Bit of Brexit info required. | Page 240 | Vital Football

Bit of Brexit info required.

Health care and medicine is not a market. It is possible to use analogous market analysis and tools but a fundamental mistake to think selling mars bars and medicine is the same.

Was trying to think about other sectors that have followed your advice in addition to the ones I gave- housing is another where the state has withdrawn to allow the private sector space to develop. This has resulted in smaller and smaller houses and land banking. The failure of the private sector in social policy is as well known as it is evidenced.
 
radfordinlondon said:
Health care and medicine is not a market. It is possible to use analogous market analysis and tools but a fundamental mistake to think selling mars bars and medicine is the same.

Was trying to think about other sectors that have followed your advice in addition to the ones I gave- housing is another where the state has withdrawn to allow the private sector space to develop. This has resulted in smaller and smaller houses and land banking. The failure of the private sector in social policy is as well known as it is evidenced.
Click to expand...

Health care and medicine is a market, just like any other. In our system the complication is that the people paying for the service are not the same ones as those receiving the service. It is a fact of life unfortunately that even life itself has to have a value. Most of us would give our last million (if we had one!) to save our nearest and dearest, but wouldn't to save a complete stranger. NICE has the problem of resolving this.

Most of the problems above are far more complicated than public v private sector, and again are mainly management problems. If planning permission only lasted say three years prior to build companies would be forced to build. Similarly houses are getting smaller because prices have rocketed over the years, building land is in short supply, and again the fact that governments allow smaller builds. Personally I would never have had the "right to buy" on council houses, or at least made sure that people had lived there for ten or twenty years first,and continue to live in them afterwards.
 
Last edited:
With respect, no it isn't. Read the last post again. The nhs is based on shared risk- the risk of needing health care in your life, whatever your circumstances. The model you outline is everyone for themselves. One is clearly superior to the other and perhaps one of the dwindling reasons to be proud to be British.

With regards to housing you make like issues caused by supply and demand are inevitable. They are not. Planning actually reflects your me first attitude more so than health (People generally retain compassion in life/death and other emergencies).

I agree 're sale of council houses but complex issues would still remain even if not 1 had been sold. Flexible Labour markets and freedom of movement can actually support housing as well as create problems, but that's another story...

Oh wait
 
What the fuck, since we r having a break from the brexit bitch, let's go deep.

Your model of everyone for themselves is most starkly expressed in the US (nuff said) and is effectively an insurance based scheme. If you don't have a system of shard risk there are genetic assay techniques that can very accurately predict life illnesses chances and thus financial liability. Given private sector need for profit you don't need a PhD to work out some people won't get insured and u r bordering on eugenics.

Healthcare is way more than a simple fooking business transaction and way more complicated. Precisely the reason I stayed well away professionally
 
radfordinlondon said:
With respect, no it isn't. Read the last post again. The nhs is based on shared risk- the risk of needing health care in your life, whatever your circumstances. The model you outline is everyone for themselves. One is clearly superior to the other and perhaps one of the dwindling reasons to be proud to be British.

With regards to housing you make like issues caused by supply and demand are inevitable. They are not. Planning actually reflects your me first attitude more so than health (People generally retain compassion in life/death and other emergencies).

I agree 're sale of council houses but complex issues would still remain even if not 1 had been sold. Flexible Labour markets and freedom of movement can actually support housing as well as create problems, but that's another story...

Oh wait
Click to expand...

Who has suggested a model of everyone for themselves? I most certainly haven't. You are confusing the current NHS model (free at the point of delivery) which I agree with 100 percent and haven't said anything to the contrary, with who supplies the service. Really don't know what you are reading as I've said nothing about charging for NHS services. Where have I outlined anything about "everyone for themselves"?
 
radfordinlondon said:
What the fuck, since we r having a break from the brexit bitch, let's go deep.

Your model of everyone for themselves is most starkly expressed in the US (nuff said) and is effectively an insurance based scheme. If you don't have a system of shard risk there are genetic assay techniques that can very accurately predict life illnesses chances and thus financial liability. Given private sector need for profit you don't need a PhD to work out some people won't get insured and u r bordering on eugenics.

