Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Werthead

UK Politics: Winter of Discontent

Recommended Posts

To have a gold plated healthcare system we would need to close tax loopholes and pay about an extra .5 pence in the pound tax. I think most people would be fine with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

To have a gold plated healthcare system we would need to close tax loopholes and pay about an extra .5 pence in the pound tax. I think most people would be fine with that. 

Except those who genuinely believe that taxation is evil, and those with shares / future board positions with BUPA et al...

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Except those who genuinely believe that taxation is evil, and those with shares / future board positions with BUPA et al...

That's not most people. That's an insignificant minority. Fuck 'em. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the former - I can only disagree with them... strongly.

For the latter, I quite like the French 19th century approach...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Oxfam story is fucking ridiculous. Complete over reaction over something so trivial in the scheme of what they do overall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 4:40 PM, Yukle said:

That's if two systems run concurrently, rather than in tandem. You can setup a system however you want it to be. If public and private systems receive exactly equal funding and it is then used in exactly the same way, they'll both be exactly the same. In reality, private systems are less efficient because they also have to turn a profit, and therefore they cost more to run.

Where a public model is running with ideal efficiency, yes the private profit-making model is less efficient because of the demand to make a profit. But the public models are generally not running at ideal efficiency. And this has been a reason why certain ideologies have been able to convince the public that privatization is the best way to go, which applies to many different public interests, not just healthcare, such as education.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Where a public model is running with ideal efficiency, yes the private profit-making model is less efficient because of the demand to make a profit. But the public models are generally not running at ideal efficiency. And this has been a reason why certain ideologies have been able to convince the public that privatization is the best way to go, which applies to many different public interests, not just healthcare, such as education.

Administration costs in private healthcare are about six times public healthcare in Australia. I don't know about other countries, but in Australia public healthcare is consistently more efficient in all costs: labour, pharmaceuticals, medical aides and so on. It is behind on waiting times, though, which is also a reflection of how many people have public healthcare (everyone) versus private (about 40% or so).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

This Oxfam story is fucking ridiculous. Complete over reaction over something so trivial in the scheme of what they do overall. 

I'm not sure you can use that as an excuse. If their workers have broken the law, and Oxfam haven't acted appropriately, it doesn't matter how much good they do overall. They fucked up. You can't give them a pass because they're a charity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mormont said:

I'm not sure you can use that as an excuse. If their workers have broken the law, and Oxfam haven't acted appropriately, it doesn't matter how much good they do overall. They fucked up. You can't give them a pass because they're a charity. 

Like BFC, I'm struggling to find anything to get too worked up about here. Maybe I just haven't seen the right reports, where all the actual crimes that took place have been detailed.

If it's just a case of Men Using Prostitutes When Working Overseas, then I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. We're talking about the Oldest Profession here, are we not? Were any of the prostitutes children? Not according to any reports that I've seen. Was anyone physically or emotionally abused? Not according to any reports that I have seen.

All I see here is the latest round of hypocrisy, where lots of journos and politicians get to make a lot of self-righteous noise about activities that they themselves have probably engaged in more than once.

ETA: Just seen some nebulous claims of child abuse on the Times website. If these claims prove true, then scratch all of the above.

Edited by Spockydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Like BFC, I'm struggling to find anything to get too worked up about here. Maybe I just haven't seen the right reports, where all the actual crimes that took place have been detailed.

If it's just a case of Men Using Prostitutes When Working Overseas, then I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. We're talking about the Oldest Profession here, are we not? Were any of the prostitutes children? Not according to any reports that I've seen. Was anyone physically or emotionally abused? Not according to any reports that I have seen.

All I see here is the latest round of hypocrisy, where lots of journos and politicians get to make a lot of self-righteous noise about activities that they themselves have probably engaged in more than once.

ETA: Just seen some nebulous claims of child abuse on the Times website. If these claims prove true, then scratch all of the above.

They were there to help the people, nit exploit them. Also not sure the people who donate to them (including every taxpayer as they get government money) will be impressed that this money is potentially being misspent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

They were there to help the people, nit exploit them. Also not sure the people who donate to them (including every taxpayer as they get government money) will be impressed that this money is potentially being misspent.  

Look, I don't want to get into a big moral debate about the rights and wrongs of prostitution. But I'm far from convinced that every sex worker is an exploited human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

They were there to help the people, nit exploit them. Also not sure the people who donate to them (including every taxpayer as they get government money) will be impressed that this money is potentially being misspent.  

