Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Tories
#61
(07-06-2017, 11:27 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Imo there shouldn't be this divide and rule distinction between public and private because the two need each other and not just for the bins getting emptied or the roads being mended, but for supporting culture, social cohesion and the most vulnerable but Proth's opinions seem to think the markets have all the answers and all those answers are the same "buy more shit!"

I can forgive the other bloke due to his lazy cut & paste from low-IQ propaganda sites but you simply haven't read what I posted, have you?

In what world is a proper Social Insurance model in any way "the market having all the answers"?

Mutualising health and taking the tax & political dimension out of it completely is exactly the prescription we need for a fully funded system with much better outcomes. Why is the rest of the developed world (ex-US) wrong and we're right? That's a crazy notion.
Reply
#62
(07-06-2017, 11:42 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 11:27 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Imo there shouldn't be this divide and rule distinction between public and private because the two need each other and not just for the bins getting emptied or the roads being mended, but for supporting culture, social cohesion and the most vulnerable but Proth's opinions seem to think the markets have all the answers and all those answers are the same "buy more shit!"

I can forgive the other bloke due to his lazy cut & paste from low-IQ propaganda sites but you simply haven't read what I posted, have you?

In what world is a proper Social Insurance model in any way "the market having all the answers"?

Mutualising health and taking the tax & political dimension out of it completely is exactly the prescription we need for a fully funded system with much better outcomes. Why is the rest of the developed world (ex-US) wrong and we're right? That's a crazy notion.

Play the man and change the argument. (That is a reasonable short summary of neoliberalism.) I prefaced what I said by talking about the management of the NHS by the Tories and by any measure you've fucked it up. I wouldn't have any difficulty with your last paragraph if everybody agreed it was the best way to go. But that isn't what has happened is it?
Reply
#63
(07-06-2017, 01:54 PM)Pontificator Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 11:42 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 11:27 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Imo there shouldn't be this divide and rule distinction between public and private because the two need each other and not just for the bins getting emptied or the roads being mended, but for supporting culture, social cohesion and the most vulnerable but Proth's opinions seem to think the markets have all the answers and all those answers are the same "buy more shit!"

I can forgive the other bloke due to his lazy cut & paste from low-IQ propaganda sites but you simply haven't read what I posted, have you?

In what world is a proper Social Insurance model in any way "the market having all the answers"?

Mutualising health and taking the tax & political dimension out of it completely is exactly the prescription we need for a fully funded system with much better outcomes. Why is the rest of the developed world (ex-US) wrong and we're right? That's a crazy notion.

Play the man and change the argument. (That is a reasonable short summary of neoliberalism.) I prefaced what I said by talking about the management of the NHS by the Tories and by any measure you've fucked it up. I wouldn't have any difficulty with your last paragraph if everybody agreed it was the best way to go. But that isn't what has happened is it?

I haven't fucked anything up dear. If you'd been here longer you'd know I'm an ardent critic of the Tories, without resorting to Wikipedia.

The problem is plenty of people have huge difficulty with changing the structure of the NHS. Most of those who work in it,  most policticians who think money is the answer to everything, and those who don't trust individuals to make the 'right' choices (again mainly statist politicians).
Reply
#64
(07-06-2017, 06:15 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 01:54 PM)Pontificator Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 11:42 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 11:27 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Imo there shouldn't be this divide and rule distinction between public and private because the two need each other and not just for the bins getting emptied or the roads being mended, but for supporting culture, social cohesion and the most vulnerable but Proth's opinions seem to think the markets have all the answers and all those answers are the same "buy more shit!"

I can forgive the other bloke due to his lazy cut & paste from low-IQ propaganda sites but you simply haven't read what I posted, have you?

In what world is a proper Social Insurance model in any way "the market having all the answers"?

Mutualising health and taking the tax & political dimension out of it completely is exactly the prescription we need for a fully funded system with much better outcomes. Why is the rest of the developed world (ex-US) wrong and we're right? That's a crazy notion.

Play the man and change the argument. (That is a reasonable short summary of neoliberalism.) I prefaced what I said by talking about the management of the NHS by the Tories and by any measure you've fucked it up. I wouldn't have any difficulty with your last paragraph if everybody agreed it was the best way to go. But that isn't what has happened is it?

I haven't fucked anything up dear. If you'd been here longer you'd know I'm an ardent critic of the Tories, without resorting to Wikipedia.

The problem is plenty of people have huge difficulty with changing the structure of the NHS. Most of those who work in it,  most policticians who think money is the answer to everything, and those who don't trust individuals to make the 'right' choices (again mainly statist politicians).


Why do you assume to know more than those at the coal face? Where the majority currently say the NHS has next to nothing to cut. The disingenuous bullshit euphemisms such as efficiency savings are fooling very few these days.

Also the idea that this country would set up a equitable insurance scheme is extremely dubious given this countries record on creating an equal society
Reply
#65
(07-06-2017, 07:25 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Why do you assume to know more than those at the coal face? Where the majority currently say the NHS has next to nothing to cut. The disingenuous bullshit euphemisms such as efficiency savings are fooling very few these days.