Healthcare is way more than a simple fooking business transaction and way more complicated. Precisely the reason I stayed well away professionally
Click to expand...

Again not said anything about "everyone for themselves". I do love how you read what I've put, disagree (which you're quite entitled to), but then invent things I haven't even put. I am talking about the SUPPLY of NHS services, which is a matter of opinion as to the best way they are supplied (public or private). Got nothing to do with the payment side where I 100% support the current method.
 
radfordinlondon said:
With respect, no it isn't.
Click to expand...

Healthcare is clearly a market just like eveything else. The government has a finite amount of money to spend on it. Should it spend it on prevention, gp's , hospitals the NHS or private. Even within the NHS decisions have to be made about where the money is spent cancer, cardiac etc. NICE has to assess which drugs and services are getting the best value for money , and what services they can afford. The only difference in this market is that generally the person buying the service makes the decision and receives the goods. In this case the people spending the money make the decisions, but a totally different "customer" receives the benefit. Again you can debate if the patient should be told where to go for treatment, have a limited local choice, or even be given a fixed amount of funds to have an operation or service carried out wherever they want.
 
Lienking said:
...you are confusing the current NHS model (free at the point of delivery) which I agree with 100 percent and haven't said anything to the contrary...
Click to expand...
Ok, that's your view and I agree with you, but leading brexiters disagree with us and want this model to change.
 
If you go to a franchise system you run all the risks of the rail service failings. That is, franchisees over-promising with undeliverable plans and devising models that work for them rather than the customer (e.g. empty trains at certain times, not enough carriages at others so they can maximise the compensation benefits, etc).
In general, this hasn't worked too well and the rail franchisees are taking the profits but nationalising the risks. To balance the argument (and avoid Toms calling me a loony lefty, or whatever he thinks I am), you could say they have to do it because many sectors that are critical to our infrastructure just aren't very profitable. And why should they be?

Neither long term, nor short term, franchise periods are particularly efficient. Why not keep the NHS service providers responsible to our elected officials, who we can kick out if they are underperforming, rather than private shareholders who we cannot? Ok, they aren't the recipients of the care (although they are really, just only a tiny fraction of it) but they are only one step removed courtesy of the ballot box.
 
in_the_top_one said:
If you go to a franchise system you run all the risks of the rail service failings. That is, franchisees over-promising with undeliverable plans and devising models that work for them rather than the customer (e.g. empty trains at certain times, not enough carriages at others so they can maximise the compensation benefits, etc).
In general, this hasn't worked too well and the rail franchisees are taking the profits but nationalising the risks. To balance the argument (and avoid Toms calling me a loony lefty, or whatever he thinks I am), you could say they have to do it because many sectors that are critical to our infrastructure just aren't very profitable. And why should they be?

Neither long term, nor short term, franchise periods are particularly efficient. Why not keep the NHS service providers responsible to our elected officials, who we can kick out if they are underperforming, rather than private shareholders who we cannot? Ok, they aren't the recipients of the care (although they are really, just only a tiny fraction of it) but they are only one step removed courtesy of the ballot box.
Click to expand...

Not a great fan of the franchise system, and don't pretend to understand why they run "ghost trains", but again the problems are in the terms and the management of it. Would be nice to have it back as one big organisation, though I am old enough to remember strikes, late trains, and a lack of investment. Again, I would guess there are franchisees who run railway systems abroad, know what they are doing and are successful. Others are used to running buses!
 
Lienking said:
Healthcare is clearly a market just like eveything else. The government has a finite amount of money to spend on it. Should it spend it on prevention, gp's , hospitals the NHS or private. Even within the NHS decisions have to be made about where the money is spent cancer, cardiac etc. NICE has to assess which drugs and services are getting the best value for money , and what services they can afford. The only difference in this market is that generally the person buying the service makes the decision and receives the goods. In this case the people spending the money make the decisions, but a totally different "customer" receives the benefit. Again you can debate if the patient should be told where to go for treatment, have a limited local choice, or even be given a fixed amount of funds to have an operation or service carried out wherever they want.
Click to expand...

This is utter nonsense m8- r u a doctor do u know what u r buying?

Thought not.

