Just the kind of weak, unsubstantiated, condescending, belligerent, self-centred, 'get down little man' answer I would expect from a Tory.
Thanks.
Margaret Thatcher
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
Just the kind of weak, unsubstantiated, condescending, belligerent, self-centred, 'get down little man' answer I would expect from a Tory.
Thanks.
Wtf ?
The UK isn't that expensive. There are at least 4 cities around the world I've spent time in that outrank London in terms of cost of living. Some of that is due to the fact that the government picks up certain social bills for supposedly no profit, and some of that is due to the fact that where some profit is to be made a portion of services are being supplied by the private sector, who then do it for cheaper and more efficient than the government.
The impact of privatisation is generally that the mean cost of the service you are getting will probably fall, while the cost of the top end of the service (premium, if you like) will probably rise. So opening up healthcare to private provision means that when you get really sick you go bankrupt - not the desired impact. Opening up education to private provision is probably on balance a good thing, because it allows the premium service to become really premium - pay a lot, get a lot out (assuming you can judge on a different basis other than price).
A lot of cases where privatisation doesn't appear to work are because legislation blocks the expansion of services at the premium end, while mandating a minimum provision of services that prevents the mean from breaking even.
The impact of privatisation is generally that the mean cost of the service you are getting will probably fall, while the cost of the top end of the service (premium, if you like) will probably rise. So opening up healthcare to private provision means that when you get really sick you go bankrupt - not the desired impact. Opening up education to private provision is probably on balance a good thing, because it allows the premium service to become really premium - pay a lot, get a lot out (assuming you can judge on a different basis other than price).
A lot of cases where privatisation doesn't appear to work are because legislation blocks the expansion of services at the premium end, while mandating a minimum provision of services that prevents the mean from breaking even.
On the subject of general politics I find it perplexing when people pigeonhole themselves to one party, how can anyone agree almost 100% with one one politician and disagree with their opposite number almost 100% how can anyone be so polarized.... I couldn’t even say that with my best friend or my wife or my biggest enemy because sometimes even they are right, yet in politics I see people who hang on to every word as if spoken by some deity or spew hatred at others like they are some kind of demonic force, why do we have so many political fan bois? where did that phenomena come from?
Ah, someone who has actually thought about this and refrained from the usual political fanboi rhetoric... thank you!
I disagree about what you say in regard to private healthcare, I’m assuming you are using the US model as your point of reference, in which case your point would be partially valid. There is nothing wrong with the US medical system, its absolutely fantastic as a matter of fact - going to see a doctor in the US or having a procedure is an experience few in the UK can understand, no waiting, next day operations, immediate results, MRIs standard, its the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies that are the problem, they need reforming which incidentally is where I think Obama has it wrong, the system has become corrupt, but that doesn’t mean it can’t work, any system that has competition and is accountable to “elected oversight bodies” not government appointed and is free from monopolization will find a way to succeed - The problem with a centralized welfare system is lack of competition which generally leads to poor management, this has been proven time and time again, lack of competition leads to contempt.
If you can afford insurance/health bill that is. Even if you can afford insurance, if you have a pre-existing condition, well - good luck. If you add the 40 or 50 million Americans who would be denied healthcare, because they can't afford or aren't allowed it, do you really think the service would be instant? Frankly, I'd rather be on a waiting list than let poor people die at my expense.
I don't think there's necessarily anything corrupt about the US healthcare system. Most actors are acting rationally within it, and within the letter of the law as well. The main problem is that the incentives are always towards pushing the cost of cutting edge medical treatment up (expanding the premium service) - ordering more tests, tax deductible healthcare plans etc - and also pushing the cost of the mean service up. For example why should MRIs be standard? I've had one, and hated it - they could have used ultrasound instead, for my particular problem. That would have been cheaper, too.
There are many solutions to this - I wouldn't have done what Obama did, but it was politically achievable, and so that's what happened.
If you care about social justice, and everyone should (because social injustice in extremis tends to result in you enjoying your wealth behind barbed wire in your own open-air prison), then this comment ends the argument over whether or not you should have socialised healthcare.
And on healthcare in the United States, I think a major problem is the excessive litigation that drives malpratice premiums, healthcare costs and insurance rates up through the roof. Given that the majority of congressmen are lawyers, I doubt tort reform will happen anytime soon, but it should have been one of the issues focused on in the bill.
As I said, thats nothing to do with healthcare its to do with the insurance companies who run them.... and hasn’t the pre-existing condition issue been resolved?