Also the idea that this country would set up a equitable insurance scheme is extremely dubious given this countries record on creating an equal society

Because like doctors & nurses most of my clients are exceptionally good professionals in their respective fields. So's my Team. My business is helping them become more profitable (or less loss making) through structural change, process improvement and decent procurement across public, private and third sectors. There is a reason we don't work in publlic health, and that is that it's impossible to get a decision made by cumbersome, archaic and heavily politicised management structures.

The NHS budget has grown in real terms year on year, that's a fact. What's also a fact is that the demands on the NHS have and will grow quicker. How much is enough? What the NHS said was enough in 2015 is what it was given. It's now not enough. That suggests to me that those at the coalface didn't know what they were talking about in 2015, and probably don't now. It's precisely why people at the coalface don't generally run organisations - they ought to be doing their job instead.

I can't really comment on your latter point except to point to the succesful Social Insurance models in place all round the developed world. And as far as inequality is concerned, when Gordon Brown transferred etc ad infinitum.

And BTW it's 9:15 and I'm still working, no contracted hours for me, no contributory pension scheme, no union demarcation.
Reply
#66
(07-06-2017, 08:15 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 07:25 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Why do you assume to know more than those at the coal face? Where the majority currently say the NHS has next to nothing to cut. The disingenuous bullshit euphemisms such as efficiency savings are fooling very few these days.

Also the idea that this country would set up a equitable insurance scheme is extremely dubious given this countries record on creating an equal society

Because like doctors & nurses most of my clients are exceptionally good professionals in their respective fields. So's my Team. My business is helping them become more profitable (or less loss making) through structural change, process improvement and decent procurement across public, private and third sectors. There is a reason we don't work in publlic health, and that is that it's impossible to get a decision made by cumbersome, archaic and heavily politicised management structures.

The NHS budget has grown in real terms year on year, that's a fact. What's also a fact is that the demands on the NHS have and will grow quicker. How much is enough? What the NHS said was enough in 2015 is what it was given. It's now not enough. That suggests to me that those at the coalface didn't know what they were talking about in 2015, and probably don't now. It's precisely why people at the coalface don't generally run organisations - they ought to be doing their job instead.

I can't really comment on your latter point except to point to the succesful Social Insurance models in place all round the developed world. And as far as inequality is concerned, when Gordon Brown transferred etc ad infinitum.

And BTW it's 9:15 and I'm still working, no contracted hours for me, no contributory pension scheme, no union demarcation.

Don't make me put up the "what a guy" pic Wink ! I worked last week for seven days solid and I'm self employed. Professionally I have seen from the outside the complete mess, fragmentation and squeezing out of smaller organisations that support the NHS during the Tories time in office. What didnt need to happen was an expensive reorganisation. Random trusts set-up, job roles split, halved, a culture of cheapest is best, expensive consultancy teams offering 'impartial advice' etc.
Reply
#67
(07-06-2017, 06:15 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 01:54 PM)Pontificator Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 11:42 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(07-06-2017, 11:27 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Imo there shouldn't be this divide and rule distinction between public and private because the two need each other and not just for the bins getting emptied or the roads being mended, but for supporting culture, social cohesion and the most vulnerable but Proth's opinions seem to think the markets have all the answers and all those answers are the same "buy more shit!"

I can forgive the other bloke due to his lazy cut & paste from low-IQ propaganda sites but you simply haven't read what I posted, have you?

In what world is a proper Social Insurance model in any way "the market having all the answers"?

Mutualising health and taking the tax & political dimension out of it completely is exactly the prescription we need for a fully funded system with much better outcomes. Why is the rest of the developed world (ex-US) wrong and we're right? That's a crazy notion.

Play the man and change the argument. (That is a reasonable short summary of neoliberalism.) I prefaced what I said by talking about the management of the NHS by the Tories and by any measure you've fucked it up. I wouldn't have any difficulty with your last paragraph if everybody agreed it was the best way to go. But that isn't what has happened is it?

I haven't fucked anything up dear. If you'd been here longer you'd know I'm an ardent critic of the Tories, without resorting to Wikipedia.

The problem is plenty of people have huge difficulty with changing the structure of the NHS. Most of those who work in it,  most policticians who think money is the answer to everything, and those who don't trust individuals to make the 'right' choices (again mainly statist politicians).

You support the Tories, you give them money, you campaign for them and you vote for them. You are them. And you've fucked the NHS up. Its only gonna get worse as EU staff go back because they feel unwanted and because they can see our economy declining with brexit. Fewer English trained nurses and midwives to replace them. (wonder why?) Shouldn't you take some responsibility? Your way of earning a living seems to reflect my lazy cut and paste description of neoliberalism, but I really don't have a problem with bearing down on costs in business and public services, it is right that heads of departments realise they are spending other peoples money but you go too far. I think your ideology is wank as I think Corbyn's ideology is wank  - can we have something in the centre? And I asked you earlier wtf are you gonna do to stop the reds taking over?
Reply
#68
Just out of interest Proth, given 17m people voted something to the left of centre-right, are you still under the delusion that the UK is a mainly centre-right country?
Reply
#69
Just a point of order, the NHS said it needed between £8bn - £21bn AND improvements in social care funding.

It got £8bn and council cuts. But no, the leaders of the NHS don't know what they're doing - Jeremy Hunt and George Osbourne (Hammond hasn't had a go yet) do.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)