Game_Over Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 This makes no sense. The NHS is a cheap system to run. One centralised insurer delivering treatment with economies of scale private companies would kill for. If there is no money to run the NHS then there is surely no money to run a system (insurance / voucher) that has proven to be more expensive in every other country it has been tried in. Just using pure logic please explain to me how a system with competing private entities (with their own admin, purchasing, advertising, equipment, payrolls etc) would be more efficient than a single monolithic enterprise such as the NHS? Are we to believe that doctors would heal people better if they had a profit motive? Show me a cheaper system with better outcomes in a similarly sized country and I'll be impressed. Show me a similarly sized country with the same system as the NHS and I'll be impressed. And it doesn't matter how many private entities are competing for government money as this costs the taxpayer nothing. In fact these companies provide work and pay taxes which benefits everyone. The NHS WILL be reformed, either by this government or a future one, because otherwise the country will go bankrupt simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timak Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Show me a similarly sized country with the same system as the NHS and I'll be impressed. And it doesn't matter how many private entities are competing for government money as this costs the taxpayer nothing. In fact these companies provide work and pay taxes which benefits everyone. The NHS WILL be reformed, either by this government or a future one, because otherwise the country will go bankrupt simple as that. Again this makes no sense. We have a cheaper system with similar outcomes yet you say it is bankrupting the country. Introducing a more expensive system, still 100% funded by the government, will apparently not result in bankruptcy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 "We've spent all this money, but what have we got for it?" I think thats what the whole country is wondering.. So far i figured out. 1. Some of the world's most unaffordable housing (and associated debt) 2. Lots of shiny new hospital's staffed by immigrants who qualified in countries with standards far below our own. So standards are falling despite the expense. 3. Lots of shiny new govt building's staffed by indigenous non jobbers. 3. We're a foreign aid superpower, yay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game_Over Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Again this makes no sense. We have a cheaper system with similar outcomes yet you say it is bankrupting the country. Introducing a more expensive system, still 100% funded by the government, will apparently not result in bankruptcy? The government is spending 140 Billion a year more than it raises in revenue and the NHS makes up a huge slice of government spending which is rising year on year. There is absolutely no evidence that moving to a better system would cost more for similar outcomes wheras there is a huge amount of evidence that outcomes here are no where near as good as outcomes in similar countries which have different systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 ......... with economies of scale private companies would kill for. You are aware that there are such things as dis-economies of scale, where organisations become too large to be run effectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 "We've spent all this money, but what have we got for it?" 29% of the national vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Funny though, isn't it? Labour tribal types characterise those on the right as heartless, nasty types, yet Labour's social tinkering results in more poverty, more taxes, less freedom, and less aspiration amongst the poorest. Who's really nasty? Not sure who said it, but the joke that the Tories don't give a damn about you whereas with Labour it's personal was about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 You are aware that there are such things as dis-economies of scale, where organisations become too large to be run effectively. Yes, people just don't seem to get this but anyone who's ever gone from working for a small firm to a large one will instinctively know this is true. I think it's one of the many reasons that socialists are so in favour of large bureaucracies and hate small business. If everyone is working for some enormous organisation, state run or otherwise, it often doesn't occur to them that personal responsibility and individual freedom to act produce a better result for everyone in the end. This then allows the authoritarian, statist left-wing types to accrete more and more power to themselves - power over others being the only thing they really care about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 29% of the national vote Was that the total Labour vote in 2010? Interesting. Quite a low number. We do have sensible voters after all. ( Though I would still feel more secure for 2015 if Scotland gets its full independence, and stop sending MPs to Westminster. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Was that the total Labour vote in 2010? Interesting. Quite a low number. We do have sensible voters after all. ( Though I would still feel more secure for 2015 if Scotland gets its full independence, and stop sending MPs to Westminster. ) interestingly - the leftie vote (teachers, council workers) is split by green and other socialist interests - the peoples liberation army of judea etc - so they lost a fair bit of their client vote to, frankly, woolly mindedess (I knlow a few of these types who all think gordon brown is a lovely bloke, and all voted Green, weird...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 interestingly - the leftie vote (teachers, council workers) is split by green and other socialist interests - the peoples liberation army of judea etc - so they lost a fair bit of their client vote to, frankly, woolly mindedess (I knlow a few of these types who all think gordon brown is a lovely bloke, and all voted Green, weird...) "Splitters!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.