Log in

View Full Version : The welfare state


sean_james
August 13th, 2013, 11:52 AM
For several years now Britain has had a safety net for families and individuals to fall back on if they are in need of financial support - this came in the form of state benefits. Do you think it is right for people to receive such handouts just because they can't earn or won't earn for themselves?

Also in places like the USA, where it is mainly capitalist, state benefits are very low and people are expected to earn for themselves and not rely on the state to fall back on. Is this right that the government doesn't have a great deal of help to give to the poor and needy?

And finally in 1948 the NHS was founded in the UK based on 3 core principles:

that it meet the needs of everyone
that it be free at the point of delivery
that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay

The NHS has been successful for many years albeit lately it's failings are beginning to become more prominent and it is in need of modernising. Was the NHS a good idea or is it simply a burden on the British taxpayer? If it isn't the latter should more countries have an NHS equivalent?

Harry Smith
August 13th, 2013, 01:12 PM
I'm a massive fan of the NHS, it provides free healthcare to everyone in Britain, it saves so many lifes- it doesn't care if you had a heart attack 5 years ago, it does't care if your homeless. It simply does what medicine is suppose to do- cure.

Many people rely on benefits to live, it's always easy to dismiss it as being too much or that everyone who takes them is lazy but that's simply not true. We don't want to go back to the days of children sleeping in the same damp room that their expected to cook, eat and clean in. Welfare gives people a safety blanket, it's not as simple as saying get a job.

Look at the situation pre-1948- the beveridge report showed just how bad poverty was in Britain. I'd rather pay £2 in tax a year to let a child have warn meals than spend it on something trival for my self.

Disabled people for one rely on welfare, how can you expect someone in a wheelchair to go out and work 12 shifts, it's hard enough to get a job in the recession

tovaris
August 13th, 2013, 01:29 PM
It sounds a good base to build from to me.

LouBerry
August 13th, 2013, 01:30 PM
For several years now Britain has had a safety net for families and individuals to fall back on if they are in need of financial support - this came in the form of state benefits. Do you think it is right for people to receive such handouts just because they can't earn or won't earn for themselves?

Also in places like the USA, where it is mainly capitalist, state benefits are very low and people are expected to earn for themselves and not rely on the state to fall back on. Is this right that the government doesn't have a great deal of help to give to the poor and needy?

And finally in 1948 the NHS was founded in the UK based on 3 core principles:

that it meet the needs of everyone
that it be free at the point of delivery
that it be based on clinical need, not ability to pay

The NHS has been successful for many years albeit lately it's failings are beginning to become more prominent and it is in need of modernising. Was the NHS a good idea or is it simply a burden on the British taxpayer? If it isn't the latter should more countries have an NHS equivalent?

Well, I live in the U.S, but everything I've heard of the NHS has been good.

Also, please tell me you aren't saying that in the U.S. we don't get help from the government. 'Cause our biggest problem right now is that half of our population lives off of welfare and doesn't work and food stamps and all that shit. We get a TON of government assistance.

Harry Smith
August 13th, 2013, 01:34 PM
Well, I live in the U.S, but everything I've heard of the NHS has been good.

Also, please tell me you aren't saying that in the U.S. we don't get help from the government. 'Cause our biggest problem right now is that half of our population lives off of welfare and doesn't work and food stamps and all that shit. We get a TON of government assistance.

47% isn't it?

America's welfare system is a old harsher than Britain, mainly because you have to pay thousands of pounds in insurance simply to have a chance of medical care

LouBerry
August 13th, 2013, 01:38 PM
47% isn't it?

America's welfare system is a old harsher than Britain, mainly because you have to pay thousands of pounds in insurance simply to have a chance of medical care


Yes it is.

And our system sucks.

The people that need it, usually can't get it, or have a difficult time, but women who go around having babies just for a welfare check don't have to work and can use their food stamps on cigarettes and don't take care of their damn kids and OMG, don't get me started.

Harry Smith
August 13th, 2013, 01:43 PM
Yes it is.

And our system sucks.

The people that need it, usually can't get it, or have a difficult time, but women who go around having babies just for a welfare check don't have to work and can use their food stamps on cigarettes and don't take care of their damn kids and OMG, don't get me started.

The problem is, that yes the above is bad- a nictone addicted abusive mother isn't great but how can you really influence it. I mean we can't be giving welfare down the barrel of a gun saying you need to spend it on this and you need to spend it on that because we simply don't have the money and it would lead to welfare becoming limited

LouBerry
August 13th, 2013, 01:53 PM
The problem is, that yes the above is bad- a nictone addicted abusive mother isn't great but how can you really influence it. I mean we can't be giving welfare down the barrel of a gun saying you need to spend it on this and you need to spend it on that because we simply don't have the money and it would lead to welfare becoming limited

Right. And that's the problem we're facing, I mean, we're pushing ourselves farther and farther into debt by providing so much help, but then again, what can we do about it?

Every time someone comes up with an idea on how to improve things, it fails because if a Republican says it, it's bad because everyone knows Republicans are just rich idiots who only care about themselves, but if a Democrat says it, it's bad because everyone knows Democrats don't care about the debt, I mean, it's getting absolutely ridicules.

Harry Smith
August 13th, 2013, 01:54 PM
Right. And that's the problem we're facing, I mean, we're pushing ourselves farther and farther into debt by providing so much help, but then again, what can we do about it?

Every time someone comes up with an idea on how to improve things, it fails because if a Republican says it, it's bad because everyone knows Republicans are just rich idiots who only care about themselves, but if a Democrat says it, it's bad because everyone knows Democrats don't care about the debt, I mean, it's getting absolutely ridicules.

haha welcome to politics, at least we get to vote for who ever fucks us over

LouBerry
August 13th, 2013, 01:57 PM
haha welcome to politics, at least we get to vote for who ever fucks us over

Amen. (: