What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a waste
of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of cost
efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins, accountants,
managers...

People are starting to realise this, but only after so much money has
been thrown down the sink.

The biggest lesson we can learn from this costly mistake is that the
more far reaching the government's diktat, the bigger the cock-ups.
This is the blight of central planning. The NHS is Britain's
equivalent of China's farmers melting their iron tools to sell iron at
the State's behest, resulting in a famine, under the "Great Leap
Forward" policy whilst ruled by Mao (haha, the delicious irony).

If Parliament only had jurisdiction over the Isle of Dogs then their
cock-up would only have affected a small area. In the limit, in an
entirely privatised system with no laws, any cock-up will be
relatively compartmentalised and the market is much more sensitive to
fluctuations than central planners.

N5

========================================================

http://tinyurl.com/platdy

29% believe NHS is 'unmanagable'

(UKPA) – 21 hours ago

Almost one in three people believes no major political party is
capable of running the NHS, a poll has found.

Asked which of the parties could run the NHS, 29% of people surveyed
said "none" while 27% of those with a preference, chose the
Conservatives while 26% chose Labour.

The poll of 2,000 people was carried out for AXA PPP, which provides
private health insurance.

Despite Labour being the party that most people associate with the NHS
(63%), only 20% think the extra NHS funding under Labour has been well
spent.

A total of 62% of people said NHS staff were now more concerned with
hitting Government targets than with the quality of patient care.

Only around one in four people (23%) thought the NHS was on top of the
issue of cleanliness while 62% said they would be worried about
catching an infection if they needed a hospital stay.

Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

On 18 Aug, 21:46, November 5  wrote:
> What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a waste
> of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of cost
> efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins, accountants,
> managers...
>
> People are starting to realise this, but only after so much money has
> been thrown down the sink.
>
> The biggest lesson we can learn from this costly mistake is that the
> more far reaching the government's diktat, the bigger the cock-ups.
> This is the blight of central planning. The NHS is Britain's
> equivalent of China's farmers melting their iron tools to sell iron at
> the State's behest, resulting in a famine, under the "Great Leap
> Forward" policy whilst ruled by Mao (haha, the delicious irony).
>
> If Parliament only had jurisdiction over the Isle of Dogs then their
> cock-up would only have affected a small area. In the limit, in an
> entirely privatised system with no laws, any cock-up will be
> relatively compartmentalised and the market is much more sensitive to
> fluctuations than central planners.
>
> N5
>
> ========================================================
>
> http://tinyurl.com/platdy
>
> 29% believe NHS is 'unmanagable'
>
> (UKPA) – 21 hours ago
>
> Almost one in three people believes no major political party is
> capable of running the NHS, a poll has found.
>
> Asked which of the parties could run the NHS, 29% of people surveyed
> said "none" while 27% of those with a preference, chose the
> Conservatives while 26% chose Labour.
>
> The poll of 2,000 people was carried out for AXA PPP, which provides
> private health insurance.
>
> Despite Labour being the party that most people associate with the NHS
> (63%), only 20% think the extra NHS funding under Labour has been well
> spent.
>
> A total of 62% of people said NHS staff were now more concerned with
> hitting Government targets than with the quality of patient care.
>
> Only around one in four people (23%) thought the NHS was on top of the
> issue of cleanliness while 62% said they would be worried about
> catching an infection if they needed a hospital stay.
>
> Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

29%?

Doesn't that imply that 71% believe the NHS is manageable?

sutartsorric wrote:
> On 18 Aug, 21:46, November 5  wrote:
> > What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a waste
> > of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of cost
> > efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins, accountants,
> > managers...
> >
> > People are starting to realise this, but only after so much money has
> > been thrown down the sink.
> >
> > The biggest lesson we can learn from this costly mistake is that the
> > more far reaching the government's diktat, the bigger the cock-ups.
> > This is the blight of central planning. The NHS is Britain's
> > equivalent of China's farmers melting their iron tools to sell iron at
> > the State's behest, resulting in a famine, under the "Great Leap
> > Forward" policy whilst ruled by Mao (haha, the delicious irony).
> >
> > If Parliament only had jurisdiction over the Isle of Dogs then their
> > cock-up would only have affected a small area. In the limit, in an
> > entirely privatised system with no laws, any cock-up will be
> > relatively compartmentalised and the market is much more sensitive to
> > fluctuations than central planners.
> >
> > N5
> >
> > ========================================================
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/platdy
> >
> > 29% believe NHS is 'unmanagable'
> >
> > (UKPA) – 21 hours ago
> >
> > Almost one in three people believes no major political party is
> > capable of running the NHS, a poll has found.
> >
> > Asked which of the parties could run the NHS, 29% of people surveyed
> > said "none" while 27% of those with a preference, chose the
> > Conservatives while 26% chose Labour.
> >
> > The poll of 2,000 people was carried out for AXA PPP, which provides
> > private health insurance.
> >
> > Despite Labour being the party that most people associate with the NHS
> > (63%), only 20% think the extra NHS funding under Labour has been well
> > spent.
> >
> > A total of 62% of people said NHS staff were now more concerned with
> > hitting Government targets than with the quality of patient care.
> >
> > Only around one in four people (23%) thought the NHS was on top of the
> > issue of cleanliness while 62% said they would be worried about
> > catching an infection if they needed a hospital stay.
> >
> > Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
>
> 29%?
>
> Doesn't that imply that 71% believe the NHS is manageable?

No. Of the remainder:

1. Some would believe some political party can manage the NHS
2. Others don't know
3. Others don't care
4. Some would believe all political parties can manage the NHS

N5

> What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a waste
> of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of cost
> efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins, accountants,
> managers...

So you're suggesting all the seperate private health companies won't 
have their own middlemen, taxmen, admins, accountants, managers ?

Ahh, that'll be like the privatised utilities then... we can all see 
how competition-rich and in-the-public-interest that turned out to be.

While it may not be perfect, the NHS is probably a good middle-ground 
providing care to those who cannot otherwise afford "private" health 
care, or those who through no fault of their own come to need it - you 
know, such people as those who are born disabled or have a family 
history of "issues" of one type or another.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:24:53 +0100, Colin Wilson
 wrote:

>> What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a waste
>> of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of cost
>> efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins, accountants,
>> managers...

>So you're suggesting all the seperate private health companies won't 
>have their own middlemen, taxmen, admins, accountants, managers ?

Plus all the profits they need to cream off and the teams of expensive
lawyers to comb though all the claims finding ways to avoid paying
out. 

>Ahh, that'll be like the privatised utilities then... we can all see 
>how competition-rich and in-the-public-interest that turned out to be.
>
>While it may not be perfect, the NHS is probably a good middle-ground 
>providing care to those who cannot otherwise afford "private" health 
>care, or those who through no fault of their own come to need it - you 
>know, such people as those who are born disabled or have a family 
>history of "issues" of one type or another.

Or someone who has diligently paid his premiums then contracts some
very expensive and long term illness and  finds his private insurance
company suddenly regards him as a liability they could do without.

He'd better have a watertight policy, if there is such a thing,
because you can be sure that the insurance company have very slick
lawyers indeed.

That must be a worry that someone who is chronically ill could do
without.

Svenne

Colin Wilson wrote:
> > What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a waste
> > of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of cost
> > efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins, accountants,
> > managers...
>
> So you're suggesting all the seperate private health companies won't
> have their own middlemen, taxmen, admins, accountants, managers ?

At the very least private health companies have no taxmen. My private
GP has her own accountant but she manages the practice herself. Larger
institutions will need managers, etc. but competition will drive them
to be efficient.

> Ahh, that'll be like the privatised utilities then... we can all see
> how competition-rich and in-the-public-interest that turned out to be.

Public utilities in present day Britain would be worse.

> While it may not be perfect, the NHS is probably a good middle-ground
> providing care to those who cannot otherwise afford "private" health
> care, or those who through no fault of their own come to need it - you
> know, such people as those who are born disabled or have a family
> history of "issues" of one type or another.

A compromise for you Communists may be compulsory contributions from
your salary to a nominated savings account. That way the money isn't
the NHS' to spend until you're sick, so they will still make an effort
to be efficient, instead of getting a guaranteed paycheck from the
taxpayer every year.

Under the current system, the NHS is a self-perpetuating black hole.
If they are allocated X a year and underspend, they get accused of
poor service. In an ideal world they'd spend X but that's not how
things work out in the real world. So they can't but keep asking for
more money.

N5

Svenne wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:24:53 +0100, Colin Wilson
>  wrote:
>
> >> What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a waste
> >> of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of cost
> >> efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins, accountants,
> >> managers...
>
> >So you're suggesting all the seperate private health companies won't
> >have their own middlemen, taxmen, admins, accountants, managers ?
>
> Plus all the profits they need to cream off and the teams of expensive
> lawyers to comb though all the claims finding ways to avoid paying
> out.

Don't take insurance then. It is a bloody con. You'd only benefit if
you're unlucky or sickly. For a spot of bad luck there is always
savings.

> >Ahh, that'll be like the privatised utilities then... we can all see
> >how competition-rich and in-the-public-interest that turned out to be.
> >
> >While it may not be perfect, the NHS is probably a good middle-ground
> >providing care to those who cannot otherwise afford "private" health
> >care, or those who through no fault of their own come to need it - you
> >know, such people as those who are born disabled or have a family
> >history of "issues" of one type or another.
>
> Or someone who has diligently paid his premiums then contracts some
> very expensive and long term illness and  finds his private insurance
> company suddenly regards him as a liability they could do without.

Sampling error.

> He'd better have a watertight policy, if there is such a thing,
> because you can be sure that the insurance company have very slick
> lawyers indeed.
>
> That must be a worry that someone who is chronically ill could do
> without.

I imagine people would be a lot more charitable if they weren't
working half the year for the government.

> Svenne

N5

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:21:36 -0700 (PDT), November 5
 wrote:

>Don't take insurance then. It is a bloody con. 

So that settles it. Private health insurance is not the way to go.

>I imagine people would be a lot more charitable if they weren't
>working half the year for the government.

You pay your taxes and you get your roads, police, firemen, schools
and national defence.

I suppose you could abolish taxes and build your own roads and schools
and hire private police, firemen and armies, but I'm old fashioned and
prefer to pay my taxes for all those kinds of things. 

I've never been disappointed with health care paid for with my taxes,
either. It's quite comforting to know it will always be there if I
need it. 

Svenne

Svenne wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:21:36 -0700 (PDT), November 5
>  wrote:
>
> >Don't take insurance then. It is a bloody con.
>
> So that settles it. Private health insurance is not the way to go.

And public health insurance is even worse!

> >I imagine people would be a lot more charitable if they weren't
> >working half the year for the government.
>
> You pay your taxes and you get your roads, police, firemen, schools
> and national defence.

With no central authority, planning and payment for roads, police,
firemen and schools would be entirely decentralised.

Roads: You pay for your neighbourhood, routes frequented by you or
private companies.
Police: Private investigators, private security firms, your
neighbours, your gun.
Firemen: Some private household insurance companies may offer this
service.
Schools: As of now, paid schools are cheaper per child to educate than
state schools. I think that settles it!

> I suppose you could abolish taxes and build your own roads and schools
> and hire private police, firemen and armies, but I'm old fashioned and
> prefer to pay my taxes for all those kinds of things.

