Why Socialism Fails

[alexw]

Put me on ignore if you wish but it just exposes that you're not interested in actual debate.

No i'm not interested in debating someone who will fabricate data (lie) to justify their arguments as you have done. I don't think many here are.

[JJJ]

Because I know it annoys people like you????

Meaningless repetition turns your posts into a self-parodying cliché. Whatever arguments you present are effectively lost under the sound of it, and your response when this is pointed out to you doesn't exactly help your cause. I don't even remember whether you were for or against whatever this thread is about. I just remember that your posts became a cliché.

Edited January 14, 2013 by JJJ

[Game_Over]

Here's a radical proposal

How about someone goes to the Doctor and if they require treatment they are given a credit by the state to pay for that treatment.

Private healthcare providers then compete for this business.

If a person wants to have a private room or 5 star catering they top it up with their own money.

Also if someone could get the treatment done better or cheaper abroad, they could keep the difference.

Even Obama doesn't want to copy the NHS.

[Goat]

Here's a radical proposal

How about someone goes to the Doctor and if they require treatment they are given a credit by the state to pay for that treatment.

Private healthcare providers then compete for this business.

But what would all the NHS managers do?

[Game_Over]

Meaningless repetition turns your posts into a self-parodying cliché. Whatever arguments you present are effectively lost under the sound of it, and your response when this is pointed out to you doesn't exactly help your cause. I don't even remember whether you were for or against whatever this thread is about. I just remember that your posts became a cliché.

So you have absolutely no idea where I stand on the political spectrum then?

I would humbly suggest that this says far more about your powers of comprehension than it does about my ability to explain my opinions.

[JJJ]

I am an episode of the fast show. Spout some words and then my cliché!

[Goat]

Wow, insight from JJJ there. Thanks

[Game_Over]

But what would all the NHS managers do?

Exactly and we might actually get some wage competition instead of 'stuffing doctors mouths with Gold'

Aneurin Bevan, the founder of the National Health Service,* explained at a private dinner circa 1956 how he had secured the doctors’ consent for the 1948 settlement. It was a remark made public by Professor Brian Abel-Smith only in 1964. (Nicholas Timmins, The Five Giants, p115.)

Unfortunately, the British Medical Association, one of the most ruthless and sectional trade unions the world over, understood this founding principle of the NHS too well. So when Alan Milburn sought the doctors’ consent for his modest, belated competition reforms, he had to stuff their mouths with gold again. Hence the sudden inflation in GPs’ earnings towards the end of the New Labour years.

Oh - and this is from the Independent by the way.

[Game_Over]

So you think editing people's posts in order to misrepresent them is acceptable?

I have reported people to the mods for doing this in the past

but your behaviour is so patently childish and pathetic

I really can't be bothered.

Anyway - I will bid you goodnight as I drive my daughter to work early.

[Caius]

Where did I say anything about the U.S. system? The U.K. healthcare system ranks highly compared to many other nations also. It's not the best but then we spend less on it than most other nations.

There are now 4 different healthcare systems in the UK. And they are becoming increasingly divergent in nature.

[wonderpup]

How can the socialist planner (NHS manager) correctly allocate his resources without prices?

What do you mean by 'correctly allocate?'

In a true free market society healthcare would be allocated to the strong and the productive who could pay for it and denied to the weak and unproductive who could not-

The result would be a healthcare system that ignored the chronic illness's and devoted itself to the acute and the trivial. In such a world those who wanted emergency heart or brain surgery would be well served, as would those who wanted cosmetic surgery. But those whose conditions destroyed their wealth creation capability- the long term conditions like MS or Parkinsons would either get no treatment at all because they could not afford to pay or would eventually lose treatment as their insurance policies ran out.

So you would end up with a system that was superb in dealing with short term care and cosmetic alterations, but poor at dealing with long term conditions.

Free markets do what they do well, but can produce some quite perverse outcomes. For example on cold mornings I often see frail old ladies shivering at bus stops while fit young men drive past them in nice warm cars- the market has correctly decided that the old ladies can't afford a car and the young men can- but it's hard to escape the conclusion that there is something wrong with this picture from a social point of view.

So while the market might deliver a logical outcome in terms of price signals and supply and demand- what it cannot seem to process is the wider context in which those signals operate. A more intelligent society would not solve it's transport needs by creating a system in which those most in need of a fast, warm and direct transit from A to B are those least likely to have access to such a system.

So the market is not the all seeing oracle it is often claimed to be- it's just a glorified price discovery machine that knows nothing about the wider context in which it exists.

A world in which fit young men ride in warmth and comfort while old ladies shiver at bus stops might reflect perfectly the free market paradigm- but that is not by any means a perfect world.

[The Eagle]

Great post wonderpup, it stands out a mile among all the trolling and mindless banter others have posted here.

[DeepLurker]

Here's a radical proposal

How about someone goes to the Doctor and if they require treatment they are given a credit by the state to pay for that treatment.

Private healthcare providers then compete for this business.

If a person wants to have a private room or 5 star catering they top it up with their own money.

Also if someone could get the treatment done better or cheaper abroad, they could keep the difference.

Even Obama doesn't want to copy the NHS.

It's a topsy turvy world when an arch-right-winger proposes a system very similar to that already implemented in Socialist France

[punter]

Socialism does not work.

The NHS will collapse or get significantly worse when the markets force our government to curb its out of control spending.

Then what you going to do?

Health care will be bankrupt in this country and the people who depend on it will not be happy.

Indeed some NHS trusts are already bankrupt and need bailing out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9356064/Six-other-NHS-trusts-at-risk-of-bankruptcy.html

The only way to build a sustainable health care system is through private markets.

The UK gov is borrowing £120bn a year, how long do you think this can go on for?

Edited January 15, 2013 by punter

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Put me on ignore if you wish but it just exposes that you're not interested in actual debate.

Putting you on ignore is basically accepting you've won the argument, but he doesn't have the guts to admit it.

There's a lot of that on here, it's why many threads seem disjointed... people have conversation with only a few others so half the posts, often of which make good points, simply get bypassed.

Basically the problem is the internet attracts sociopaths.

[punter]

What do you mean by 'correctly allocate?'

In a true free market society healthcare would be allocated to the strong and the productive who could pay for it and denied to the weak and unproductive who could not-

In a true free market the health care will be bought and paid for as and when needed.

Older people tend to be more wealthy than younger people and private health insurance can cover most eventualities.

If the NHS is so wonderful, why do British OAPs travel thousands of miles to India to get hip operations costing thousands of pounds? Because they don't want to wait in the socialist line, that's why, despite paying into it all their lives. They seek relief and quick treatment and are willing to pay for it.

Expanding the free market in health care would have immense benefits to users than the inefficient NHS.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

In a true free market the health care will be bought and paid for as and when needed.

Older people tend to be more wealthy than younger people and private health insurance can cover most eventualities.

If the NHS is so wonderful, why do British OAPs travel thousands of miles to India to get hip operations costing thousands of pounds? Because they don't want to wait in the socialist line, that's why, despite paying into it all their lives. They seek relief and quick treatment and are willing to pay for it.

Expanding the free market in health care would have immense benefits to users than the inefficient NHS.

What about all the people who don't have any insurance, or money?

[Byron]

I have read all the arguments above, but surely, if we treat all illnesses, there is a total sum for all the treatment in the UK.

Now, which service can provide the cheapest option?

NHS or Private?

The NHS is not profit driven, Private medicine is.

I would expect that if instead of the NHS we go to private insurance, our costs would rise in order to pay the shareholders.

Without the NHS, a lot of people would either suffer and die, or charities galore would be set up to help them. So, effectively, we get back to square one, but with much worse treatment available to the poor.

Never forget, doctors, nurses, ancilliaries, the laboratory staff etc. not only need initial training, but continuing experience.

The rich man profits if his doctor has had a lot of experience treating pople from all walks of life (ie NHS doctor)

A doctor in private practice might not get the experience, particularly of the rarer conditions.

You may never have smoked, and avoided smoky rooms, but if you do get lung cancer, you will benefit from smokers because doctors will have had lots of experience in treating them.

As far as health goes, your 'station in life' is meaningless. We are all dependant upon each other. This is pragmatism not socialism.

[punter]

What about all the people who don't have any insurance, or money?

Every employed person would have some sort of portable plan to build up a pot over their working lives.

For those who aren't employed they could be covered with some sort of basic insurace premium paid for by the state.

I would expect those who are destitute to seek charitable help.

[punter]

I have read all the arguments above, but surely, if we treat all illnesses, there is a total sum for all the treatment in the UK.

Now, which service can provide the cheapest option?

NHS or Private?

The NHS is not profit driven, Private medicine is.

I would expect that if instead of the NHS we go to private insurance, our costs would rise in order to pay the shareholders.

Without the NHS, a lot of people would either suffer and die, or charities galore would be set up to help them. So, effectively, we get back to square one, but with much worse treatment available to the poor.

Never forget, doctors, nurses, ancilliaries, the laboratory staff etc. not only need initial training, but continuing experience.

