Political Crossfire Forums

[tiger_j000]

Well since 2001.
I was thinking that it was a burden on the tax payers, but what else

[Lord Hargreaves]

Well since there is a near consensus that universities need more funding - it turn out to be a basic disagreement between those who would pay for their own education and those who would prefer other people they don't know to pay for them. The politics of responsibility versus the politics of selfishness and envy. Take your pick.

[antonio62]

Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

[Lord Hargreaves]

antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

[antonio62]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

Public health care works better than private.

[Kal'thzar]

Better educated workforce...

(although to be fair some degrees like american studies? absolute rubbish, lets discrimintae on basis of degree :p *sigh*....)

[Lord Hargreaves]

antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

Public health care works better than private.

no it doesn't - it may be "fairer" but no one would claim it "works better". In terms of pure efficiency the private sector has proven itself utterly

[antonio62]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

Public health care works better than private.

no it doesn't - it may be "fairer" but no one would claim it "works better". In terms of pure efficiency the private sector has proven itself utterly

Is that why the only developed nation with a private health care system is ranked 37 (few years old data might have changed since then) and Britain’s which we moan about so much is 16. And there's costs twice as much per head.

[Jajo]

antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

Public health care works better than private.

no it doesn't - it may be "fairer" but no one would claim it "works better". In terms of pure efficiency the private sector has proven itself utterly

Is that why the only developed nation with a private health care system is ranked 37 (few years old data might have changed since then) and Britain’s which we moan about so much is 16. And there's costs twice as much per head.

You are going to have to be a little bit more specific about what rankings you are referring too, I think you may just be talking about cost per head but I am not going to comment until I know. But I will say that I did once look it up as too how it would work out if we had a private heath care system, I did this by getting a quote for my family who are fairly average and then working out the total average spend per person on the NHS and it was allot cheaper to get insurance and not pay for the NHS per person, but my view on going private for the whole country are very fickle I am never quite sure if I could live with the moral implications but I am not totally apposed to a private heath care system.

'As for Education the problem is not the people are apposed to higher spending it is the value of said spending. It is a proven fact that if you throw enough money at something it will happen eventually; look at the Moon landings was that running at something like 10% of GDP or something stupid like that at one point? The problem is you tend to throw money at under performing schools and then as the facilities get better the middle classes move in as seen by a reduction in the number of people on free school dinners, so you are not really helping the under lying cause of why the school was under achieving just causing the people that were underachieving to move else where and then that school gets money thrown at it and the cycle starts again. The government spend around £100 million a year on turning around schools but many argue the way they spend it is not right.

The problem is that few people want to talk about such a subject as throwing more money at it is seen as a good thing by most people. There was quite a good article in The Economist a while back but I am not too such which one 2 maybe 3 weeks ago.'

urm i did not see the higher bit in the post so this is totaly off point sorry but i have wrote it now see below for the real anwser to the question :P

And for Uni’s they should be allowed to charge what they want or in other words what they charge the overseas students (but it would be a bit less if everyone paid the real price) not this stupid £3,000 limit. The fees should then be paid for by the government at around a 75% -85% with students picking up the rest of the tab for the fees and the living expenses this would mean that people would still have a financial reason to not drop out as it would waste their money as well but still be able to go wherever they want, this was one of the main reasons that alot of people just go 'oh well i might as well it is free' as happened when my Dad was at Uni so such things need to be prevented but affordable (that also means the unis being able to afford to educate as well) to all which they are still not. However it is of paramount importance that they do not become part of the state education system.

[Lord Hargreaves]

antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

Public health care works better than private.

no it doesn't - it may be "fairer" but no one would claim it "works better". In terms of pure efficiency the private sector has proven itself utterly

Is that why the only developed nation with a private health care system is ranked 37 (few years old data might have changed since then) and Britain’s which we moan about so much is 16. And there's costs twice as much per head.