Once you get megacorps interested in maintaining the status quo, they
will develop their own security forces that may form a coalition to
defend the country, or voluntarily contribute funding towards a
military.

> I've never been disappointed with health care paid for with my taxes,
> either.

If you use the NHS, your turn will come soon.

> It's quite comforting to know it will always be there if I
> need it.

In theory!

The government has played on your fears to turn you into a simpering
coward that hands over money to perpetuate their dependent electorate.

When you really need it, chances are the service you get will be too
slow or inadequate. When that happens, remember our discussion.

N5

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:18:53 -0700 (PDT), November 5
 wrote:

>
>
>Colin Wilson wrote:
>> > What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a waste
>> > of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of cost
>> > efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins, accountants,
>> > managers...
>>
>> So you're suggesting all the seperate private health companies won't
>> have their own middlemen, taxmen, admins, accountants, managers ?
>
>At the very least private health companies have no taxmen. My private
>GP has her own accountant but she manages the practice herself. Larger
>institutions will need managers, etc. but competition will drive them
>to be efficient.
>
>> Ahh, that'll be like the privatised utilities then... we can all see
>> how competition-rich and in-the-public-interest that turned out to be.
>
>Public utilities in present day Britain would be worse.
>
>> While it may not be perfect, the NHS is probably a good middle-ground
>> providing care to those who cannot otherwise afford "private" health
>> care, or those who through no fault of their own come to need it - you
>> know, such people as those who are born disabled or have a family
>> history of "issues" of one type or another.
>
>A compromise for you Communists may be compulsory contributions from
>your salary to a nominated savings account. That way the money isn't
>the NHS' to spend until you're sick, so they will still make an effort
>to be efficient, instead of getting a guaranteed paycheck from the
>taxpayer every year.
>
>Under the current system, the NHS is a self-perpetuating black hole.
>If they are allocated X a year and underspend, they get accused of
>poor service. In an ideal world they'd spend X but that's not how
>things work out in the real world. So they can't but keep asking for
>more money.
>
>N5

And the people who can't afford health care can *uck of and die eh?
What a stupid accountants mind you have.
Of course the NHS inefficient - but there a probably a 100 things that
could be done tomorrow make it work - even though it will still cost
money. Caring always does - not caring costs nothing.
You are nothing but a laterday Dr Beeching!

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:09:27 -0700 (PDT), November 5
 wrote:

>
>
>Svenne wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:21:36 -0700 (PDT), November 5
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >Don't take insurance then. It is a bloody con.

>> So that settles it. Private health insurance is not the way to go.

>And public health insurance is even worse!

I've never had any problems with socialized health care. I'm very
satisfied with the first class service it provides.

>> You pay your taxes and you get your roads, police, firemen, schools
>> and national defence.

>With no central authority, planning and payment for roads, police,
>firemen and schools would be entirely decentralised.

A nation of independant local communes? The time for those passed long
ago.

>Roads: You pay for your neighbourhood, routes frequented by you or
>private companies.

No nationwide motorways, then. Except the ones owned by the
megacorporations who'll have you by the balls if you want to use them.

>Police: Private investigators, private security firms, your
>neighbours, your gun.

Like in Viking times, except for the gun, that would be a battleaxe
instead.

The biggest battleaxe wins. It would save costs on law books.

>Firemen: Some private household insurance companies may offer this
>service.

And the ones without or with the wrong insurance get to watch as their
houses burn down. Maybe even the ones with the right insurance but
they get to watch their house burn down anyway while the insurance
lawyer on the fire engine wrangles.

>Schools: As of now, paid schools are cheaper per child to educate than
>state schools. I think that settles it!

I have no complaints at all about public education. Absolutely first
class. 

>> I suppose you could abolish taxes and build your own roads and schools
>> and hire private police, firemen and armies, but I'm old fashioned and
>> prefer to pay my taxes for all those kinds of things.
>
>Once you get megacorps interested in maintaining the status quo, they
>will develop their own security forces that may form a coalition to
>defend the country, or voluntarily contribute funding towards a
>military.

Megacorps owns the armed forces? Perhaps even the police, too? Better
not cross them or do something they don't like. They have the biggest
battleaxes, remember.

I prefer a bit of political accountability.

>> I've never been disappointed with health care paid for with my taxes,
>> either.

>If you use the NHS, your turn will come soon.

I've not lived in the UK for a few decades so I don't use the NHS. 

I'm more than pleased with the socialized health care where I live.
Absolutely first class and no worries about becoming uninsured or
getting cut off because the private insurance company decides my care
costs are too high or have been going on for too long.

>> It's quite comforting to know it will always be there if I
>> need it.

>In theory!

In practice, too. It's a real comfort to have universal health care
always there with no strings attached.

>The government has played on your fears to turn you into a simpering
>coward that hands over money to perpetuate their dependent electorate.

Government are dependent on the voters. Policticians should be
simpering cowards before the electorate, although I do believe that in
the USA politicians shit on the electorate and are simpering cowards
before the megacorporations.

>When you really need it, chances are the service you get will be too
>slow or inadequate. When that happens, remember our discussion.

I've used universal health care and I know many others who have used
it and it works fine. I wouldn't change it for anything.

No worries about becoming uninsured or getting cut off by private
insurance companies who have an overriding financial incentive to find
ways to deny services or to shift costs because any money spent paying
for actual services comes right out of their profits. 

When that happens to you, remember I said it. 

I know that if I become seriously and chronically ill I will receive
the health care I need for as long as I need it. I won't need to worry
about slick insurance company lawyers trying to get rid of me or
trying to impose a cheaper and less effective treatment to keep their
costs down and protect their profits.