I doubt they were putting prostitutes on expenses. I assume they were using there own cash. Not that this makes it right. But a few rotten apples doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 1:35 AM, BigFatCoward said:

To have a gold plated healthcare system we would need to close tax loopholes and pay about an extra .5 pence in the pound tax. I think most people would be fine with that. 

Unelected bureaucrats  don't tend  to consider the actual costs of everything associated  with healthcare . No matter how many loopholes the UK government might close  or  taxes and fees that they raise, they will never be able to provide  good services to the majority of people. To control costs and maintain maximum coverage , they will  be forced  to reduce the quality of those services   The system and how it set up ,managed , budgeted and paid for is the problem. 

 Doesn't The UK still have private healthcare service to cover the shortfall of NHS?

 

Edited by GAROVORKIN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Look, I don't want to get into a big moral debate about the rights and wrongs of prostitution. But I'm far from convinced that every sex worker is an exploited human being.

While that's true, there have been several cases of STD's being spread among local populations by aid workers using prostitutes, which is why aid charities prohibit it.  And, prostitution is also against the law in Haiti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Look, I don't want to get into a big moral debate about the rights and wrongs of prostitution. But I'm far from convinced that every sex worker is an exploited human being.

Fully agree. At the same time, the situation here - a Western aid worker and a presumably local person from a population in need of aid - does suggest a power imbalance that seems improper, even if it was the case that this is a willing sex worker who has opted for this line of work, and not a person being exploited, under threat of violence, or who is underage. 

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I doubt they were putting prostitutes on expenses. I assume they were using there own cash. Not that this makes it right. But a few rotten apples doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

I understand the accusation is that these activities took place at a residence paid for by the charity. That makes it less of a private matter, for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem people are having is that Oxfam covered up for what was going on, rather than that Oxfam should be held responsible for it happening in the first place.


Stopping all donations to them as some people and businesses are doing does seem like a not-particularly-helpful reaction to the issue, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I think the problem people are having is that Oxfam covered up for what was going on, rather than that Oxfam should be held responsible for it happening in the first place.

Frankly, I think our police, press and politicians should be more concerned with the many cover ups that take place a little closer to home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Frankly, I think our police, press and politicians should be more concerned with the many cover ups that take place a little closer to home. 



Sure, but I think we have room to be concerned with more than one thing at once.

I mean, I do think more noise is being made over this than is necessary or helpful, but I also don't think just pretending it didn't happen would be the right course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Where a public model is running with ideal efficiency, yes the private profit-making model is less efficient because of the demand to make a profit. But the public models are generally not running at ideal efficiency. And this has been a reason why certain ideologies have been able to convince the public that privatization is the best way to go, which applies to many different public interests, not just healthcare, such as education.

I think it is not so much that "the public models are generally not running at ideal efficiency", more that ideologues have managed to convince people that they were not, or to bribe people with shares, or to run them into the ground and say there is then no alternative, or just plain ignore public opinion (where was the public support for the privatisation of British Rail, for example?).

And in practice the private profit-making model is not just "less efficient" because of the demand to make a profit. I think it would be difficult to identify anything privatised in the UK in the last 20 years or so that is doing better than in public hands. The all-to-typical model is that of a monopolistic privatised company passing through a succession of hands that each do the absolute minimum of maintenance and development, sell off everything possible, load it up with debt, and run rings round unsupported regulators who are pushed into allowing price rises way above inflation, all while siphoning off obscene amounts of money as profits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 Doesn't The UK still have private healthcare service to cover the shortfall of NHS?


Another of my trigger points:

There are basically two options in the UK other than the NHS.

1) Pay for services as you use them. This basically is only practicable for the top 0.1% (which obviously includes all those Tory Grandees who want to get rid of the NHS).

2) Pay insurance to one of the private health care providers and hope. Probably about the top 10% can afford this (or get it as a job perk). In practice, in my opinion and anecdotal experience, lack of regulation makes this is little better than a scam. The companies will happily take 3 digit premiums per month, and provide certain limited services, but if you develop anything expensive they will do all they can to avoid paying for it and also to try to get you off their books entirely. Even when they do provide services, there tends to be very little depth to their expertise - you hear stories of patients being rushed to NHS casualty because something has gone wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×