This
It's got nothing much to do with insurance companies either. The whole raison d'etre of an insurance company is to pool and price risks which otherwise are carried by the person alone. If you restrict the ability to pool risk properly (including excluding bad risks) or the ability to price risk (i.e. not charge more for pre-existing conditions) then capital requirements go up, and insurance companies go out of business. Ergo, mandatory private healthcare insurance is not going to solve the access problem without someone paying a shitload of money to the insurance companies. That someone is the US taxpayer.
Seems a roundabout way to ensuring universal access to me, but that's the politically acceptable solution - spastic, but keeps everyone mildly unhappy.
You sound like you know what you’re talking about.... more than me I’m sure
Satisfaction with the NHS is as high as it's ever been
Thats a great myth
Yeah tort reform would be good but it's small beer, it would sort out like 5% of the costs
Dre, you're setting up a few straw men in this thread
Firstly, no-one believes that government services are 'free', not unless they're about six. We're all well aware that we pay heavily for them through taxation. We tend to think that's a price worth paying for a civilised society, because people are intrinsically selfish and greedy, and without certain communally funded services you'd get some deeply inhumane outcomes for people with little money.
Secondly, I doubt any of us would argue that all services ought to be publicly funded, or even close to it. I reckon all of us agree on defence, many of us on health, less on education and there might be a lot of argument on transport. No-one's suggesting Pizza Hut should be nationalised.
Thirdly, I doubt any of us identifies 100% with all the policies of a political party. We all have what you call a 'personal ideology' on various issues, and we vote for or in some cases join the party we think's closest to that general world-view, allowing for some tactical considerations. There is a tribal element - pete, Mike and me, who range from full-blooded (if currently a little pale) socialist to committed Labour Party member to wishy-washy lefty - all despise the Tories on a visceral level. But we certainly don't espouse all the values of the Labour Party.
For me the fact that the whole concept of taxation and public services has to be spelt out and defended in threads like this shows what Thatcher did to Britain - and why a lot of traditional Tories hated her politics too, even if they liked her keeping Labour out. I'm not saying Britain was a socially just wonderland before Thatcher, but there was a strong sense that some things weren't about money, that there were different, sometimes more valid ways of valuing things. It would have been unthinkable before Thatcher for David Gill to keep saying, "Our mission is to turn more fans into customers." It would have sounded obscene. Now that football's more or less dead, or at least completely soulless, it's easy to see where that attitude gets us, but it's similarly corrosive to the rest of British culture.
I guess it fits with the thread that you have an individualistic approach to the issue of capital...
Hello Spin, has your phone changed or are you out the country?
The problem is surely that you then ossify wealth disparity?
as with Ronaldo and Lady T , it's always polemic
You asked for specific points as why MT was disliked and became, as I think this thread shows, such a divisive figure. I tried to give you some of the issues and policies. You haven't really understood or addressed them but never mind. I will take the time to discuss one point (in bold) in your post and hope you can try to be open minded about my different take on it.
For most of your post you talk about govt running things and how bad that is. So the obvious point that your Mums house was built by govt seems to have escaped you. Without that house where would you or she be? You think the govt paid for the house so your mum could sell it for a large profit. In fact it was built to provide a decent place to live for the working poor who otherwise found themselves in cramped overcrowded and often terrible, rented accommodation.
The govt, having recognised the fact that the private sector couldn't provide such an essential need as good housing, decided to build them itself. As so often with the nationalised industries or the things govts start doing for us, it does so because the private sector fecked it up. The houses were built with taxes paid by previous generations and current tax payers. To me this means it's a legacy, (good affordable social housing), we should look after it for future generation to benefit from it as we have benefited from their foresight.
Now Pletch makes the point that right to buy was a giveaway but at least a give away to the right kind of people. I think it was an outstanding and innovative notion. Freeing up previous housing investment but not creating homelessness because the people in the houses were the ones buying them. If the money raised had been spent on more social housing then it would have been a lasting positive for the country but that isn't what happened.
That (Erica) is what I have against it. Now the next generation is going to struggle to find affordable housing. The modern Dresilved's mum gets to work all her life, live in a shit hole and die in poverty. Just the way the private sector likes it.
Which too many of you believe is actually the case because they think tax cuts ARE that magic wand.
what does you denote.... republican or Job provider? if its republican then perhaps you should catch up with the rest of the thread
also for people who provide jobs, tax benefits ARE everything, it helps us to perhaps provide more jobs or at the very least keep our business healthy..... how many jobs do you provide?
I'm sure she's a lovely person, Erica...I'd even go as far as saying her support of Apartheid was probably her nicest policy. It's funny how Cameron denounced her anti ANC and pro aparteid position...given that he would've done the same... but I guess it's better to ally yourself with someone like Mandela than oppose him thesedays.