I have good, guaranteed health care, I'm not at the mercy of private
insurance companies and there is no chance at all of me being
financially ruined by the cost of illness. That ease of mind is well
worth the tax money I pay for it. 

Svenne

On Aug 19, 12:09 am, November 5 
wrote:
> Svenne wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:21:36 -0700 (PDT), November 5
> >  wrote:
>
> > >Don't take insurance then. It is a bloody con.
>
> > So that settles it. Private health insurance is not the way to go.
>
> And public health insurance is even worse!
>

No it isn't.

Think of any other private insurance. How many times to you read/hear
of an insurance company wriggling out of paying the full amount (or
often none of it) because of the small print in the policy?

Do you really think that this will not happen with health?

Imagine you have woken up in a hospital bed after some sudden illness
or accident and the staff hand you a letter saying that you are going
to have to pay the £17000 medical costs yourself because you failed to
have your blood pressure checked every 3 months as written on page
256, section viii(a) of your policy.

Does the NHS do this?

November 5 wrote:
> Colin Wilson wrote:
>>> What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a
>>> waste of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of
>>> cost efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins,
>>> accountants, managers...
>>
>> So you're suggesting all the seperate private health companies won't
>> have their own middlemen, taxmen, admins, accountants, managers ?
>
> At the very least private health companies have no taxmen. My private
> GP has her own accountant but she manages the practice herself. Larger
> institutions will need managers, etc. but competition will drive them
> to be efficient.
>
>> Ahh, that'll be like the privatised utilities then... we can all see
>> how competition-rich and in-the-public-interest that turned out to
>> be.
>
> Public utilities in present day Britain would be worse.
>
>> While it may not be perfect, the NHS is probably a good middle-ground
>> providing care to those who cannot otherwise afford "private" health
>> care, or those who through no fault of their own come to need it -
>> you know, such people as those who are born disabled or have a family
>> history of "issues" of one type or another.
>
> A compromise for you Communists may be compulsory contributions from
> your salary to a nominated savings account. That way the money isn't
> the NHS' to spend until you're sick, so they will still make an effort
> to be efficient, instead of getting a guaranteed paycheck from the
> taxpayer every year.
>
> Under the current system, the NHS is a self-perpetuating black hole.
> If they are allocated X a year and underspend, they get accused of
> poor service. In an ideal world they'd spend X but that's not how
> things work out in the real world. So they can't but keep asking for
> more money.

It is all very well for you, you it seems can afford to go "private"! Many 
millions cannot afford that luxury and rely on the NHS to look after them. 
Personally, I think your opinion is total bollox! Sir Gerry Robinson has 
already proved that the NHS is viable, all it needs is good management.

-- 
Harry Merrick.

http://tinyurl.com/platdy

29% believe NHS is 'unmanagable'

(UKPA) – 21 hours ago

Almost one in three people believes no major political party is
capable of running the NHS, a poll has found.

Asked which of the parties could run the NHS, 29% of people surveyed
said "none" while 27% of those with a preference, chose the
Conservatives while 26% chose Labour.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry you cannot extrapolate this poll to the headline that you have 
used.

What the respondents are saying is that they don't think that the people who 
make up the core of the political parties don't have the appropriate skills 
to manage the NHS.

They are not saying that they that a group of people who do have the 
relevant skills don't exist.

tim

>
> It is all very well for you, you it seems can afford to go "private"! Many
> millions cannot afford that luxury and rely on the NHS to look after themWhere exactly is it written that a free, at the point of source,
health care system can only be provided by a Stalinist, state owned,
state run, monopoly like the NHS?

Whatever the population might say about their love-n with the NSH, I’m
guessing the majority of them would be more than pleased to find that
their NHS GP was giving them the option to source their free hospital
treatment via BUPA rather than the NHS.

BUPA hospitals, in many cases, can provide many of the more comman
procedures more cheaply than the NHS.

>
> So you're suggesting all the seperate private health companies won't
> have their own middlemen, taxmen, admins, accountants, managers ?
>
> Ahh, that'll be like the privatised utilities then... we can all see
> how competition-rich and in-the-public-interest that turned out to be.
>

This private verse public argument is entirely sterile and, as you
point out, private without competition is useless.

But that goes for public as well and the NHS is a state monopoly and
that’s why it’s also useless.

A free health care system does not require a monopoly like the NHS,
there is absolutely no reason why there cannot be a mixed economy in
health care provision, in a competitive market place, under the
umbrellas of state funded free health care.

After thirteen years of presenting the NHS with an open chequebook
such that funding has doubled in real terms, for next to nothing in
return, politicians on all sides have now concluded that the NHS
monopoly must go.

Whoever wins the next election no politician in his right mind would
repeat that mistake, least of all one very pissed off Gordon Brown.

Indeed, the reform has already started.

>
> You pay your taxes and you get your roads, police, firemen, schools
> and national defence.
>
> I suppose you could abolish taxes and build your own roads and schools
> and hire private police, firemen and armies, but I'm old fashioned and
> prefer to pay my taxes for all those kinds of things.
>

Yes, but does the state need to implement all those things.

Taxpayer funded needn’t automatically mean state implemented.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:40:09 -0700 (PDT), allanbonnetracy
 wrote:

>>
>> It is all very well for you, you it seems can afford to go "private"! Many
>> millions cannot afford that luxury and rely on the NHS to look after them.
>>
>
>Where exactly is it written that a free, at the point of source,
>health care system can only be provided by a Stalinist, state owned,
>state run, monopoly like the NHS?
>
>Whatever the population might say about their love-n with the NSH, I’m
>guessing the majority of them would be more than pleased to find that
>their NHS GP was giving them the option to source their free hospital
>treatment via BUPA rather than the NHS.
>
>BUPA hospitals, in many cases, can provide many of the more comman
>procedures more cheaply than the NHS.

