Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 4:54 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I think the greatest donators to the well being of the general public have been business people made good e.g. Gates, that is what Maslow suggests will happen. Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there. The vulnerable in society need protecting and need access to a good standard of health care - is it acceptable that those who don't provide for themselves should have the same level of access as those that do without to provide for themselves?

The population have already been asked to put an extra 3% into pension because the previous version couldn't cope and this will rise to 5% so where do you think the additional monies are going to come from - I forgot you are a Socialist and the state knows best and we should be left with what Jeremy deems acceptable.

What "abuse" are you talking about? People going to the doctor because they are worried about something but knowing it won't cost them anything is massively more cost effective than people not going to the doctor because they are worried about the cost and thus delaying diagnosis and treatment until it's too late. That's healthcare 101.

Only a hard-core right winger would classify this as "abuse".

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:01 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there. How do you explain this? The US has an insurance based healthcare system, we don’t. The US spends double on healthcare compared to what we spend. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42950587

Sal Paradise wrote: Do I think if we had insurance the abuse of the NHS would reduce it certainly would. However we are where we are and as democrat I accept the greater view - whilst ever people think the NHS is free they will treat it as such and if we reduced the abuse the money would go much further - how many people who go to A&E actually need to be there. How do you explain this? The US has an insurance based healthcare system, we don’t. The US spends double on healthcare compared to what we spend. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42950587

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 5:12 pm  

BTW as already explained this simplistic labelling of people as "socialists" who don't agree with pure free markets is tiresome. Almost everyone, me included, is discussing quite how to balance our mixed economy. I'm similar to Mild Rover in what sectors the government should involve itself in but the biggest problem i have is the state of the private sector. In far too many areas, from the market for labour to the supermarkets to Amazon we see examples of market failure. The habit of some in using the term "free market" as a sort of euphemism for the private sector is troubling because a properly free market is free in both supply and demand. An oligopoly and a monopoly are often just failed markets who eventually short change their customers and consumers and we see examples all around the UK.

One of my clients used to be a tomato supplier on a pretty industrial scale. Tesco offered him prices which would have seen him make a loss on supplying them. It was a totally inequitable arrangement and for other suppliers who only had one big customer there were few options. Fortunately he also had a contract with Sainsburys which meant he could reject Tesco but it was a revealing insight into abuse of a dominant position to screw suppliers.

I believe in GENUINE free markets in almost all sectors other than those where it makes no sense: health, education, defence, police, domestic transport, fixed supply utilities. But, to use a phrase, they should be properly regulated free markets where abusive actions by companies or individuals who have gamed the system are met with suitably powerful anti trust regulators.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Nov 03, 2019 9:56 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: Remind me who instigated PFIs? The Conservative Government of John Major in 1992. Use of PFIs became more widespread under the (New) Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. After the financial crisis of 2007, private finance was harder to obtain, so the government started lending public money to private companies because... no that’s pretty much unjustifiable, innit? Biggest stain on their domestic legacy, imo. Philip Hammond pulled the plug after Carillion went pop, and I hope it stays pulled. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-projects Yay for Philip Hammond!

Sal Paradise wrote: Remind me who instigated PFIs? The Conservative Government of John Major in 1992. Use of PFIs became more widespread under the (New) Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. After the financial crisis of 2007, private finance was harder to obtain, so the government started lending public money to private companies because... no that’s pretty much unjustifiable, innit? Biggest stain on their domestic legacy, imo. Philip Hammond pulled the plug after Carillion went pop, and I hope it stays pulled. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-projects Yay for Philip Hammond!

