got the graph from this page: https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

 

[Bobcat]

The country is the USA. You're right, I should have given that information. Edited the original post now.

I got the graph from this page: https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

Ok a couple of things:
1. The source is Mises Institute which apparently are anarcho-capitalists, so hardly unbiased when it comes to government intervention
2. Their argument is that "The government increased demand with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid" which is very misleading. Medicare at that point was just cheaper health insurance for people aged 65+. I doubt that people suddenly got more sick in 1966, and unless you're a hypochondriac you don't go to the doctors just because you can.
3. 1966-Today is a long time, and there has been plenty of conservative/libertarian presidents with conservative/libertarian health reforms.
4. The HMO's have always been in the US and it has really muddied the waters. In a state owned health system, the owners of the hospitals (state) is of course interested in keeping the costs down. In the US however the owners (HMO's, Private investors) are in business of earning money so they could inflate the prices as much as they wanted. When you then get a bill like the 1966 Medicare, consumers suddenly had more money to spend on healthcare, and the hospitals in turn responded by inflating the prices.

There is the graph i posted a page back, but it really illustrates a point: The US government spend and awful lot of money on healthcare despite them not proving coverage for their citizens. Here is a wiki article on medical expenditure pr capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

The point is: Yes medical treatment IS very expensive in the US, but to suggest like the Mises Institute that it's because of government intervention is both disingenuous and misleading. Compared to other OECD countries the US spends more total on health care than any others, despite the state intervening a lot less than say England which has the NHS. One big factor in this is for example the pharmaceutical industry in the US has very little regulations and can charge hospitals and people pretty much whatever they want.

For example ubêr-c*nt Shkreli sho bought the rights to the only HIV drug on the market and raised the price by 5000%
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/news/economy/daraprim-aids-drug-high-price/
Or Epipens for people with diabetes:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/09/22/epipen-congress-hearing-mylan/90827270/

My point is that the US healthcare is a business and it's rotten to it's core. There is to much vested interests in the congress/senate/white house, to much money changing hands and in the end, a couple of super wealthy HMO's and big pharmaceutical companies are earning an astounding amount of money. One last thing, you should watch Sicko if you have not.
You may or may not like Micheal Moore, and hes hardly unbiased either, but i think you should give it a chance

 

[Carolina Red]

and unless you're a hypochondriac you don't go to the doctors just because you can.

First... that's an outstanding post.

Second... if I can add just one thing to it, it is that in Japan people actually do just walk into their GP's office whenever they feel like it specifically because they can. This massive demand has not driven prices for healthcare up in that country for 2 reasons... 1) people are healthier because they see their doctor more, and 2) the Japanese government has price controls that are set on a 2 year basis (iirc) that mandate prices stay low.

 

[notcool]

It doesn't matter if they are anarcho-capitalists. If you are are in favour of socialised medicine like the NHS, that doesn't make you biased when you present arguments if favour of that.

2. Their argument is that "The government increased demand with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid" which is very misleading. Medicare at that point was just cheaper health insurance for people aged 65+. I doubt that people suddenly got more sick in 1966, and unless you're a hypochondriac you don't go to the doctors just because you can.

Did you see the graph?

the owners of the hospitals (state) is of course interested in keeping the costs down.

So are businesses. If you lower prices, you get more customers. It happens with cars, phones and lots of other things. The only difference between that and medicine is that the government gets involved to try to help people.

You are severely misinformed when it comes to Shkreli. He bought the rights to a drug for Toxoplasmosis, which is a complication of HIV (and cancer and maybe some other illness, I can't recall). The demand for this drug is way less than for HIV both because the amount of people who contract it each year is significantly less and because you only need one course of pills, whereas HIV suffers need to take medication over their whole lifetime.

Patents are something which are uncompetitive. Shkreli was able to raise the prices on because he had a monopoly on the drug? Why do we have patents? That's correct: the government.

I don't know too much about the Epipens but if someone else wants to make them, they can. If no-one make them for less then that is their true price.

My point is that the US healthcare is a business and it's rotten to it's core. There is to much vested interests in the congress/senate/white house, to much money changing hands and in the end, a couple of super wealthy HMO's and big pharmaceutical companies are earning an astounding amount of money. One last thing, you should watch Sicko if you have not.

That sounds like crony capitalism, not actual capitalism. People lobbying the government and getting a favour means they don't have to compete. The problem isn't the business side of things, it's the government side of things. Leave healthcare alone and the only way people offering healthcare will be able to get an advantage on their competitor is lower prices.

Most of what you have said is an argument for less government involvement. And i'll repeat: it's not a bad thing that healthcare providers are looking to make as much money as they can. That's the way it works with every other business and it helps to keep prices low. You might say that there's something different about healthcare which stops lower prices from happening and i'll agree: it's the government. It's not because healthcare has been operating in a free market: it's because it hasn't been operating in a free market.

 

[notcool]

the Japanese government has price controls that are set on a 2 year basis (iirc) that mandate prices stay low.

That's full government involvement. The USA is so bad because it has government involvement on one side but not on the other. A completely controlled medical system like the NHS would probably be better than the system in the USA but something that is purely capitalistic would be better still (lower prices, better service).

 

[notcool]

Their argument is that "The government increased demand with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid" which is very misleading.

Their argument is not that demand went up, it's that the cost did. Instanding post.

Watch this video:

Spoiler: Medicare increased prices

 

[x42bn6]

The country is the USA. You're right, I should have given that information. Edited the original post now.

I got the graph from this page: https://mises.org/blog/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

Doing a bit of digging, I found this (page 8):

Coverage Expansion and Rapid Price Growth (1966-1982)


Average Annual NHE growth—13.0%; Average Annual GDP growth—9.2%; End-of-Period NHE-to-GDP Share—10.0

Nominal health care spending grew rapidly during the period 1966 to 1982 at an average rate of 13.0 percent per year. When adjusted for inflation, however, health expenditures increased at an average rate of 6.5 percent per year over the period, or roughly 1 percentage point slower than during the pre-Medicare and Medicaid era. The fast nominal growth over this period was driven largely by expanded health insurance coverage (particularly in the late 1960s when Medicare and Medicaid were implemented) 28 and strong price inflation. The rapid rates of increase were broadly based, as most service categories experienced double-digit growth and the sales of retail medical products (including prescription drugs) grew at an average rate of just under 10 percent per year.

https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...thExpendData/Downloads/HistoricalNHEPaper.pdf

It basically looks like healthcare costs grew rapidly... Because people actually starting using them.

So under your free-market mantra, the free market was before Medicare and Medicaid. Which was cheaper - but did it necessarily create a better service? At this point you're asking whether Medicare and Medicaid created an overall effect that is better value for money than before, but the effects of healthcare are more nuanced than just cost.