Well I don't know about "ranking" - those types of things never seems to be particulary accruate. Have you ever heard of an American coming to the UK for health treatment? :lol:

The NHS is probably the most socialist institution the world has in these modern times. Its sensationally centralised, bueraucratic, hierachical, and almost totally devoid of choice. The taxpayer's burden on the NHS has more than doubled since 1997, and its not clear that its even improved at all let alone enough to justify all that money.

To improve healthcare in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve education in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve transport in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve the environment in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible (since the government causes the majority of the pollution in this country). The challenge is trying to find out what won't be improved by getting the government out of it as far as possible!

[antonio62]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

Public health care works better than private.

no it doesn't - it may be "fairer" but no one would claim it "works better". In terms of pure efficiency the private sector has proven itself utterly

Is that why the only developed nation with a private health care system is ranked 37 (few years old data might have changed since then) and Britain’s which we moan about so much is 16. And there's costs twice as much per head.

Well I don't know about "ranking" - those types of things never seems to be particulary accruate. Have you ever heard of an American coming to the UK for health treatment? :lol:

The NHS is probably the most socialist institution the world has in these modern times. Its sensationally centralised, bueraucratic, hierachical, and almost totally devoid of choice. The taxpayer's burden on the NHS has more than doubled since 1997, and its not clear that its even improved at all let alone enough to justify all that money.

To improve healthcare in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve education in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve transport in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve the environment in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible (since the government causes the majority of the pollution in this country). The challenge is trying to find out what won't be improved by getting the government out of it as far as possible!


UK

Statistics:
Total population: 59,251,000
GDP per capita (Intl $, 2002): 27,959
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 76.0/81.0
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 69.1/72.1
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 7/5
Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 103/64
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2002): 2,160
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2002): 7.7


US

Statistics:
Total population: 294,043,000
GDP per capita (Intl $, 2002): 36,056
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75.0/80.0
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 67.2/71.3
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 9/7
Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 139/82
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2002): 5,274
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2002): 14.6


http://www.who.int/en/

It costs over twice as much per head in America and that figure would be even further apart when you consider that 42.8 million don’t pay health insurance and so don’t pay for it.

[Jajo]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

Public health care works better than private.

no it doesn't - it may be "fairer" but no one would claim it "works better". In terms of pure efficiency the private sector has proven itself utterly

Is that why the only developed nation with a private health care system is ranked 37 (few years old data might have changed since then) and Britain’s which we moan about so much is 16. And there's costs twice as much per head.

Well I don't know about "ranking" - those types of things never seems to be particulary accruate. Have you ever heard of an American coming to the UK for health treatment? :lol:

The NHS is probably the most socialist institution the world has in these modern times. Its sensationally centralised, bueraucratic, hierachical, and almost totally devoid of choice. The taxpayer's burden on the NHS has more than doubled since 1997, and its not clear that its even improved at all let alone enough to justify all that money.

To improve healthcare in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve education in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve transport in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve the environment in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible (since the government causes the majority of the pollution in this country). The challenge is trying to find out what won't be improved by getting the government out of it as far as possible!

I am not too sure i agree on the idea of education, how would you make sure that all people have the chance of a good education if it is not linked to the government or do you just mean the funding comes from the taxes and the schools are independent?

Your location says Aberystwyth do you go to the uni or do you just live there? As i have to come to the uni (although the trains are looking like a nightmare) to take the scholarship exam but they have not told me what I am to do when i get there or where the exam is going to be, do you know anything that would be helpful?

[Lord Hargreaves]

antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: antonio62 wrote: Having a public funded university system would probably make it cheaper and better quality.

Why?

Public health care works better than private.

no it doesn't - it may be "fairer" but no one would claim it "works better". In terms of pure efficiency the private sector has proven itself utterly

Is that why the only developed nation with a private health care system is ranked 37 (few years old data might have changed since then) and Britain’s which we moan about so much is 16. And there's costs twice as much per head.

