the poll thread

[exnihilo]

I didn't suggest PFI should be the way forward for everything. PFI is a joke.

[Senethro]

Quoting Jono from 14:26, 6th Jul 2007
THis whole thing seems to be based on a load of truisms that, as of yet, haven't been challanged.

Does the private sector, actually "Out-compete" the public?

An NAO report produced in 2005 (but buried, and later published in Private Eye), shows that the PFI success in hospitals is overblown. it shows maze-like buerocracy, poor hygene, over-occupancy of beds, and evidence that projected savings made compared to the public sector alternative are more to do with account fiddling (the "Risk Factor") than any real streamlining. Hardly evidence of the private sector being any better.

The standard response here seems to be that this only comes about because of the public sector restricting free-marketism. Funnily enough; the blame here is laid squarely at the door of the company.

I don't know about you, but if someone can't manage one hospital adequately, I wouldn't put them in charge of the whole shebang.

[hr]


Exclusive to The Sinner, and all other fora.

the standard lolbertarian answer to this is its not free enough

its kind of similar to commies constantly whining that they only reason communism failed is that it wasn't REAL communism

[Jono]

Quoting Senethro from 01:19, 7th Jul 2007

Quoting Jono from 14:26, 6th Jul 2007
THis whole thing seems to be based on a load of truisms that, as of yet, haven't been challanged.

Does the private sector, actually "Out-compete" the public?

An NAO report produced in 2005 (but buried, and later published in Private Eye), shows that the PFI success in hospitals is overblown. it shows maze-like buerocracy, poor hygene, over-occupancy of beds, and evidence that projected savings made compared to the public sector alternative are more to do with account fiddling (the "Risk Factor") than any real streamlining. Hardly evidence of the private sector being any better.

The standard response here seems to be that this only comes about because of the public sector restricting free-marketism. Funnily enough; the blame here is laid squarely at the door of the company.

I don't know about you, but if someone can't manage one hospital adequately, I wouldn't put them in charge of the whole shebang.

[hr]


Exclusive to The Sinner, and all other fora.

the standard lolbertarian answer to this is its not free enough

its kind of similar to commies constantly whining that they only reason communism failed is that it wasn't REAL communism

Well it wasn't =P. But then, how does one define real? After all there are plenty of Democratic Republics out there (as my old geography teacher said "Who are about as democratic as that chair!").



[hr]


Exclusive to The Sinner, and all other fora.

[David Bean]

"But I thought East Yemen were allies of ours."
"It's called the People's Democratic Republic of East Yemen."
"Ah, so it's a communist dictatorship."

- Yes, Prime Minister

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[raheli]

Quoting exnihilo from 00:23, 6th Jul 2007
As is so common with generalisations, you're wrong. I am intimately familiar with the situation you describe in your opening paragraph - I still stand by what I said.

Perhaps I lost my head a bit (projecting anger at debate in US onto debate in the UK) and wrote in an excessively emotive style, but essentially I think we agree. Health care should be free at the point of care.


[hr]

Intelligence is good. I'm not very intelligent myself, but I think it's a nice idea.

[novium]

But that just leads back to the problem of much more demand than there is supply, the tricky issues (like the old people one), and the logical conclusion of the public cost of healthcare...

we're just going in circles here

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Senethro]

What logical conclusiohn?

[raheli]

I agree.. what logical point? "Tricky issues" like old people or chronically sick people are best answered with a single payer system, because that spreads the cost of supporting them over the entire population. This is the essence of what insurance is. The fragmented system which has emerged in the United States has actually undermined the basis of insurance by allowing some insurers (the more savvy, powerful, or ruthless ones) to entice the healthiest people with lower premiums, leaving the sicker people to... support each other? Clearly, not a workable system. So each plan has to include a large, representative sample of the population. Theoretically, there could be one or a few private health care firms, but in practice the market seems to rapidly fragment-- or else a lack of competition tempts the single sucessful firm to raise premiums, deductibles, and co-payments as far as it can. I think a national health plan is the most practical way of spreading the cost of insurance equitably through the population.

[hr]

Intelligence is good. I'm not very intelligent myself, but I think it's a nice idea.

[oddly familiar]

Quoting raheli from 21:53, 9th Jul 2007
I agree.. what logical point? "Tricky issues" like old people or chronically sick people are best answered with a single payer system, because that spreads the cost of supporting them over the entire population. This is the essence of what insurance is. The fragmented system which has emerged in the United States has actually undermined the basis of insurance by allowing some insurers (the more savvy, powerful, or ruthless ones) to entice the healthiest people with lower premiums, leaving the sicker people to... support each other? Clearly, not a workable system. So each plan has to include a large, representative sample of the population. Theoretically, there could be one or a few private health care firms, but in practice the market seems to rapidly fragment-- or else a lack of competition tempts the single sucessful firm to raise premiums, deductibles, and co-payments as far as it can. I think a national health plan is the most practical way of spreading the cost of insurance equitably through the population.

How very Game Theory...

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru

[novium]

It still is a tricky problem. It costs a lot of money to do the treatments and drugs that extend the lives of the elderly...and the older the get, the more expensive it becomes, and the less it actually accomplishes. Resources not being in infinite supply, but demand being practically limitless, eventually the government is faced with rationing. I don't mean this as a scary word, but just what it means. So....you get waiting lists. And you get tough decisions, like 'to what point will we fund _______?"


The logical conclusion of government health care is that health, and the decisions people make concerning their health, becomes a very public cost. The right to swing my arm ends at your nose, etc etc etc. Someone who refuses to get inoculations, or is overweight, or out of shape, or is smoking, or drinking heavily, or who constantly is using tanning machines or whatever's "bad behavior" is *expensive*. they are willfully deciding to do things that have expensive health costs, but they aren't footing the bill. Which means when they have cancer, diabetes, heart attacks, whatever, their vices and personal choices don't just hurt their bodies, they also cost the system. Greatly. And by costing the system - by reducing the resources- they are actually hurting other people's bodies (in a way). So what right, then, do they have to engage in those behaviors?

__________
Plus... there is a difference between providing insurance and providing health care.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.