The rich man profits if his doctor has had a lot of experience treating pople from all walks of life (ie NHS doctor)

A doctor in private practice might not get the experience, particularly of the rarer conditions.

You may never have smoked, and avoided smoky rooms, but if you do get lung cancer, you will benefit from smokers because doctors will have had lots of experience in treating them.

As far as health goes, your 'station in life' is meaningless. We are all dependant upon each other. This is pragmatism not socialism.

This is the problem.

The NHS is not profit driven so p/l and accurate capital allocation cannot take place.

This dooms the system to failure, like all nationalized systems.

The notion that healthcare is "cheap" in this country is ludicurous.

The Dept. of Health has doubled its budget in the last 10 years.

We are borrowing 120bn a year to pay these bills, how long can this go on for until the necersarry cuts are made ?

And the fat PFI contracts for new hospitals are anything but good value, especially for the taxpayer who are stuck with them for 30 years!

An unbelievably expensive, inefficient and some cases corrupt way of providing new hospitals for an advanced society.

Yes, our doctors and nurses are to a high standard although many of them are imported from poorer countries who we deprive of that expertise, how does that reconcile with your benefits to society beliefs depriving African nations of much needed health workers so we can employ them on the cheap here in our shoddy system?

Meanwhile many homegrown nurses and doctors emigrate to pastures new because the socialist planner (NHS manager) doesn't value them enough or cannot provide sufficient resources to pay them a comparable wage.

The doctors and nurses do a good job but their are thousands of useless administrators and bean counters in the NHS that do nothing for front line care. The socialist planner employs too many fellow planners and the bureaucracy is unnecessary and adds nothing.

Edited January 15, 2013 by punter

[tomandlu]

I'm confused - the NHS is killing everyone who uses it so we should switch to a system where good care is only available for the rich?

Besides, I'm not sure that 'price signals' make much sense where health care is concerned.

[sossij]

What do you mean by 'correctly allocate?'

In a true free market society healthcare would be allocated to the strong and the productive who could pay for it and denied to the weak and unproductive who could not-

The result would be a healthcare system that ignored the chronic illness's and devoted itself to the acute and the trivial. In such a world those who wanted emergency heart or brain surgery would be well served, as would those who wanted cosmetic surgery. But those whose conditions destroyed their wealth creation capability- the long term conditions like MS or Parkinsons would either get no treatment at all because they could not afford to pay or would eventually lose treatment as their insurance policies ran out.

So you would end up with a system that was superb in dealing with short term care and cosmetic alterations, but poor at dealing with long term conditions.

Free markets do what they do well, but can produce some quite perverse outcomes. For example on cold mornings I often see frail old ladies shivering at bus stops while fit young men drive past them in nice warm cars- the market has correctly decided that the old ladies can't afford a car and the young men can- but it's hard to escape the conclusion that there is something wrong with this picture from a social point of view.

So while the market might deliver a logical outcome in terms of price signals and supply and demand- what it cannot seem to process is the wider context in which those signals operate. A more intelligent society would not solve it's transport needs by creating a system in which those most in need of a fast, warm and direct transit from A to B are those least likely to have access to such a system.

So the market is not the all seeing oracle it is often claimed to be- it's just a glorified price discovery machine that knows nothing about the wider context in which it exists.

A world in which fit young men ride in warmth and comfort while old ladies shiver at bus stops might reflect perfectly the free market paradigm- but that is not by any means a perfect world.

Great post. Thank you.

[Traktion]

What do you mean by 'correctly allocate?'

In a true free market society healthcare would be allocated to the strong and the productive who could pay for it and denied to the weak and unproductive who could not-

The result would be a healthcare system that ignored the chronic illness's and devoted itself to the acute and the trivial. In such a world those who wanted emergency heart or brain surgery would be well served, as would those who wanted cosmetic surgery. But those whose conditions destroyed their wealth creation capability- the long term conditions like MS or Parkinsons would either get no treatment at all because they could not afford to pay or would eventually lose treatment as their insurance policies ran out.

So you would end up with a system that was superb in dealing with short term care and cosmetic alterations, but poor at dealing with long term conditions.

Free markets do what they do well, but can produce some quite perverse outcomes. For example on cold mornings I often see frail old ladies shivering at bus stops while fit young men drive past them in nice warm cars- the market has correctly decided that the old ladies can't afford a car and the young men can- but it's hard to escape the conclusion that there is something wrong with this picture from a social point of view.

So while the market might deliver a logical outcome in terms of price signals and supply and demand- what it cannot seem to process is the wider context in which those signals operate. A more intelligent society would not solve it's transport needs by creating a system in which those most in need of a fast, warm and direct transit from A to B are those least likely to have access to such a system.