Well I don't know about "ranking" - those types of things never seems to be particulary accruate. Have you ever heard of an American coming to the UK for health treatment? :lol:

The NHS is probably the most socialist institution the world has in these modern times. Its sensationally centralised, bueraucratic, hierachical, and almost totally devoid of choice. The taxpayer's burden on the NHS has more than doubled since 1997, and its not clear that its even improved at all let alone enough to justify all that money.

To improve healthcare in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve education in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve transport in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible. To improve the environment in this country, get the government out of it as far as possible (since the government causes the majority of the pollution in this country). The challenge is trying to find out what won't be improved by getting the government out of it as far as possible!


UK

Statistics:
Total population: 59,251,000
GDP per capita (Intl $, 2002): 27,959
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 76.0/81.0
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 69.1/72.1
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 7/5
Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 103/64
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2002): 2,160
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2002): 7.7


US

Statistics:
Total population: 294,043,000
GDP per capita (Intl $, 2002): 36,056
Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75.0/80.0
Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2002): 67.2/71.3
Child mortality m/f (per 1000): 9/7
Adult mortality m/f (per 1000): 139/82
Total health expenditure per capita (Intl $, 2002): 5,274
Total health expenditure as % of GDP (2002): 14.6


http://www.who.int/en/

It costs over twice as much per head in America and that figure would be even further apart when you consider that 42.8 million don’t pay health insurance and so don’t pay for it.

Well those statistics don't prove anything - its possible all those can be be explained merely by the generally poor American lifestyle.

In terms of health expenditure, I'll have to check those statistics, though I find it highly inprobable the UK only spends 7.7% of GDP on health...?

Even if that is true, its a glaring problem that GDP is an account of all expenditure in a nation, public and private. In the UK the vast majority of that 7.7% would be from taxpayer money, whereas in the US I expect the majority of that 14% is privately spent by individuals or other companies.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Jajo wrote:

I am not too sure i agree on the idea of education, how would you make sure that all people have the chance of a good education if it is not linked to the government or do you just mean the funding comes from the taxes and the schools are independent?

Yes, the funding can come from public funds - I'm thinking a "voucher" system the government gives to families to spend as they choose.

Jajo wrote: Your location says Aberystwyth do you go to the uni or do you just live there? As i have to come to the uni (although the trains are looking like a nightmare) to take the scholarship exam but they have not told me what I am to do when i get there or where the exam is going to be, do you know anything that would be helpful?

Yeah I'm at Aberystwyth Uni - though I couldn't tell you where to take the exam - but I would say its a nice town and well worth at least a visit *plug plug*. If I'm guessing I'd say head toward the Arts Centre/Library/Union area, someone round there should know.

[Jajo]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Jajo wrote:

I am not too sure i agree on the idea of education, how would you make sure that all people have the chance of a good education if it is not linked to the government or do you just mean the funding comes from the taxes and the schools are independent?

Yes, the funding can come from public funds - I'm thinking a "voucher" system the government gives to families to spend as they choose.

Jajo wrote: Your location says Aberystwyth do you go to the uni or do you just live there? As i have to come to the uni (although the trains are looking like a nightmare) to take the scholarship exam but they have not told me what I am to do when i get there or where the exam is going to be, do you know anything that would be helpful?

Yeah I'm at Aberystwyth Uni - though I couldn't tell you where to take the exam - but I would say its a nice town and well worth at least a visit *plug plug*. If I'm guessing I'd say head toward the Arts Centre/Library/Union area, someone round there should know.

So you mean like the one that is about to be struck down in Florida for the city children, but expanded so everyone gets them. The problem would be, as they are having in the US with this idea in other states, is that people want to send there child to religious schools and if there is no governmental involvement on what the schools teach what they learn would not be of much use to children, while I am not saying that all religious schools should be shutdown I attended one and they are not a bad thing, they need to be moderated as a young child can be easily converted for life and I do not want schools to become such things where children are just indoctrinated into what there parents think religiously, politically or historically to name a few.

And i have an offer from Aber to do International Relations and i will unless something changes drasticaly be putting it as my first choice.

[Windy]

Kal'thzar wrote: Better educated workforce...