Maybe we should just make people that think health is a market get private insurance
 
Lienking said:
Again not said anything about "everyone for themselves". I do love how you read what I've put, disagree (which you're quite entitled to), but then invent things I haven't even put. I am talking about the SUPPLY of NHS services, which is a matter of opinion as to the best way they are supplied (public or private). Got nothing to do with the payment side where I 100% support the current method.
Click to expand...

If u allow private sector to control provision/supply some people won't get health care.

U support forest, u r probably decent (underneath the brexit BS)- most large private companies are the opposite and would rape us given the opportunity. Privatizing supply is getting close to brexit scale issues.
 
radfordinlondon said:
This is utter nonsense m8- r u a doctor do u know what u r buying?

Thought not.

Maybe we should just make people that think health is a market get private insurance
Click to expand...

Worked in the NHS for about five years (at three local hospitals) mainly at the level below the Directors. Spent many a happy hour sitting in meetings with about forty heads of department, dealt with plenty of doctors and surgeons, all of which is irrelevant. A market is about supply and demand. That is what the NHS is about. It's a different type of market, and even if it's 100% supplied by the NHS, it's still a market. Really fail to see why you can't see that, as it has nothing to do with politics, views etc. It's just a plain fact. Can't remember what it was, but NICE turned down buying a drug recently because, according to their calculations the £500 million cost of the drug wasn't value for money.
 
Last edited:
Lienking said:
Worked in the NHS for about five years (at three local hospitals) mainly at the level below the Directors. Spent many a happy hour sitting in meetings with about forty heads of department, dealt with plenty of doctors and surgeons, all of which is irrelevant. A market is about supply and demand. That is what the NHS is about. It's a different type of market, and even if it's 100% supplied by the NHS, it's still a market. Really fail to see why you can't see that, as it has nothing to do with politics, views etc. It's just a plain fact. Can't remember what it was, but NICE turned down buying a drug recently because, according to their calculations the £500 million cost of the drug wasn't value for money.
Click to expand...

I can accept it involves supply and demand but any similarities to private markets end there for me.

We don't have the pages to go into the supply of drugs cos...
 
Looks like the lexits have it, the lexits have it.
Labour won't be committing to a people's vote. Many in London calling for jezza to sling his hook.

I'm probably one of em
 
radfordinlondon said:
Looks like the lexits have it, the lexits have it.
Labour won't be committing to a people's vote. Many in London calling for jezza to sling his hook.

I'm probably one of em
Click to expand...

JC has a lifelong history of being anti-EU. The Labour Party MPs are probably as split on Brexit (and whether or not they support their leader !) as the Tories, but do seem to be trying to do an incredible act of trying to appeal to Leavers and Remainers, despite the Labour Peer Lord Adonis telling Leavers not to vote Labour.
The Tories generally seem to want to leave (or at least honour the referendum), but are run by a bunch of Remainers. Labour generally seem to want to Reamain (under the guise of a second vote), but are led by a bloke who can only implement a lot of his policies if we leave.
 
Lienking said:
JC has a lifelong history of being anti-EU. The Labour Party MPs are probably as split on Brexit (and whether or not they support their leader !) as the Tories, but do seem to be trying to do an incredible act of trying to appeal to Leavers and Remainers, despite the Labour Peer Lord Adonis telling Leavers not to vote Labour.
The Tories generally seem to want to leave (or at least honour the referendum), but are run by a bunch of Remainers. Labour generally seem to want to Reamain (under the guise of a second vote), but are led by a bloke who can only implement a lot of his policies if we leave.
Click to expand...

Not far off it I reckon.

Let's hope Labour get smashed.
 
Tories so desperate to say they did brexit looks like they may back jezza brino plan, the only plan worse than May's.

How either of them think it's worth getting together to serve up this shit is beyond me.
 
They both know it is two different flavours of shit but they also mistakenly think that in delivering some sort of brexit they will maintain the two party system from which they both benefit hugely and retain their credibility.

If they stitch it up like this, we will be back in before too long but under far worse terms.
When will sense prevail?
 
In the meantime, cancelled no-deal ferry contracts cost us over £50m. So we can add that to the bill. Why not cancel brexit and fund our NHS and clean energy investments instead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.