Do they do organ transplants or dialysis?

>
> Do they do organ transplants or dialysis?
>

I’ve no idea if, say, BUPA do those things but if what they do do can
be performed more efficiently, therefore more cheaply than the NHS,
then I guess it means that leaves more money over for the NHS to do
better, and more of, the things only it does and just maybe some of
the things it currently does not do at all, but should do.

I’m not arguing for the dismantling of the NHS only that it should
survive on its own merits, rather than by being an ideologically
motivated monopoly.

tim..... wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/platdy
>
> 29% believe NHS is 'unmanagable'
>
> (UKPA) � 21 hours ago
>
> Almost one in three people believes no major political party is
> capable of running the NHS, a poll has found.
>
> Asked which of the parties could run the NHS, 29% of people surveyed
> said "none" while 27% of those with a preference, chose the
> Conservatives while 26% chose Labour.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------> I'm sorry you cannot extrapolate this poll to the headline that you have
> used.
>
> What the respondents are saying is that they don't think that the people who
> make up the core of the political parties don't have the appropriate skills
> to manage the NHS.
>
> They are not saying that they that a group of people who do have the
> relevant skills don't exist.
>
> tim

So what are you saying? We need yet more "expert" managers and quangos
to fix this monumental white elephant we've built?

N5

Harry Merrick wrote:
> November 5 wrote:
> > Colin Wilson wrote:
> >>> What I said all along - tax funded, collective health care is a
> >>> waste of money. You can never beat private health care in terms of
> >>> cost efficiency due to all the middlemen - taxmen, admins,
> >>> accountants, managers...
> >>
> >> So you're suggesting all the seperate private health companies won't
> >> have their own middlemen, taxmen, admins, accountants, managers ?
> >
> > At the very least private health companies have no taxmen. My private
> > GP has her own accountant but she manages the practice herself. Larger
> > institutions will need managers, etc. but competition will drive them
> > to be efficient.
> >
> >> Ahh, that'll be like the privatised utilities then... we can all see
> >> how competition-rich and in-the-public-interest that turned out to
> >> be.
> >
> > Public utilities in present day Britain would be worse.
> >
> >> While it may not be perfect, the NHS is probably a good middle-ground
> >> providing care to those who cannot otherwise afford "private" health
> >> care, or those who through no fault of their own come to need it -
> >> you know, such people as those who are born disabled or have a family
> >> history of "issues" of one type or another.
> >
> > A compromise for you Communists may be compulsory contributions from
> > your salary to a nominated savings account. That way the money isn't
> > the NHS' to spend until you're sick, so they will still make an effort
> > to be efficient, instead of getting a guaranteed paycheck from the
> > taxpayer every year.
> >
> > Under the current system, the NHS is a self-perpetuating black hole.
> > If they are allocated X a year and underspend, they get accused of
> > poor service. In an ideal world they'd spend X but that's not how
> > things work out in the real world. So they can't but keep asking for
> > more money.
>
> It is all very well for you, you it seems can afford to go "private"! Many
> millions cannot afford that luxury and rely on the NHS to look after them.
> Personally, I think your opinion is total bollox! Sir Gerry Robinson has
> already proved that the NHS is viable, all it needs is good management.
>
> --
> Harry Merrick.

If you're cash strapped, private healthcare is exactly what you want,
rather that wasting it on HMRC and all the other intervening non-jobs
between you and your health care provider!

Just save the money that would otherwise go to your NI for a rainy
day.

N5

Svenne wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:09:27 -0700 (PDT), November 5
>  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Svenne wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:21:36 -0700 (PDT), November 5
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >Don't take insurance then. It is a bloody con.
>
> >> So that settles it. Private health insurance is not the way to go.
>
> >And public health insurance is even worse!
>
> I've never had any problems with socialized health care. I'm very
> satisfied with the first class service it provides.

Regardless of your anecdote, you can not deny that public health care
gives less service per penny than private health care. There are
simply too many intervening middlemen, and no incentive to be
efficient, in a public health care monopoly.

> >> You pay your taxes and you get your roads, police, firemen, schools
> >> and national defence.
>
> >With no central authority, planning and payment for roads, police,
> >firemen and schools would be entirely decentralised.
>
> A nation of independant local communes? The time for those passed long
> ago.

At least you don't get wholescale cock-ups.

> >Roads: You pay for your neighbourhood, routes frequented by you or
> >private companies.
>
> No nationwide motorways, then. Except the ones owned by the
> megacorporations who'll have you by the balls if you want to use them.

Competition will keep prices low. Either that, or buy a 4x4.

> >Police: Private investigators, private security firms, your
> >neighbours, your gun.
>
> Like in Viking times, except for the gun, that would be a battleaxe
> instead.
>
> The biggest battleaxe wins. It would save costs on law books.

And you would rather hand over guarding your personal security to a
legalised protection racket, aka the police?

> >Firemen: Some private household insurance companies may offer this
> >service.
>
> And the ones without or with the wrong insurance get to watch as their
> houses burn down. Maybe even the ones with the right insurance but
> they get to watch their house burn down anyway while the insurance
> lawyer on the fire engine wrangles.

Then find a private neighbourhood or district or county watch with
such facilities, and pay a small fee for their services.

> >Schools: As of now, paid schools are cheaper per child to educate than
> >state schools. I think that settles it!
>
> I have no complaints at all about public education. Absolutely first
> class.

Costs more to educate a child in a state than paid school.

