The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

ooh - at last - concrete proof that we're all in it together!

the government is exploring plans to offer tax relief on employing domestic help!

wahay - poor people get jobs - and rich people get to employ them for less! win-win!!

Great, that's the wife's job sorted out then. And the Daughter. And my 9 y.o. son.

How much tax relief do I get?

none - you're from the North.

Yes, but I work down South a lot, because they don't have any bright people there.

[thebish]

ooh - at last - concrete proof that we're all in it together!

the government is exploring plans to offer tax relief on employing domestic help!

wahay - poor people get jobs - and rich people get to employ them for less! win-win!!

Great, that's the wife's job sorted out then. And the Daughter. And my 9 y.o. son.

How much tax relief do I get?

none - you're from the North.

Yes, but I work down South a lot, because they don't have any bright people there.

ahhh - that's my motto too - "try to fit in!"

[Worthy4England]

Strangely enough, my motto's "fook 'em"

[BWFC_Insane]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... s-campaign" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So the question has to be asked, is there ANYONE other than Lansley or Cameron (possibly) who still thinks this is a good idea?

[Bruce Rioja]

Sorry, I've nothing to say on the subject matter, but this is just pure gold.

Drop the bill campaign gathers 1,000 signatures an hour and gets support from Stephen Fry, Rio Ferdinand and Jamie Oliver

[BWFC_Insane]

Sorry, I've nothing to say on the subject matter, but this is just pure gold.

Drop the bill campaign gathers 1,000 signatures an hour and gets support from Stephen Fry, Rio Ferdinand and Jamie Oliver

I mean if even Rio bloody Ferdinand can realise how bad a mistake this bill is, the how thick must Lansley be?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... s-campaign

So the question has to be asked, is there ANYONE other than Lansley or Cameron (possibly) who still thinks this is a good idea?

It depends... I support most of its principles but am realistic enough to see that reform of the NHS is impossible without more stakeholder support behind it.

Actually we've got an American style situation in which the whole area is so politicised as to make genuine progress impossible. It was a misjudgement to put a bulldozer like Lansely in charge, rather than a charmer.

One way or another, big changes will happene in healthcare in the next ten/fifteen years. If this bill is dropped and the NHS continues with its current model and current level of funding, it is obvious that 'basic' healthcare (the sort of stuff the NHS was originally set up to provide) will account for a bigger and bigger percentage of the NHS's total activity, and more and more of the advanced and expensive stuff will drop out and become unviable. This is the relentless and unavoidable consequence of demographics and basic maths. Now, when this happens, rich people will find a way of getting the treatment they need, and the poor will get left behind... in fact, it's already happening, but we'll see how bad it has to get before it shakes us out of our obession with universally free healthcare, 'for the public and not for profit'.

[Bruce Rioja]

Sorry, I've nothing to say on the subject matter, but this is just pure gold.

Drop the bill campaign gathers 1,000 signatures an hour and gets support from Stephen Fry, Rio Ferdinand and Jamie Oliver

I mean if even Rio bloody Ferdinand can realise how bad a mistake this bill is, the how thick must Lansley be?

Nope, just how desperate some are!!!

[Lord Kangana]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... s-campaign

So the question has to be asked, is there ANYONE other than Lansley or Cameron (possibly) who still thinks this is a good idea?

It depends... I support most of its principles but am realistic enough to see that reform of the NHS is impossible without more stakeholder support behind it.

Actually we've got an American style situation in which the whole area is so politicised as to make genuine progress impossible. It was a misjudgement to put a bulldozer like Lansely in charge, rather than a charmer.

One way or another, big changes will happene in healthcare in the next ten/fifteen years. If this bill is dropped and the NHS continues with its current model and current level of funding, it is obvious that 'basic' healthcare (the sort of stuff the NHS was originally set up to provide) will account for a bigger and bigger percentage of the NHS's total activity, and more and more of the advanced and expensive stuff will drop out and become unviable. This is the relentless and unavoidable consequence of demographics and basic maths. Now, when this happens, rich people will find a way of getting the treatment they need, and the poor will get left behind... in fact, it's already happening, but we'll see how bad it has to get before it shakes us out of our obession with universally free healthcare, 'for the public and not for profit'.

Just out of interest, how will healthcare for profit improve the lot of the poor, of whom you say the current system is failing?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Just out of interest, how will healthcare for profit improve the lot of the poor, of whom you say the current system is failing?

If using competitive private providers delivered an efficiency saving that was split between profit for the private company and a saving for the health service, then that would leave more money to spend on the poor.

If you're argument is that profit-incentivised providers never actually deliver these savings, then that's one thing.

But the argument tends to centre on the fact that profit in healthcare is wrong per se, even if hypothetically it did deliver savings - I'm not even sure how to engage with people who think like that and the problem is that the Government has the same problem.