So the market is not the all seeing oracle it is often claimed to be- it's just a glorified price discovery machine that knows nothing about the wider context in which it exists.

A world in which fit young men ride in warmth and comfort while old ladies shiver at bus stops might reflect perfectly the free market paradigm- but that is not by any means a perfect world.

Either state democracy represents the will of the people and their compassion is reflected in the actions of the state. Or, people are not compassionate and state democracy is not representative. In other words, state democracy is either not needed or it is not representative and should be rejected anyway.

Worse still, if you have an organisation which claims to do all charity, help all the needy, heal the sick, educate the young, protect the citizens, shelter the old etc, then people will leave the state to it. People will stop giving charity, helping their neighbours, looking out for one another - they've paid the state to do that, after it said it could do it best, and have washed their hands of responsibility.

Finally, charity is also a free market trade. If the state takes responsibility for this, what do you expect? How much should be given and at what price? How does the state know how compassionate people are?

I'm sure many will find comfort in your words, just as they do in the words of politicians. I find them rather empty, tbh.

[Traktion]

I have read all the arguments above, but surely, if we treat all illnesses, there is a total sum for all the treatment in the UK.

Now, which service can provide the cheapest option?

NHS or Private?

The NHS is not profit driven, Private medicine is.

I would expect that if instead of the NHS we go to private insurance, our costs would rise in order to pay the shareholders.

Without the NHS, a lot of people would either suffer and die, or charities galore would be set up to help them. So, effectively, we get back to square one, but with much worse treatment available to the poor.

Never forget, doctors, nurses, ancilliaries, the laboratory staff etc. not only need initial training, but continuing experience.

The rich man profits if his doctor has had a lot of experience treating pople from all walks of life (ie NHS doctor)

A doctor in private practice might not get the experience, particularly of the rarer conditions.

You may never have smoked, and avoided smoky rooms, but if you do get lung cancer, you will benefit from smokers because doctors will have had lots of experience in treating them.

As far as health goes, your 'station in life' is meaningless. We are all dependant upon each other. This is pragmatism not socialism.

What about local/regional cooperatives providing healthcare via subscription?

These are more democratic/responsive than centralised state run institutes, are voluntary so they have to strive to keep up with the competition and do not require private insurance.

[LuckyOne]

What do you mean by 'correctly allocate?'

In a true free market society healthcare would be allocated to the strong and the productive who could pay for it and denied to the weak and unproductive who could not-

The result would be a healthcare system that ignored the chronic illness's and devoted itself to the acute and the trivial. In such a world those who wanted emergency heart or brain surgery would be well served, as would those who wanted cosmetic surgery. But those whose conditions destroyed their wealth creation capability- the long term conditions like MS or Parkinsons would either get no treatment at all because they could not afford to pay or would eventually lose treatment as their insurance policies ran out.

So you would end up with a system that was superb in dealing with short term care and cosmetic alterations, but poor at dealing with long term conditions.

Free markets do what they do well, but can produce some quite perverse outcomes. For example on cold mornings I often see frail old ladies shivering at bus stops while fit young men drive past them in nice warm cars- the market has correctly decided that the old ladies can't afford a car and the young men can- but it's hard to escape the conclusion that there is something wrong with this picture from a social point of view.

So while the market might deliver a logical outcome in terms of price signals and supply and demand- what it cannot seem to process is the wider context in which those signals operate. A more intelligent society would not solve it's transport needs by creating a system in which those most in need of a fast, warm and direct transit from A to B are those least likely to have access to such a system.

So the market is not the all seeing oracle it is often claimed to be- it's just a glorified price discovery machine that knows nothing about the wider context in which it exists.

A world in which fit young men ride in warmth and comfort while old ladies shiver at bus stops might reflect perfectly the free market paradigm- but that is not by any means a perfect world.

A very good post but I am not completely convinced about your conclusion.

It is the policy of all shades and levels of government in the UK to drive people out of their cars and onto public transport with policies ranging from VAT, outdated MOT rules, fuel duty, road tax, congestion charges, parking charges, parking restrictions, parking rules in planning permissions, the levels of fines for minor infractions etc. It shouldn't come as a surprise that people with money are more easily to absorb the extra costs imposed by government and isolate themselves from the effects of policy than people without a lot of money.

Governments of all shapes and sizes have forced little old ladies out of their cars and onto the bus. They haven't thought through the consequences of their policies. I agree that the free market means that poorer people are more likely to have to use public transport than richer people. I also think that government policy has made this worse than it needs to be. The Motability scheme is designed to address a state defined boundary of the problem but policy cause the bulk of the problem, especially the closer you get to the boundary.