4 ms·

Why would the British elite want free healthcare for everyone? Of the welfare dole? Or any of that stuff? Who is making these decisions that they’re feeding to

by wincy 4y ago

Why would the British elite want free healthcare for everyone? Of the welfare dole? Or any of that stuff? Who is making these decisions that they’re feeding to the masses? These all seem like things you wouldn’t want if you were say, an ultra rich British noble or even the royalty. This is a genuine not rhetorical question. I don’t know much about British politics but the statement that some shady elites are controlling the British through the BBC seems counterintuitive to me.

hunglee2 4y ago
plenty of great things about Britain, including the BBC. The fact that is a fantastic propaganda project is to the British credit, it was a key part of imperial maintenance. For the people who fought against empire though (independence movements in Malaysia, Kenya etc), it was and remains, the equivalent of RT
BLKNSLVR 4y ago
Do not completely shade the hope of those upon whose shoulders you stand, for you do not want to find your feet in direct contact with the ground, lest you find another's feet on your shoulders. Balancing hope, fear, and desperation requires permanent effort.
wsc981 4y ago
Providing free healthcare and handouts make people dependant on the government. And anyways, healthcare is never free, it's paid for one way or the other. Civilians either pay directly to private companies or indirectly through taxation by the government. The very wealthy can use tax vehicles to prevent paying high taxes anyway, so they're very unlikely to be harmed. In order to increase income from taxes, governments can usually most easily tax the middle class (provided middle class isn't too small of course). And I state that free healthcare and handouts make people more dependant on the government, since governments can always provide some reason for decreasing the handouts or healthcare provided for various reasons. For example, perhaps at some point a government might decide to withheld free healthcare for civilians that refuse vaccination. Civilians at the bottom of the food chain would then feel more pressured in taking some vaccination in order to keep access to free healthcare of government handouts. People dependant on the government will be more obedient civilians, so its likely many governments will want to move in this direction. Central Bank Digital Currencies will also give governments more control of people, so it will be the direction we'll be moving towards in the coming years.
- smackeyacky 4y ago
  That is a very American view of public health care. The world view is that public health care is actually a massive subsidy for corporations, who obviously benefit from a healthy (and educated) pool of workers. That public health care is fought against in the US is more about the hideously large and inefficient health care juggernaut in the US that lobbies against the publics interest in their own favour. Forget the smokescreen that the US calls "socialism", the word has no effective meaning there other than an epithet.
  - doctor_eval 4y ago
    I would just add that public health care also adds legitimacy to government; a tangible reason for it to exist. Legitimacy is something that appears to be on the wane in the US.
  - Skgqie1 4y ago
    The big "wtf" for me was learning that the US has, by far, the highest public healthcare expenditure of any country in the world. Looking at this data, it seems like it pays almost 50% more than the next highest country (over 9k per capita, vs just under 6k).
    - dragonsky67 4y ago
      And some of the poorest health outcomes in the western world. How can you spend so much money, and still have people who can't afford basic care?
- Skgqie1 4y ago
  People are dependent on government anyway. Your life is very much in the hands of whichever entity wields the most power. Sometimes this power is direct and immediate (like a tyrannical despot). Other times it's less direct but no less powerful (democracies controlled by corporations). On using healthcare as a tool for coercion - whilst it's a debatably bad outcome, it's generally still better than healthcare locked behind money (the latter resulting a continuous, persistent denial of healthcare to some portion of the population - the former being a once off, or possibly intermittent, denial of healthcare). Of course healthcare isn't free. The worst case, of course, is when healthcare is both paid for via taxation and then subsequent billing by non-government entities.
tonyg 4y ago
They don't and never did. All that stuff was fought for tooth and nail by Labour over the course of the 20th century despite the elites. The BBC thing is much more subtle.
- ggm 4y ago
  Primarily the victory election at the end of WWII where Churchill seemed to assume he'd be back in, in a landslide and he ignored the work being done by Labour memebers amongst the troops. There was a pretty solid army education corps which was (surprise suprise) dominated by left/labour leaning academics, and they put a lot of "why are we fighting" "homes for heroes" "make britain better for you" messages out. Labour got in on a landslide, Clement Atlee was elected to replace Churchill. The Beveridge report [0] was (partially) implemented. This was the birth of the welfare state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report
  - LaundroMat 4y ago
    Choice quote from that entry: > "Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor." Plus ça change...
- jollybean 4y ago
  Controlling some narratives does not mean controlling them all. The BBC is not a clandestine operation, but does sometimes work with the government on special issues particularly for national security and/or in times of crisis. Even knowing all of this, it's still a pretty good news source actually. It's better than the Canadian CBC or US PBS/NPR in terms of 'objectivity' though those three entities do have some good qualities. BBC is nothing like Russia Today for example, or even CNN/Fox or major braodcast networks, all of which have different levels of relationship with government.
csomar 4y ago
elite # rich. The elite could be the bureaucrats, in which case, a free healthcare is basically a government owned clinic and corruption will run rampant on that where the bureaucrats will collect. Same thing for welfare (collect taxes from business, pass some of it to the masses, collect some of it as government officials).
- smackeyacky 4y ago
  Except that this didn't happen with the NHS or with Australia's public health care systems. The worst and most rampant corruption in healthcare is the US health insurance industry. The US could fix that, but the entire country no longer has any basis for reliable discourse on a subject like healthcare, which is by design.
artificialLimbs 4y ago
>> Why would the British elite want free healthcare for everyone? So that they will have control of the healthcare system. Or lack thereof. "You missed crossing the T on page 1027-56, section 3 when filling out your submission to acquire cancer treatment form, and so we are rejecting your request at this time. Please fill out the form again and wait 6 weeks before re-submitting." The more power politicians/elite have over the populace, the easier it is to control the populace. Right up until the riots.
- theplumber 4y ago
  Wtf are you talking about? Control the people with free healthcare?
- boston_clone 4y ago
  Do you have much experience with the NHS, hyperbolizing here, or something else?
Aerroon 4y ago
>Why would the British elite want free healthcare for everyone? Of the welfare dole? Or any of that stuff? Who is making these decisions that they’re feeding to the masses? Why not? If it doesn't cost them much then why wouldn't they want this for the masses? They're still people and most people don't like it when others needlessly suffer.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
You have to remember that after WW2 Europe was destroyed. This is how socialist politicians came in. Before the war socialists were the enemy, after the war they were the ones who had to fix the mess and stop communism.