Re: Donald Trump : Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:46 am  

Mild Rover wrote: The Conservative Government of John Major in 1992. Use of PFIs became more widespread under the (New) Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. After the financial crisis of 2007, private finance was harder to obtain, so the government started lending public money to private companies because... no that’s pretty much unjustifiable, innit? Biggest stain on their domestic legacy, imo. Philip Hammond pulled the plug after Carillion went pop, and I hope it stays pulled. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-projects Yay for Philip Hammond! I agree - government should only be putting money in for two reasons - job protection - its cheaper and more socially beneficial to have people in work than on the dole. Areas where there is chance of advances in science/technology - this funding was supported by the EU and needs protecting if we leave - cut the overseas budgets.

Mild Rover wrote: The Conservative Government of John Major in 1992. Use of PFIs became more widespread under the (New) Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. After the financial crisis of 2007, private finance was harder to obtain, so the government started lending public money to private companies because... no that’s pretty much unjustifiable, innit? Biggest stain on their domestic legacy, imo. Philip Hammond pulled the plug after Carillion went pop, and I hope it stays pulled. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... e-projects Yay for Philip Hammond! I agree - government should only be putting money in for two reasons - job protection - its cheaper and more socially beneficial to have people in work than on the dole. Areas where there is chance of advances in science/technology - this funding was supported by the EU and needs protecting if we leave - cut the overseas budgets.

Re: Donald Trump : Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:00 am  

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote: How do you explain this? The US has an insurance based healthcare system, we don’t. The US spends double on healthcare compared to what we spend. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42950587 To clear this up I am not suggesting we move to an insurance-based system. Health care in the US will be move expensive as there is a profit element plus as has been mentioned before the cost of drugs is higher. Also the US are prepared to push the boundries in terms of clinical treatments i.e. use live humans for practise but charge them massively for taking part in the trial!!

Sir Kevin Sinfield wrote: How do you explain this? The US has an insurance based healthcare system, we don’t. The US spends double on healthcare compared to what we spend. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... k-42950587 To clear this up I am not suggesting we move to an insurance-based system. Health care in the US will be move expensive as there is a profit element plus as has been mentioned before the cost of drugs is higher. Also the US are prepared to push the boundries in terms of clinical treatments i.e. use live humans for practise but charge them massively for taking part in the trial!!

Re: Donald Trump : Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:50 pm  

Two faced.

How old is the boy trapped in that tangerine skin?

Re: Donald Trump : Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:40 am  

WIZEB wrote:

Two faced.

How old is the boy trapped in that tangerine skin?

That made me smile.
He does seem really uncomfortable if anyone cast's doubt or takes the mickey out of him.
However, as with all bullies, he is more than happy to give it but not take it - he seems to have a major problem with any kind of criticism.

Re: Donald Trump : Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:58 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

That made me smile.
He does seem really uncomfortable if anyone cast's doubt or takes the mickey out of him.
However, as with all bullies, he is more than happy to give it but not take it - he seems to have a major problem with any kind of criticism.

With anyone was has a lot to hide - he would rather silence everyone.

Very strange individual - but looking at the Democrats he will increase his majority this time

Re: Donald Trump : Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:25 pm  

The Ghost of '99 wrote:

What "abuse" are you talking about? People going to the doctor because they are worried about something but knowing it won't cost them anything is massively more cost effective than people not going to the doctor because they are worried about the cost and thus delaying diagnosis and treatment until it's too late. That's healthcare 101.

Only a hard-core right winger would classify this as "abuse".

Maybe by abuse of the NHS he means people who smoke and drink and eat fatty food and create problems that the NHS has to pick up. They will defend their lifestyle as it's a "free country" and it's "not the role of the nanny state to tell me how I should live my life". However, they're happy to expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill for treatment that they have caused.

Now an insurance based system, where insurers had information about peoples lifestyles (surely achievable in the era of big data and multiple transactions) would enable insurers to price health premiums appropriately. So if you are making transactions purchasing cigarettes, alcohol etc, your insurer gets to find out and can adjust the expected risk and so put your premiums upward. This would be more efficient from a market perspective and would create incentives for people to live more healthy lifestyles. Unfortunately the critics of the NHS don't tend to be too keen on this idea!