Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

I work regularly at a children's hospital in the midlands, we turn up at 8:30, sign in, and sit and wait for our POC to sign our work permit. It's been known to be 3pm before this happens and it's reguarly not done before lunch. They insist on two engineers, when only one is needed, it's an atrocious waste of money.

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, lifted*fox said:

to be honest a vote once we know the terms of the deal would be a perfectly reasonable idea tbh. 

 

i'm in favour of remain but if the deal was agreeable and it looked like a good way to move forward for the UK and myself then I'd have no issue changing my mind.

 

I get the feeling that most people (including many in this thread) who want a 'hard' Brexit would push on regardless even if the deal looked like it would be bad for the UK and them personally; it seems to be more about the act of ****ing off the EU than basing it on any actual economic / factual evidence. 

 

 

 

 

And what if we voted against the deal? Do we return to being full members of the EU, therefore giving them every incentive to give us a crap deal? Or do we leave with no deal at all?

[Buce]

Boris Johnson slapped down by statistics chief over fresh £350m claim

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/17/boris-johnson-slapped-down-statistics-chief-fresh-350m-brexit-claim

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I work regularly at a children's hospital in the midlands, we turn up at 8:30, sign in, and sit and wait for our POC to sign our work permit. It's been known to be 3pm before this happens and it's reguarly not done before lunch. They insist on two engineers, when only one is needed, it's an atrocious waste of money.

I worked at a GP's surgery once, the best money I've ever earned. When I got there they asked me if they could pay me before I started as they had to use the money up before the end of the financial year.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I think it needs scaling down and parts of it privatising yes. It's behemoth and it's eating up money and it will never stop unless lines are drawn. What we need are clear lines drawn between what is the states responsibility when it comes to healthcare. In its current format it needs infinite funds and the whole service seems to suffer.

GPs privatise but fund welfare and students.

Cosmetics, privatise completely.

Dental privatise completely.

I don't think giving it more money solves the issues it faces.

Gps are privatised already.

Cosmetic surgery after severe burns for example - you don't think that's part of the treatment?

Dental - there are already significant costs for patients. 

You only have to look at the us system to see why privste healthcare doesn't work. They have the most expensive healthcare in the world and nowhere near the best results.

I cannot get my head round why people want to save themselves a few quid in tax simply to cost themselves extra in insurance and gamble on their future health given they would be removing the safety net of our current system.

We don't even spend excessively on the nhs compared to other similar countries. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I worked at a GP's surgery once, the best money I've ever earned. When I got there they asked me if they could pay me before I started as they had to use the money up before the end of the financial year.

They're private businesses. 

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

They're private businesses. 

Funded by the govt.

[Bryn]

Just now, Webbo said:

Funded by the govt.

 

You're sort of both wrong, they are private entreprises but they have to operate within an NHS framework so probably more comparable to franchises in a way.

They are free to generate income outside of their NHS contracts though, provided the NHS care isn't jeopardised.

[Kopfkino]

The problem with the whole discussion on the NHS is that it centres on two critical, but flawed, assumptions; that the only alternative is the American system and only a nationalised service can guarantee access to care irrespective of ability to pay. Improvements will not be made until people stop playing tit-for-tat over creeping privatisation, politicians stop using it as a political football, and the country stops pretending the NHS is the envy of the world.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

The problem with the whole discussion on the NHS is that it centres on two critical, but flawed, assumptions; that the only alternative is the American system and only a nationalised service can guarantee access to care irrespective of ability to pay. Improvements will not be made until people stop playing tit-for-tat over creeping privatisation, politicians stop using it as a political football, and the country stops pretending the NHS is the envy of the world.

 Name me one privatised public service that provides as good a service than it did before and doesnt cost more and require government subsidy or intervention. 

Edited 17 September 2017 by Guest

[Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

 Name me one privatised public service that provides better service than it did before and doesnt require government subsidy or intervention. 

 

Care to explain the relevance of your request? Otherwise I couldn't because I have virtually no experience of a service before and after privatisation bar the Royal Mail and I personally see no difference.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 Name me one privatised public service that provides better service than it did before and doesnt require government subsidy or intervention. 

Telecommunications.

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

The problem with the whole discussion on the NHS is that it centres on two critical, but flawed, assumptions; that the only alternative is the American system and only a nationalised service can guarantee access to care irrespective of ability to pay. Improvements will not be made until people stop playing tit-for-tat over creeping privatisation, politicians stop using it as a political football, and the country stops pretending the NHS is the envy of the world.

As I said above: if you believe the discussion to be a false dichotomy, then please elaborate on a middle way that you think might be effective, so as to prove the dichotomy false.

 

And also, I think where any system is not nationalised and therefore operated for profit that people being unable to access that service if they cannot pay is a reasonably safe assumption. Health-care would be no exception.

Edited 17 September 2017 by leicsmac

[Kopfkino]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As I said above: if you believe the discussion to be a false dichotomy, then please elaborate on a middle way that you think might be effective, so as to prove the dichotomy false.

 

And also, I think where any system is not nationalised and therefore operated for profit that people being unable to access that service if they cannot pay is a reasonably safe assumption. Health-care would be no exception.

 

I don't see as it's up to me to prove the dichotomy to be false. Anyone is as capable as I am at researching the various healthcare systems around the world and seeing that is the case. All you have to do is look at the numerous systems that produce better outcomes than the NHS and see how they might do it. Even France, with their love of state provision, don't quite go as far as a monolithic beast like the NHS. The sad thing is, it wouldn't even take radical reform to turn it into a more 'social health insurance system' which is successful in many different guises. Unfortunately, Brits seem happy to accept worse health outcomes and a system that is only socially superior to the US so long as we have a national institution to worship. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I don't see as it's up to me to prove the dichotomy to be false. Anyone is as capable as I am at researching the various healthcare systems around the world and seeing that is the case. All you have to do is look at the numerous systems that produce better outcomes than the NHS and see how they might do it. Even France, with their love of state provision, don't quite go as far as a monolithic beast like the NHS. The sad thing is, it wouldn't even take radical reform to turn it into a more 'social health insurance system' which is successful in many different guises. Unfortunately, Brits seem happy to accept worse health outcomes and a system that is only socially superior to the US so long as we have a national institution to worship. 

I'm terribly sorry, but as you posited that the dichotomy was false in the first place it would be reasonable for you to back that with a good reason why, IMO. Of course, you don't have to, but it might support your argument in the debate.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that a sufficient number of other countries have significantly better health outcomes as a proportion of population than the UK in any case.

 

Additionally, if you would be so kind I would appreciate your take on the point made about non nationalised services and access to them above.

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Telecommunications.

Could have had superfast broadband everywhere if Thatcher hadn't gone batshit when nationalised BT wanted to roll out the fibre nationwide because it "wasn't competitive". Instead she told NTL and the like to do it and they only rolled it out across the profitable areas while everyone else made do with copper. Even today fibre cables only go to boxes and goes to your house in copper still. We invent the technology while Japan, SK makes the best of it madness

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm terribly sorry, but as you posited that the dichotomy was false in the first place it would be reasonable for you to back that with a good reason why, IMO. Of course, you don't have to, but it might support your argument in the debate.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that a sufficient number of other countries have significantly better health outcomes as a proportion of population than the UK in any case.

 

Additionally, if you would be so kind I would appreciate your take on the point made about non nationalised services and access to them above.

 

For it to be a debate I would assume that the people engaged in the debate are sufficiently informed to make it worthwhile. If we're in a position where people genuinely are unaware of any other systems but that of the UK and the US then it is not going to be an informed debate. People may, having looked up alternatives, still believe the NHS is the way to do it but it's desperate situation when a debate requires going over the very basics. 

 

I think the fact that the NHS comfortably comes second to last on healthcare outcomes in the Commonwealth Fund's rankings is sufficient enough (how they rank it best in the world when it lags behind on such a fundamental measure is anybody's guess). Again, I think the UK coming 14th in Europe in the EHCI rankings is sufficient enough. The fact that the OECD says the quality of health care services in the UK is below OECD average should be sufficient enough. I'll give you an example. If the UK's breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, and bowel cancer patients were treated in the Netherlands over 9000 lives would be saved, in Germany over 12000 lives would be saved, and in Belgium over 14000 lives would be saved. The UK has one of the highest rates of avoidable deaths in Western Europe. Cut that to Belgian levels and 10000 lives are saved a year. Dutch levels saves 13000 lies a year. In fact the majority of illnesses, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands lead the UK, but I will also happily admit the UK beats them in some cases. But it was a short example cos I don't really have the time to research and develop such a post so that it adequately covers it so as to not have holes picked. 

 

I didn't answer it because it's nonsense. The provision of paracetamol is not nationalised but I would still say that there is universal access to it, excluding the NHS prescribing it. Switzerland is an example of a healthcare system that ranks similar to the NHS on equity and accessibility but isn't nationalised. It's cost-sharing system is arguably fairer depending on your definition of fair. 

 

The thing is I've just used SHI examples above. You could look more at Norway and Sweden whom don't use an insurance system. But then Sweden isn't viable because out-of-pocket spending on healthcare is considered abhorrent in this country. Just a point on that actually, Sweden has almost double the % of out-of-pocket spending of the UK (more than the US too) but normally ranks more equitable. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Could have had superfast broadband everywhere if Thatcher hadn't gone batshit when nationalised BT wanted to roll out the fibre nationwide because it "wasn't competitive". Instead she told NTL and the like to do it and they only rolled it out across the profitable areas while everyone else made do with copper. Even today fibre cables only go to boxes and goes to your house in copper still. We invent the technology while Japan, SK makes the best of it madness

It's still better now than when it was nationalised and it's doesn't have subsidies. 

Im sure it wasn't Thatcher that made the decision directly either.

Fibre to your door is unnecessary, you can get well over 200mb from copper, virgin is copper from cab to door and they use RG6 ffs.