> >> I suppose you could abolish taxes and build your own roads and schools
> >> and hire private police, firemen and armies, but I'm old fashioned and
> >> prefer to pay my taxes for all those kinds of things.
> >
> >Once you get megacorps interested in maintaining the status quo, they
> >will develop their own security forces that may form a coalition to
> >defend the country, or voluntarily contribute funding towards a
> >military.
>
> Megacorps owns the armed forces? Perhaps even the police, too? Better
> not cross them or do something they don't like. They have the biggest
> battleaxes, remember.
>
> I prefer a bit of political accountability.

And the police have political accountability now?

> >> I've never been disappointed with health care paid for with my taxes,
> >> either.
>
> >If you use the NHS, your turn will come soon.
>
> I've not lived in the UK for a few decades so I don't use the NHS.
>
> I'm more than pleased with the socialized health care where I live.
> Absolutely first class and no worries about becoming uninsured or
> getting cut off because the private insurance company decides my care
> costs are too high or have been going on for too long.

Save your own money then. Statistically, you should be fine unless
you're a chronic health hazard.

> >> It's quite comforting to know it will always be there if I
> >> need it.
>
> >In theory!
>
> In practice, too. It's a real comfort to have universal health care
> always there with no strings attached.

There are strings attached, you just don't see it.

> >The government has played on your fears to turn you into a simpering
> >coward that hands over money to perpetuate their dependent electorate.
>
> Government are dependent on the voters. Policticians should be
> simpering cowards before the electorate, although I do believe that in
> the USA politicians shit on the electorate and are simpering cowards
> before the megacorporations.

Proof?

> >When you really need it, chances are the service you get will be too
> >slow or inadequate. When that happens, remember our discussion.
>
> I've used universal health care and I know many others who have used
> it and it works fine. I wouldn't change it for anything.
>
> No worries about becoming uninsured or getting cut off by private
> insurance companies who have an overriding financial incentive to find
> ways to deny services or to shift costs because any money spent paying
> for actual services comes right out of their profits.
>
> When that happens to you, remember I said it.
>
> I know that if I become seriously and chronically ill I will receive
> the health care I need for as long as I need it. I won't need to worry
> about slick insurance company lawyers trying to get rid of me or
> trying to impose a cheaper and less effective treatment to keep their
> costs down and protect their profits.
>
> I have good, guaranteed health care, I'm not at the mercy of private
> insurance companies and there is no chance at all of me being
> financially ruined by the cost of illness. That ease of mind is well
> worth the tax money I pay for it.
>
> Svenne

Indeed under public healthcare you are *supposed* to get free
treatment regardless of the severity of your condition. In reality
what happens due to finite resources is that they just get spread
thinner and less efficiently than a private system. So your care is
either slower, less effective than a private one (as we see today),
non-existent (like NHS dentists) or your care has cost someone else.

N5

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:40:09 -0700 (PDT), allanbonnetracy
 wrote:

>BUPA hospitals, in many cases, can provide many of the more comman
>procedures more cheaply than the NHS.

BUPA cary out those procedures in hospitals which don't have to pay
the cost of training new doctors and don't have to provide full 24
hour emergency back up.

We live in a Country where 1 in 6 adults are unemployed many have
never worked and paid taxes.  Foreigners are being housed in 1 million
pound houses in London getting their rents of over £2,000 a month paid
by local councils.  NHS should only be free to those who have worked
and paid taxes and their children.  Also we must stop foreigners
coming here and using it for free.

The NHS should be able to dfo bulk buying with drugs companies and
save a fortune also get rid of QUANGO'S.

On Aug 19, 12:39 pm, sutartsorric  wrote:
> On Aug 19, 12:09 am, November 5 
> wrote:
>
> > Svenne wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:21:36 -0700 (PDT), November 5
> > >  wrote:
>
> > > >Don't take insurance then. It is a bloody con.
>
> > > So that settles it. Private health insurance is not the way to go.
>
> > And public health insurance is even worse!
>
> No it isn't.
>
> Think of any other private insurance. How many times to you read/hear
> of an insurance company wriggling out of paying the full amount (or
> often none of it) because of the small print in the policy?
>
> Do you really think that this will not happen with health?
>
> Imagine you have woken up in a hospital bed after some sudden illness
> or accident and the staff hand you a letter saying that you are going
> to have to pay the £17000 medical costs yourself because you failed to
> have your blood pressure checked every 3 months as written on page
> 256, section viii(a) of your policy.
>
> Does the NHS do this?

The NHS is much more humane, NHS will just deny you treatment if you
dare to spend your own money on private healthcare. If you live on
chips and deep fried Mars bars, drink a bottle of whisky a day and
smoke 80 cigarettes (smuggled), that's fine, but dare you spend your
money on improving your health.

> >BUPA hospitals, in many cases, can provide many of the more comman
> >procedures more cheaply than the NHS.
>
> BUPA cary out those procedures in hospitals which don't have to pay
> the cost of training new doctors and don't have to provide full 24
> hour emergency back up.

Taxation pays for the training of doctors and nurses not the NHS,
which pays for nothing, BUPA pays its taxes and things likes business
rates, whereas the NHS is exempt.

Anyway, it’s easy to see why BUPA can be cheaper when they have been
offering a one day hernia repair procedure, for some thirty years plus
now, whereas the NHS still hasn’t fully rolled this out and is still
performing open surgery, requiring several days stay in hospital
(including more chances to be infected by MRSA).

I wonder how often this example is repeated for other treatments?

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:04:23 -0700 (PDT), November 5
 wrote:

>Regardless of your anecdote, you can not deny that public health care
>gives less service per penny than private health care. There are
>simply too many intervening middlemen, and no incentive to be
>efficient, in a public health care monopoly.

And I suppose there are no intervening middlemen creaming off profits
in the private insurance industry and trying to find ways to avoid
paying out because it hurts their bottom line.