(although to be fair some degrees like american studies? absolute rubbish, lets discrimintae on basis of degree :p *sigh*....)

I agree, I have no problem paying for dentist, teachers, doctors and any repectable degree (science, maths, english etc.) being paid for by the public, but why on earth should the public be expected to pay for people to watch films for three years then write bollocks about them, and then after those three years do the same job they would have done with the degree anyway??

[Jajo]

Windy wrote: Kal'thzar wrote: Better educated workforce...

(although to be fair some degrees like american studies? absolute rubbish, lets discrimintae on basis of degree :p *sigh*....)

I agree, I have no problem paying for dentist, teachers, doctors and any repectable degree (science, maths, english etc.) being paid for by the public, but why on earth should the public be expected to pay for people to watch films for three years then write bollocks about them, and then after those three years do the same job they would have done with the degree anyway??

You seem to be contradicting your self, 'I have no problem paying for...english' how is the rubbish (and it is a matter of opinion if it is rubbish) many people can pull from a text any different from what one can pull from a film? It is also rather odd that the two degrees that have been cited here are ones that the teachers in my history dept hold showing that you can go on to do very useful things with any degree.

[Windy]

Jajo wrote: Windy wrote: Kal'thzar wrote: Better educated workforce...

(although to be fair some degrees like american studies? absolute rubbish, lets discrimintae on basis of degree :p *sigh*....)

I agree, I have no problem paying for dentist, teachers, doctors and any repectable degree (science, maths, english etc.) being paid for by the public, but why on earth should the public be expected to pay for people to watch films for three years then write bollocks about them, and then after those three years do the same job they would have done with the degree anyway??

You seem to be contradicting your self, 'I have no problem paying for...english' how is the rubbish (and it is a matter of opinion if it is rubbish) many people can pull from a text any different from what one can pull from a film? It is also rather odd that the two degrees that have been cited here are ones that the teachers in my history dept hold showing that you can go on to do very useful things with any degree.

I do tend to disagree with American Studies, which is generally history/politics for people not good enough to get on those courses.

English is far more academic than Film studies, if you were an employer and three people had a english degree, films stuides degree and 3 years extra experience between them you know as well as anyone that the Film Studies graduate will be the last one to get the job.

BTW, if the history teachers at your school don't have history degrees I would be very, very worried! That is more an illustration of the sad state of our school than the merits of those degrees.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: such things where children are just indoctrinated into what there parents think religiously, politically or historically to name a few.


That's better than the government indoctrinating them...

[Jajo]

Windy wrote: Jajo wrote: Windy wrote: Kal'thzar wrote: Better educated workforce...

(although to be fair some degrees like american studies? absolute rubbish, lets discrimintae on basis of degree :p *sigh*....)

I agree, I have no problem paying for dentist, teachers, doctors and any repectable degree (science, maths, english etc.) being paid for by the public, but why on earth should the public be expected to pay for people to watch films for three years then write bollocks about them, and then after those three years do the same job they would have done with the degree anyway??

You seem to be contradicting your self, 'I have no problem paying for...english' how is the rubbish (and it is a matter of opinion if it is rubbish) many people can pull from a text any different from what one can pull from a film? It is also rather odd that the two degrees that have been cited here are ones that the teachers in my history dept hold showing that you can go on to do very useful things with any degree.

I do tend to disagree with American Studies, which is generally history/politics for people not good enough to get on those courses.

English is far more academic than Film studies, if you were an employer and three people had a english degree, films stuides degree and 3 years extra experience between them you know as well as anyone that the Film Studies graduate will be the last one to get the job.

BTW, if the history teachers at your school don't have history degrees I would be very, very worried! That is more an illustration of the sad state of our school than the merits of those degrees.

I think it would depend on what type of English a language degree is very academic and I personally would respect it, but a literature one is somewhat different. While I do not claim to have taken either course, I would say that saying Literature is far more academic is an exaggeration, but yes I will not deny that an employer would choose English over Film Studies that would be due to the perception of the degree and rarely any hard facts about what it entails.