by wincy 4y ago

hunglee2 4y ago

plenty of great things about Britain, including the BBC. The fact that is a fantastic propaganda project is to the British credit, it was a key part of imperial maintenance. For the people who fought against empire though (independence movements in Malaysia, Kenya etc), it was and remains, the equivalent of RT

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

Do not completely shade the hope of those upon whose shoulders you stand, for you do not want to find your feet in direct contact with the ground, lest you find another's feet on your shoulders. Balancing hope, fear, and desperation requires permanent effort.

wsc981 4y ago

Providing free healthcare and handouts make people dependant on the government. And anyways, healthcare is never free, it's paid for one way or the other. Civilians either pay directly to private companies or indirectly through taxation by the government. The very wealthy can use tax vehicles to prevent paying high taxes anyway, so they're very unlikely to be harmed. In order to increase income from taxes, governments can usually most easily tax the middle class (provided middle class isn't too small of course). And I state that free healthcare and handouts make people more dependant on the government, since governments can always provide some reason for decreasing the handouts or healthcare provided for various reasons. For example, perhaps at some point a government might decide to withheld free healthcare for civilians that refuse vaccination. Civilians at the bottom of the food chain would then feel more pressured in taking some vaccination in order to keep access to free healthcare of government handouts. People dependant on the government will be more obedient civilians, so its likely many governments will want to move in this direction. Central Bank Digital Currencies will also give governments more control of people, so it will be the direction we'll be moving towards in the coming years.

