Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
I mean, you can have profit oriented state-owned businesses; Gazprom is such a construct.Also because the NHS is owned by the State.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I mean, you can have profit oriented state-owned businesses; Gazprom is such a construct.Also because the NHS is owned by the State.
Absolutely. Profit in that case is stockpiled to fund services of public interest.I mean, you can have profit oriented state-owned businesses; Gazprom is such a construct.
Or not; it all depends on how the company in question is set up.Absolutely. Profit in that case is stockpiled to fund services of public interest.
Of course there has to be a budget. An irresponsible government that spends more than it collects is not going to stay in office long, no matter how well meaning that government is. However, universal healthcare should be one of those areas of public spending that is properly ring fenced and protected from the effects of economic downturns . In my opinion.What money.... exactly?
If you spend beyond yours means you will either need to:
1) create money out of thin air, or,
2) borrow it from someone else, or,
3) seize it from someone else.
There is a limit to how much you can get from any of those alternatives. Unregulated spending will never be satisfied by any of those. There must be a budget. We can discuss about how big it should be, but there must be one.
Of course there has to be a budget. An irresponsible government that spends more than it collects is not going to stay in office long, no matter how well meaning that government is. However, universal healthcare should be one of those areas of public spending that is properly ring fenced and protected from the effects of economic downturns . In my opinion.
Exclusion from any budget cuts to public spending (ring fencing). As in my view the provision of public health care, is a critical service. That ought never have it's budget cut, regardless of extenuating economic circumstances. So. In short. Protected by primary legislation or even with constitutional law it self. Depending on the mode of government, be it parliamentary democracy or otherwise.Great.
In what way should it be protected?
Exclusion from any budget cuts to public spending (ring fencing). As in my view the provision of public health care, is a critical service. That ought never have it's budget cut, regardless of extenuating economic circumstances. So. In short. Protected by primary legislation or even with constitutional law it self. Depending on the mode of government, be it parliamentary democracy or otherwise.
Good point. Obviously any reasonable increases in spending would be congruent to mutable parameters like inflation and demographic changes. So when forming the legislation that forbids cuts. We include determinable objective terms of reasonableness to qualify or validate a level of spending. If a level of spending goes above the reasonable. Then the spending could be cut. Or perhaps, not increased, which amounts to the same fiscal outcome. Given inflation. Etc.Hmmm...
What if politicians in power decided to rise it to unsustainable numbers? Would the following politicians need to keep up with those numbers?
Do you know what Seigniorage Banking is?Hmmm...
What if politicians in power decided to rise it to unsustainable numbers? Would the following politicians need to keep up with those numbers?
Over here, social security contributions are an entirely separate item from "regular" government taxes, and are exclusively marked for their respective insurance systems (specifically, healthcare, unemployment, pensions, and accident insurance).Great.
In what way should it be protected?