Just saw this on the news, exacerbating and funny in equal measures. A different note, but from the same music sheet, it typifies everything, it’s everybody else’s responsibility but hers...... this is a so outrageous it almost feels like a spoof, listen to some of the shit she spouts and she’s gonna sue!
Fountain Lady: 'Nobody Went to My Aid'
Quite.
What Plech said.
Here are two examples focusing on the current reforms surroundingthe ideology that universities should be opened up to the market.
First, Oxford and Cambridge have capped their fees at £8,250.
No other university will increase fees above this to £9,000.
Oxbridge are using their position (as they can take a financial hit due to their endowments) to dictate to the rest of the universities what they can charge.
Second, university quotas. Universities get fined if they go over strict government quotas for Home/EU students. The noises currently being made are that quotas will stay.
So universities have massive cuts in funding related to research and teaching and still have to labour under centralised government 'targets'.
A double fisting that means universities will go bust (although, of course government underwrites them so they cannot go bust) and huge numbers of academic positions and courses are being scrapped.
That is not opening up to the market. That is turning universities into sixth form colleges focused on teaching for the reason that those in power do not like the idea of their being centrally funded.
Why don't all the lecturers walk out Frosty?
Basically because no-one in HE knows what is going on yet. All major decisions are being put off, as no-one has a clue at governmental or university levels exactly what will happen in 2012. It is a huge social experiment. That is without factoring in the EMA cut.
Sounds like a language thing. "Free at the point of use". I bet if you asked them what their taxes were spent on, most would mention the NHS/Medicare (though possibly after waffling on about MPs' expenses/earmarks for a bit).
I read and watch a fair amount of liberal American stuff and most of them are furious with Obama and the Democratic Party - over civil liberties, selling out the Public Option, no Cap and Trade, bailing out Wall St., failing to repeal the Bush tax cuts, the Middle East, Afghanistan, you name it. Yes they despise the Republicans but that's not the same as toeing the party line on specific issues. The Republicans are far more monolithic and in lock-step with their party - that's the Dems' whole political problem. Look at House and Senate voting records, look at their desperate attempts to win back the Left before the mid-terms by promising action on DADT.
We're getting a lot of 'me' here, before at the end what's good for you conveniently turns out to be good for us all. Which is the nasty bit of psychology at the heart of Thatcherism's success: if I can convince myself that my most selfish, atavistic emotions are in fact good, I can exercise them without guilt. Only one problem...you can't have that and any society worth being part of.
I don't doubt that having a healthy private sector is good for growth, but without redistribution you get an incredibly unfair society, even if most people are better off financially (and it's no longer clear that the middle 50% is). And if your education system is private that inequality is largely passed on to the next generation. This process leads to Spin's gated communities and the endgame is revolution or at least major civil strife.
Look at the economic gap between rich and poor and what's happened to it over the last twenty or thirty years to see what trickle-down actually means.
Another straw man. I don't want Utopia, it would be tedious. I'd just like a world where people's worth wasn't wholly judged by their earning or spending power.
Reith Lectures: Michael Sandel: Markets and Morals
No it's not. A lot of money goes towards procedures that are medically unnecessarily, but are done, just to confirm, and cover the hospital's ass just in case there might be a feckup. I don't know the ins and out of hospital practice, but I know a lot more tests and procedures are performed here in the states than in other countries.
Tort reform is only one part of the problem, administrative inefficiencies being another clusterfeck, yet if tackled and
solved, it would bring costs down significantly.
All correct apart from the last word.
Well I wouldn't go so far as to dismiss the idea of a society, but she is spot on regarding the tendency of people to rely on the government for assistance nowadays
You’re having a laugh, theres no me at all, I’m actually saying "please don’t give me any help” I’m asking for nothing from anyone, not only that, I’m offering to give back to society by proving a small number of permanent or temp jobs and paying more in taxes than most...how is that selfish exactly? 2 years ago I gave the government almost 50% of what I took in for the year, I wonder how you’d feel about that? another 46% went to those I hired as temporary contractors through the course of the year, operational costs/ insurance/rent etc.... do the math and tell me how I’m selfist again? and how my atavistic emotions are exercised without guilt, my wife would be especial interested to hear this!
Perhaps you could chime in here TD, I’d love to hear your learned opinion on my selfishness? and how people I hired made more than me.... I’m looking forward to this
Except that the US Federal Government has long believed that indirectly, litigation ties up 10% of healthcare spending - $265 Billion.
They said so in a report entitled "Healthcare Litigation Determined to Acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction in Niger".