The socialized health care I have covers all my needs just fine and
I'm happy to pay my taxes for it.

>> No nationwide motorways, then. Except the ones owned by the
>> megacorporations who'll have you by the balls if you want to use them.

>Competition will keep prices low. Either that, or buy a 4x4.

I can't see megacorporations building competing motorways.

Would they run parallel to each other?

>> Like in Viking times, except for the gun, that would be a battleaxe
>> instead.
>>
>> The biggest battleaxe wins. It would save costs on law books.

>And you would rather hand over guarding your personal security to a
>legalised protection racket, aka the police?

You mean paying tribute to a local mafia don would be better?

>> >Firemen: Some private household insurance companies may offer this
>> >service.
>>
>> And the ones without or with the wrong insurance get to watch as their
>> houses burn down. Maybe even the ones with the right insurance but
>> they get to watch their house burn down anyway while the insurance
>> lawyer on the fire engine wrangles.
>
>Then find a private neighbourhood or district or county watch with
>such facilities, and pay a small fee for their services.

The national fire service where I live is just fine.

>> >Schools: As of now, paid schools are cheaper per child to educate than
>> >state schools. I think that settles it!
>>
>> I have no complaints at all about public education. Absolutely first
>> class.
>
>Costs more to educate a child in a state than paid school.

The state schools here give a first class education that is hard to
beat.

>> I prefer a bit of political accountability.

>And the police have political accountability now?

More than a local warlord or mafia don would have.

>> I'm more than pleased with the socialized health care where I live.
>> Absolutely first class and no worries about becoming uninsured or
>> getting cut off because the private insurance company decides my care
>> costs are too high or have been going on for too long.

>Save your own money then. Statistically, you should be fine unless
>you're a chronic health hazard.

The unexpected can happen. That is why I like having a dependable
health service always available. 

One with the added bonus of being always available and not kicking me
out even if I do end up with a chronic illness, as a private insurance
company would try hard to do.

>> In practice, too. It's a real comfort to have universal health care
>> always there with no strings attached.

>There are strings attached, you just don't see it.

No strings at all. I get sick, they give me as much health care as I
need and I don't get bankrupted in the process. 

A better arrangement just doesn't exist.

>> >The government has played on your fears to turn you into a simpering
>> >coward that hands over money to perpetuate their dependent electorate.

>> Government are dependent on the voters. Policticians should be
>> simpering cowards before the electorate, although I do believe that in
>> the USA politicians shit on the electorate and are simpering cowards
>> before the megacorporations.

>Proof?

Those lobbyists in Washington aren't sloshing their millions of
dollars around because they are kindhearted.

>Indeed under public healthcare you are *supposed* to get free
>treatment regardless of the severity of your condition. In reality
>what happens due to finite resources is that they just get spread
>thinner and less efficiently than a private system. So your care is
>either slower, less effective than a private one (as we see today),
>non-existent (like NHS dentists) or your care has cost someone else.

Socialized health care has always been just fine for me and everybody
else I know. I cartainly would not want to be dependent on some
private insurance company who are more concerned about their profits
than my health and would try their damndest to kick me out if I got
some chronic illness that would cost them. 

I also like the freedom that socialized health care gives me to change
employers, or even lose my job, without fear of losing health
coverage. It must be a sod to be a slave to your employer and their
private health care. It makes unemployment a much more terrifying
prospect as well.

No thanks, I do not want an American style private rip off health
insurance system that makes a slave out of me and might not even
deliver the goods when I need them.

I like the freedom and dependability of socialized health care.

There is no better system.

Svenne

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:55:16 -0700 (PDT), November 5
 wrote:

>If you're cash strapped, private healthcare is exactly what you want,

If your cash strapped, private health care is exactly what you can't
afford.

>rather that wasting it on HMRC and all the other intervening non-jobs
>between you and your health care provider!

A private insurance company is one big non job standing between you
and your health care provider, and also one creaming of fat profits
while trying to finds ways to get rid of you if they think you cost
too much when you do make a claim.

>Just save the money that would otherwise go to your NI for a rainy
>day.

If it rains really hard you could sell your house to pay for private
treatment, too.

Svenne

President AfterIhadmyDinnerDad wrote:
>   Also we must stop foreigners
> coming here and using it for free.

We have.



-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:49:49 -0700 (PDT), allanbonnetracy
 wrote:

>Taxation pays for the training of doctors and nurses not the NHS,
>which pays for nothing, 

The training of a doctor does not stop when they graduate from
University, it's barely begun.  What do you think they do in teaching
hospitals?

William Black wrote:
> President AfterIhadmyDinnerDad wrote:
>>   Also we must stop foreigners
>> coming here and using it for free.
> 
> We have.

Easily said! But are you certain sure?

-- 
Harry Merrick.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:31:59 -0700 (PDT), allanbonnetracy
 wrote:

>>
>> Do they do organ transplants or dialysis?
>>
>
>I’ve no idea if, say, BUPA do those things but if what they do do can
>be performed more efficiently, therefore more cheaply than the NHS,

There is no evidence that this is so. I had private health insurance
for some years. The treatment I got was no different to that on NHS.
Indeed the same surgeon was involved at the same  premises. 

>then I guess it means that leaves more money over for the NHS to do
>better, and more of, the things only it does and just maybe some of
>the things it currently does not do at all, but should do.
>
>I’m not arguing for the dismantling of the NHS only that it should
>survive on its own merits, rather than by being an ideologically
>motivated monopoly.

Like policing and the military. Or would you let a private company run
those?

There are arguments for more central control in order to get the
economies of size. There are equally arguments for greater local
control because areas have different needs. What I am sure of is that
once a profit motive is introduced the service for many will
deteriorate.

Harry Merrick wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> President AfterIhadmyDinnerDad wrote:
>>>   Also we must stop foreigners
>>> coming here and using it for free.
>>
>> We have.
> 
> Easily said! But are you certain sure?
> 

Absolutely certain.

My wife is a foreign national

To register as a patient with our family doctor she had to produce her 
passport with her resident's visa as proof of eligibility.

On her first appointment at a hospital she was sent a letter telling her 
to make sure she brought her proof of eligibility for treatment.  She 
again had to produce her passport with her resident's visa in it before 
she could receive out-patient treatment at the local hospital.


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Aug 20, 5:38 pm, William Black  wrote:
> Harry Merrick wrote:
> > William Black wrote:
> >> President AfterIhadmyDinnerDad wrote:
> >>>   Also we must stop foreigners
> >>> coming here and using it for free.
>
> >> We have.
>
> > Easily said! But are you certain sure?
>
> Absolutely certain.
>
> My wife is a foreign national
>
> To register as a patient with our family doctor she had to produce her
> passport with her resident's visa as proof of eligibility.
>
> On her first appointment at a hospital she was sent a letter telling her
> to make sure she brought her proof of eligibility for treatment.  She
> again had to produce her passport with her resident's visa in it before
> she could receive out-patient treatment at the local hospital.
>

I was not asked for any ID when I first registered with a GP in
England, nor when I returned to the UK after working abroad for
several years. My wife is a foreign national too, and I just took her
to the GP surgery, told them that she was my wife, and that was it.
She was not asked for her passport.

S wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:38 pm, William Black  wrote:
>> Harry Merrick wrote:
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>> President AfterIhadmyDinnerDad wrote:
>>>>>   Also we must stop foreigners
>>>>> coming here and using it for free.
>>>> We have.
>>> Easily said! But are you certain sure?
>> Absolutely certain.
>>
>> My wife is a foreign national
>>
>> To register as a patient with our family doctor she had to produce her
>> passport with her resident's visa as proof of eligibility.
>>
>> On her first appointment at a hospital she was sent a letter telling her
>> to make sure she brought her proof of eligibility for treatment.  She
>> again had to produce her passport with her resident's visa in it before
>> she could receive out-patient treatment at the local hospital.
>>
> 
> I was not asked for any ID when I first registered with a GP in
> England, nor when I returned to the UK after working abroad for
> several years. My wife is a foreign national too, and I just took her
> to the GP surgery, told them that she was my wife, and that was it.
> She was not asked for her passport.

When was this?

We returned to the UK in early 2006.


-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

allanbonnetracy wrote:
>> It is all very well for you, you it seems can afford to go
>> "private"! Many millions cannot afford that luxury and rely on the
>> NHS to look after them.
>>
>
> Where exactly is it written that a free, at the point of source,
> health care system can only be provided by a Stalinist, state owned,
> state run, monopoly like the NHS?

DID I say it was? - I don't think so!

> Whatever the population might say about their love-n with the NSH, I’m
> guessing the majority of them would be more than pleased to find that
> their NHS GP was giving them the option to source their free hospital
> treatment via BUPA rather than the NHS.

That may indeed be so. But most people cannot afford a full insurance that 
covers everything from a body the likes of BUPA. The fact that the NHS uses 
BUPA hospitals when it suits is neither here nor there. They also ship 
patients abroad if necessary. Why ever not?

>
> BUPA hospitals, in many cases, can provide many of the more comman
> procedures more cheaply than the NHS.

Really? Cite please.

-- 
Harry Merrick.

William Black wrote:
> Harry Merrick wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>> President AfterIhadmyDinnerDad wrote:
>>>>   Also we must stop foreigners
>>>> coming here and using it for free.
>>>
>>> We have.
>>
>> Easily said! But are you certain sure?
>>
>
> Absolutely certain.
>
> My wife is a foreign national
>
> To register as a patient with our family doctor she had to produce her
> passport with her resident's visa as proof of eligibility.
>
> On her first appointment at a hospital she was sent a letter telling
> her to make sure she brought her proof of eligibility for treatment. She 
> again had to produce her passport with her resident's visa in it
> before she could receive out-patient treatment at the local hospital.

Ideally, that is as it should be. However, there is still scandal over 
foregn nationals coming over here for free or very cheap treatment. Also, 
failed asylum seekers!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559099/Now-failed-asylum-seeker-deport-given-free-NHS.html

It seems the principle of human rights has become involved!

-- 
Harry Merrick.

On Aug 20, 9:43 pm, William Black  wrote:
> S wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 5:38 pm, William Black  wrote:
> >> Harry Merrick wrote:
> >>> William Black wrote:
> >>>> President AfterIhadmyDinnerDad wrote:
> >>>>>   Also we must stop foreigners
> >>>>> coming here and using it for free.
> >>>> We have.
> >>> Easily said! But are you certain sure?
> >> Absolutely certain.
>
> >> My wife is a foreign national
>
> >> To register as a patient with our family doctor she had to produce her
> >> passport with her resident's visa as proof of eligibility.
>
> >> On her first appointment at a hospital she was sent a letter telling her
> >> to make sure she brought her proof of eligibility for treatment.  She
> >> again had to produce her passport with her resident's visa in it before
> >> she could receive out-patient treatment at the local hospital.
>
> > I was not asked for any ID when I first registered with a GP in
> > England, nor when I returned to the UK after working abroad for
> > several years. My wife is a foreign national too, and I just took her
> > to the GP surgery, told them that she was my wife, and that was it.
> > She was not asked for her passport.
>
> When was this?
>
> We returned to the UK in early 2006.
>

It was well before 2006. We still have not been asked to prove our
identity or our eligibility for NHS treatment.