[Lord Kangana]

The argument is that profit takes first priority over care. As I've mentioned many times, Southern Cross are a prime example of a service that is too important to fail having to be rescued because it was run with a profit motive as its principle guide. Ultimately, it costs us, the taxpayers, the same (sometimes more) to have to pick up the pieces from the unscrupulous. I don't see why its necessary to go through the charade and pretend otherwise. Ie, cut out the middleman.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The argument is that profit takes first priority over care. As I've mentioned many times, Southern Cross are a prime example of a service that is too important to fail having to be rescued because it was run with a profit motive as its principle guide. Ultimately, it costs us, the taxpayers, the same (sometimes more) to have to pick up the pieces from the unscrupulous. I don't see why its necessary to go through the charade and pretend otherwise. Ie, cut out the middleman.

I understand that, and that is certainly a good argument for never letting private healthcare providers engage in activities that are too big to fail - but the argument about privatised healthcare doesn't end with that one example of a failure of privatised healthcare. You could just as easily point to high street opticians and say there's an example of a good, competitive service that most glasses wearers are happy with, that used to be totally within the NHS.

And I say, the discussion of the efficacy of these models is well worth having, but the refusal to even get that far is seriously unhelpful.

[Lord Kangana]

But then who decides which services are not too important to fail? If you went through a list of services provided by The NHS, you would find most people ticking the box "essential" next to the majority of them. And I would bet that these are the most lucrative (because they are the most used) so the only carrot the government can offer the private enterprise is these essential services. Otherwise, why bother with niche services? In which case, my original point still stands. We will either pick up the tab for failure, or consign universal healthcare to the dustbin. I fundamentally disagree with the latter, so I don't see why we should risk the former.

And no-one is offering a compelling argument to dispel these fears. If they were (and really, they aren't) there would be a whole raft more people behind it. Lets be clear, grass-roots Tories wouldn't be so worried if they didn't have something to worry about.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

But then who decides which services are not too important to fail?

No, it's more nuanced than that - it's not about which services, but which service providers. We can't afford for people not to have glasses and contact lenses, but if Specsavers went bust tomorrow, we'd still have several alternatives.

I agree that we can't afford to have Southern Cross situations where vulnerable people are entirely reliant on one service provider. No argument there at all.

I'd say not only is nobody offering a compelling argument, but the debate is not fought on the right grounds, yet again.

It's too easy to be in favour of 'universal healthcare', like motherhood and apple pie, but very few people seem prepared to grapple with exactly what that phrase means in the 21st century.

[Lord Kangana]

So what does it mean?

As we've already discussed, The US as a whole is spending far more of its GDP on a healthcare system that doesn't even cover 1/5th of its population?

So, whats wrong with our cheaper, wholly universal system at present?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So what does it mean?

As we've already discussed, The US as a whole is spending far more of its GDP on a healthcare system that doesn't even cover 1/5th of its population?

So, whats wrong with our cheaper, wholly universal system at present?

Who gives a feck about what the US's enormous healthcare problems are?

I'd rather look at other small countries who spend less than we do and get better healthcare outcomes.

What's wrong with our system at present is that we are not competitive in many of the outcome metrics on the world stage and that the NHS is condemned to inexorable decline or inexorably rising costs unless we do something about it.

[Armchair Wanderer]

In theory what Mummy says is very true, imo.

It'd be great to have competition and efficiency and value for money.

Ultimately private companies want to make a profit, so while they may be more efficient you're paying for their profit margins.

Strikes me as being tricky to get a service of the same quality for less money when you are also putting a big percentage of that money in the pocket of shareholders etc.

We'll have to examine the pudding for any proof if it goes through.

[BWFC_Insane]

So what does it mean?

As we've already discussed, The US as a whole is spending far more of its GDP on a healthcare system that doesn't even cover 1/5th of its population?

So, whats wrong with our cheaper, wholly universal system at present?

Who gives a feck about what the US's enormous healthcare problems are?

I'd rather look at other small countries who spend less than we do and get better healthcare outcomes.

What's wrong with our system at present is that we are not competitive in many of the outcome metrics on the world stage and that the NHS is condemned to inexorable decline or inexorably rising costs unless we do something about it.

Can you tell us which of these countries are that spend less and have better health outcomes than the UK?

[Worthy4England]

So what does it mean?

As we've already discussed, The US as a whole is spending far more of its GDP on a healthcare system that doesn't even cover 1/5th of its population?

So, whats wrong with our cheaper, wholly universal system at present?

Who gives a feck about what the US's enormous healthcare problems are?

I'd rather look at other small countries who spend less than we do and get better healthcare outcomes.

What's wrong with our system at present is that we are not competitive in many of the outcome metrics on the world stage and that the NHS is condemned to inexorable decline or inexorably rising costs unless we do something about it.

Can you tell us which of these countries are that spend less and have better health outcomes than the UK?

And whether those outcomes are specifically because of their health service or as much to do with general lifestyle factors.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't have that info to hand so I won't venture a poorly-remembered version, but it's out there if you want to look for it.

And yes, obviously some metrics are heavily skewed by lifestyle factors, but there are some that are not.