Edited 17 September 2017 by Strokes

[Guest]

 

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

It's still better now than when it was nationalised and it's doesn't have subsidies. 

Im sure it wasn't Thatcher that made the decision directly either.

Fibre to your door is unnecessary, you can get well over 200mb from copper, virgin is copper from cab to door and they use RG6 ffs.

I can only get up to 38Mb to my house. 

There's a government programme coming to get the fibre right to the home precisely because it is needed to get seriously quick broadband. There are places elsewhere where Gb is the norm. 

Its very difficult to compare telecoms to before as then it was just lsndline phones niw its pretty much anything but.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, KingGTF said:

 

For it to be a debate I would assume that the people engaged in the debate are sufficiently informed to make it worthwhile. If we're in a position where people genuinely are unaware of any other systems but that of the UK and the US then it is not going to be an informed debate. People may, having looked up alternatives, still believe the NHS is the way to do it but it's desperate situation when a debate requires going over the very basics. 

 

I think the fact that the NHS comfortably comes second to last on healthcare outcomes in the Commonwealth Fund's rankings is sufficient enough (how they rank it best in the world when it lags behind on such a fundamental measure is anybody's guess). Again, I think the UK coming 14th in Europe in the EHCI rankings is sufficient enough. The fact that the OECD says the quality of health care services in the UK is below OECD average should be sufficient enough. I'll give you an example. If the UK's breast cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, and bowel cancer patients were treated in the Netherlands over 9000 lives would be saved, in Germany over 12000 lives would be saved, and in Belgium over 14000 lives would be saved. The UK has one of the highest rates of avoidable deaths in Western Europe. Cut that to Belgian levels and 10000 lives are saved a year. Dutch levels saves 13000 lies a year. In fact the majority of illnesses, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands lead the UK, but I will also happily admit the UK beats them in some cases. But it was a short example cos I don't really have the time to research and develop such a post so that it adequately covers it so as to not have holes picked. 

 

I didn't answer it because it's nonsense. The provision of paracetamol is not nationalised but I would still say that there is universal access to it, excluding the NHS prescribing it. Switzerland is an example of a healthcare system that ranks similar to the NHS on equity and accessibility but isn't nationalised. It's cost-sharing system is arguably fairer depending on your definition of fair. 

 

The thing is I've just used SHI examples above. You could look more at Norway and Sweden whom don't use an insurance system. But then Sweden isn't viable because out-of-pocket spending on healthcare is considered abhorrent in this country. Just a point on that actually, Sweden has almost double the % of out-of-pocket spending of the UK (more than the US too) but normally ranks more equitable. 

Just in case anyone is interested in the study:

 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Fund-Reports/2017/Jul/Mirror-Mirror-International-Comparisons-2017

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140698-us-ranked-worst-healthcare-system-while-the-nhs-is-the-best/

 

These comparisons by the CWF show that the NHS ranks very highly, despite the aforementioned bad ranking for health outcomes alone (as you stated). And as you also eloquently point out, this is a rather complicated topic that would take time to form an argument not liable to have holes picked in it. However, having looked at it I would still maintain the difference is not statistically significant enough to consider wholesale changes. 

 

Another factor I might mention at this time is that the UK is more culturally similar to the US that our European counterparts. This might (and this is a reach, I know) lead to a situation where privatisation would lead directly to a US-style system rather than the more balanced approach of the Eurozone. Of course, this may be a slippery slope fallacy, but I consider that to be a risk.

 

Regarding nationalisation/access, I'm sure paracetomol is very accessible in a lot of different places, but that's hardly the case for every drug or every treatment where healthcare is for-profit. Less accessible than in nationalised healthcare systems? Difficult to say, but I think so. 

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

I can only get up to 38Mb to my house. 

There's a government programme coming to get the fibre right to the home precisely because it is needed to get seriously quick broadband. There are places elsewhere where Gb is the norm. 

Its very difficult to compare telecoms to before as then it was just lsndline phones niw its pretty much anything but.

I'm saying it doesn't need to be fibre, because it doesn't. Virgin can get 200mb through copper, I doubt BT could through 2 strands of 0.15mm though. 

The question was answered correct though wasn't it?  

Edited 17 September 2017 by Strokes

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I'm saying it doesn't need to be fibre, because it doesn't. Virgin can get 200mb through copper, I doubt BT could through 2 strands of 0.15mm though. 

The question was answered correct though wasn't it?  

As i said its not like for like. 

People are paying £100 a month for tv now so it depends how you look at it.

[Webbo]

We'd never have got free broadband if telecoms had still been nationalised. Talktalk introduced it to gain landline customers, why would a monopoly need to do that?

[Strokes]

26 minutes ago, toddybad said:

As i said its not like for like. 

People are paying £100 a month for tv now so it depends how you look at it.

It's never going to be like for like, water services - consumption - climate change. Energy - consumption - climate change. 

Nothing will be like for like.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

We'd never have got free broadband if telecoms had still been nationalised. Talktalk introduced it to gain landline customers, why would a monopoly need to do that?

If you have to pay for something to qualify for it then it's not really free,