Kopfkino Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 11 hours ago, leicsmac said: ...because of the general difference in attitude both places have towards patient care outcomes v profitability, as based on statistics on those health outcomes across the board in the US v most EU nations? So your argument is that Swedish firms are more benevolent than US firms because Sweden organises healthcare differently to the US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kopfkino said: So your argument is that Swedish firms are more benevolent than US firms because Sweden organises healthcare differently to the US Because their healthcare is more socialist. They also have higher individual taxes on average. Corporate taxes are lower, though. Go figure (not aimed at you, mostly the poster you quoted). Btw, I'm not a fan of privatized health care. On the other hand, state-sanctioned health care system breeds its own problems (inefficiency, lag, tendency to squander financial resources, corruption, etc.). Edited 3 June 2019 by MC Prussian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 @FIF: In the wake of the Rassemblement National's further rise in France (and Europe), a slightly more in-depth look at France's rural problems. This done by a rather liberal UK newspaper, only two years ago (when the party was still known as Front National). Former communists now voting for right-wing populists with a leftist touch. It's insane. I'd like to make clear that I'm not a fan of the RN, but to me it seems they are the only ones taking that population's problems seriously. So, the challenge is on the other parties to gain that trust back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 1 hour ago, Kopfkino said: So your argument is that Swedish firms are more benevolent than US firms because Sweden organises healthcare differently to the US That's right, because I believe that they might - just might - be predisposed to act more ethically from the POV of assuring affordable care for everyone than the US healthcare providers (who clearly, by and large, don't) because of that difference in organisation. Of course, I might be wrong and they might be mercenary bastards too, but one thing I know is that the US firms are exactly that - the statistics wrt healthcare outcomes against financial means in the US speaks for itself there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 (edited) Jaysus he’s a ****ing lunatic. Edited 3 June 2019 by urban.spaceman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said: Imagine being a twattish sixth former your entire life. Tragic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajthefox Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 Surely that's their opinion and their entitled to sack him for it. Does he really think he'll get a settlement because he said something(s) whilst representing them that they won't tolerate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 (edited) Bloke's an embarrassment. Considering he's always saying that his anti-Zionism =/= Antisemitism you'd think we shouldn't need to point out the problem with celebrating the defeat of an apolitical entity because of its historical ties to London's Jewish (=/= Zionist) community. Edited 3 June 2019 by Carl the Llama 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajthefox Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Bloke's an embarrassment. Considering he's always saying that his anti-Zionism =/= Antisemitism you'd think we shouldn't need to point out the problem with celebrating the defeat of an apolitical entity because of its historical ties to London's Jewish (=/= Zionist) community. I had no idea what he'd said (until I just checked) but fvck me the guy does spout some shite. I can see why people get behind him at the same time though, he essentially just plays the victim like Farage does. Edited 3 June 2019 by ajthefox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 8 minutes ago, ajthefox said: I had no idea what he'd said (until I just checked) but fvck me the guy does spout some shite. I can see why people get behind him at the same time though, he essentially just plays the victim like Farage does. I almost commented that he's basically a leftist Farage except for the fact that most of us can see through him and are willing to reject the cvnt but I thought that might be triggering to some. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajthefox Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I almost commented that he's basically a leftist Farage except for the fact that most of us can see through him and are willing to reject the cvnt but I thought that might be triggering to some. Now you've said it you'll get less bite but it's definitely true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 2 hours ago, Kopfkino said: So your argument is that Swedish firms are more benevolent than US firms because Sweden organises healthcare differently to the US It’s a good job this argument is based on nationality rather than race eh. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 6 minutes ago, Strokes said: It’s a good job this argument is based on nationality rather than race eh. ? If I have misjudged the majority of US healthcare firms and their caring attitude towards people unable to give them large amounts of money for healthcare outcomes, please feel free to point out otherwise - I'd be happy to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, leicsmac said: If I have misjudged the majority of US healthcare firms and their caring attitude towards people unable to give them large amounts of money for healthcare outcomes, please feel free to point out otherwise - I'd be happy to hear it. That’s not the point and you know it, allowing anyone to make a bid on equal measures is what we strive for in this world is it not? Nationality, race, sex or religion, shouldn’t play a part. Historical evidence should but you are tarring the whole of the USA’s health firms with one big tar brush. Is that fair? Edited 3 June 2019 by Strokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 6 minutes ago, Strokes said: That’s not the point and you know it, allowing anyone to make a bid on equal measures is what we strive for in this world is it not? Nationality, race, sex or religion, shouldn’t play a part. Historical evidence should but you are tarring the whole of the USA’s health firms with one big tar brush. Is that fair? Historical evidence does play a part - in fact that and the present data on health outcomes is exactly why I'm doing the tarring. This has nothing to do with the ethnicity/nationality of the firms - I guess I should have been clearer on that - and everything to do with their current track record that those firms involved are, almost to a whole, unscrupulous, money-grubbing, and place profit over human welfare - again, the disparity in health outcomes based on income in the US is a testament to this. If that is believed to be unfair through generalisation or for other reasons, fair enough - once more, I'd like to be surprised by evidence that these companies, should they bid for NHS contracts, do in fact have the best interest of the patient as their priority as opposed to increased income, and I'd happily take it at face value if it came about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 15 minutes ago, Strokes said: That’s not the point and you know it, allowing anyone to make a bid on equal measures is what we strive for in this world is it not? Nationality, race, sex or religion, shouldn’t play a part. Historical evidence should but you are tarring the whole of the USA’s health firms with one big tar brush. Is that fair? Do you have evidence to suggest he's wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 3 hours ago, leicsmac said: That's right, because I believe that they might - just might - be predisposed to act more ethically from the POV of assuring affordable care for everyone than the US healthcare providers (who clearly, by and large, don't) because of that difference in organisation. Of course, I might be wrong and they might be mercenary bastards too, but one thing I know is that the US firms are exactly that - the statistics wrt healthcare outcomes against financial means in the US speaks for itself there. You know that the US firms act undesirably in the undesirable US system of healthcare and its institutions. Do US firms that provide services in Canada operate in such a way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 20 minutes ago, Strokes said: That’s not the point and you know it, allowing anyone to make a bid on equal measures is what we strive for in this world is it not? Nationality, race, sex or religion, shouldn’t play a part. Historical evidence should but you are tarring the whole of the USA’s health firms with one big tar brush. Is that fair? Surely in a post Brexit world we should be looking out for our own national companies best interests and give them every advantage over Johnny Foreigner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: You know that the US firms act undesirably in the undesirable US system of healthcare and its institutions. Do US firms that provide services in Canada operate in such a way? I see the point being made here, and it's perfectly plausible that the UK government might be able to keep such firms from going to the excesses that they do in the US. However...given the risk of that not being so and the consequences of what would follow, quite frankly it would have to be a simply massive carrot offered to allow that risk to be disregarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 26 minutes ago, Buce said: Do you have evidence to suggest he's wrong? Do I need too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 20 minutes ago, FIF said: Surely in a post Brexit world we should be looking out for our own national companies best interests and give them every advantage over Johnny Foreigner. Well that would be my take but I’m constantly being told I’m wrong from both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: Do I need too? Of course not, mate. If I was on holiday, I wouldn't be wasting my time on here at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopfkino Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 17 minutes ago, leicsmac said: I see the point being made here, and it's perfectly plausible that the UK government might be able to keep such firms from going to the excesses that they do in the US. However...given the risk of that not being so and the consequences of what would follow, quite frankly it would have to be a simply massive carrot offered to allow that risk to be disregarded. What's the risk? The UK government still pays the firms for the provision of services under a contract, people still get those services. Unless you're saying that US firms will just disregard the contract and the law they'll be operating under the same process as EU, Swiss, EEA, Canadian etc firms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 3 June 2019 Share Posted 3 June 2019 1 minute ago, Buce said: Of course not, mate. If I was on holiday, I wouldn't be wasting my time on here at all... ? Im just with the kids in the room, they get tired. The onus is on him to prove what he is claiming, there only has to be one non morally bankrupt US firm for him to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts