On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:29:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:04:45 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:41:44 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



That is not to say that those individuals with need should not, in
some way be supported by those with the ability to pay. However, I
don't think that this needs to entail the massive involvement by
central and local government in the affairs of the individual that has
increasingly happened in recent years.

I would far rather make my own arrangements for healthcare, education
and other things that don't need to have state or local government
involvement; and then to pay towards the needs of those unable to do
so for themselves as a separate thing. There are a few things such as
policing and security which probably do need to have central/local
government involvement, but really that's about it.

So only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education?
Does anyone really want as system like in the USA?


Did I say that? At the outset, I said that individuals with need
should be supported by those with the ability to pay.

Not in so many words - but I strongly believe that such as system
would amount to a more unfair system in practise.

The question is about the delivery model and the choice.

There should be a range of options available, operated by the state
sector and the private sector, and people should have the freedom to
choose. It should be possible to take a sum of money or voucher
(which is the same for everybody) and spend it at any facility with
the option of topping it up if the individual wishes to do so.

If there was a voucher system like you suggest I don't know how state
schools could survive. If you (and others) choose to use your
vouchers, for example, at a private school that would mean less
resources for the state school (unless the gov't put more money
overall into such a system and I doubt this would happen).

Mark.