smackeyacky 4y ago
That is a very American view of public health care. The world view is that public health care is actually a massive subsidy for corporations, who obviously benefit from a healthy (and educated) pool of workers. That public health care is fought against in the US is more about the hideously large and inefficient health care juggernaut in the US that lobbies against the publics interest in their own favour. Forget the smokescreen that the US calls "socialism", the word has no effective meaning there other than an epithet.
- doctor_eval 4y ago
  I would just add that public health care also adds legitimacy to government; a tangible reason for it to exist. Legitimacy is something that appears to be on the wane in the US.
- Skgqie1 4y ago
  The big "wtf" for me was learning that the US has, by far, the highest public healthcare expenditure of any country in the world. Looking at this data, it seems like it pays almost 50% more than the next highest country (over 9k per capita, vs just under 6k).
  - dragonsky67 4y ago
    And some of the poorest health outcomes in the western world. How can you spend so much money, and still have people who can't afford basic care?
Skgqie1 4y ago
People are dependent on government anyway. Your life is very much in the hands of whichever entity wields the most power. Sometimes this power is direct and immediate (like a tyrannical despot). Other times it's less direct but no less powerful (democracies controlled by corporations). On using healthcare as a tool for coercion - whilst it's a debatably bad outcome, it's generally still better than healthcare locked behind money (the latter resulting a continuous, persistent denial of healthcare to some portion of the population - the former being a once off, or possibly intermittent, denial of healthcare). Of course healthcare isn't free. The worst case, of course, is when healthcare is both paid for via taxation and then subsequent billing by non-government entities.

tonyg 4y ago

They don't and never did. All that stuff was fought for tooth and nail by Labour over the course of the 20th century despite the elites. The BBC thing is much more subtle.

ggm 4y ago
Primarily the victory election at the end of WWII where Churchill seemed to assume he'd be back in, in a landslide and he ignored the work being done by Labour memebers amongst the troops. There was a pretty solid army education corps which was (surprise suprise) dominated by left/labour leaning academics, and they put a lot of "why are we fighting" "homes for heroes" "make britain better for you" messages out. Labour got in on a landslide, Clement Atlee was elected to replace Churchill. The Beveridge report [0] was (partially) implemented. This was the birth of the welfare state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report
- LaundroMat 4y ago
  Choice quote from that entry: > "Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor." Plus ça change...
jollybean 4y ago
Controlling some narratives does not mean controlling them all. The BBC is not a clandestine operation, but does sometimes work with the government on special issues particularly for national security and/or in times of crisis. Even knowing all of this, it's still a pretty good news source actually. It's better than the Canadian CBC or US PBS/NPR in terms of 'objectivity' though those three entities do have some good qualities. BBC is nothing like Russia Today for example, or even CNN/Fox or major braodcast networks, all of which have different levels of relationship with government.

csomar 4y ago

elite # rich. The elite could be the bureaucrats, in which case, a free healthcare is basically a government owned clinic and corruption will run rampant on that where the bureaucrats will collect. Same thing for welfare (collect taxes from business, pass some of it to the masses, collect some of it as government officials).

smackeyacky 4y ago
Except that this didn't happen with the NHS or with Australia's public health care systems. The worst and most rampant corruption in healthcare is the US health insurance industry. The US could fix that, but the entire country no longer has any basis for reliable discourse on a subject like healthcare, which is by design.

artificialLimbs 4y ago

>> Why would the British elite want free healthcare for everyone? So that they will have control of the healthcare system. Or lack thereof. "You missed crossing the T on page 1027-56, section 3 when filling out your submission to acquire cancer treatment form, and so we are rejecting your request at this time. Please fill out the form again and wait 6 weeks before re-submitting." The more power politicians/elite have over the populace, the easier it is to control the populace. Right up until the riots.

theplumber 4y ago
Wtf are you talking about? Control the people with free healthcare?
boston_clone 4y ago
Do you have much experience with the NHS, hyperbolizing here, or something else?

Aerroon 4y ago

>Why would the British elite want free healthcare for everyone? Of the welfare dole? Or any of that stuff? Who is making these decisions that they’re feeding to the masses? Why not? If it doesn't cost them much then why wouldn't they want this for the masses? They're still people and most people don't like it when others needlessly suffer.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

You have to remember that after WW2 Europe was destroyed. This is how socialist politicians came in. Before the war socialists were the enemy, after the war they were the ones who had to fix the mess and stop communism.