Labour Stealing Conservative Policies

retired_brittneyloveshim · 10-10-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaitsev:
Of course there are potential faults with a PAYG/Health Insurance, but I see them as less so than a socialised provision. For a start, the utter unfairness in charging healthy people to pay for the healthcare of people who don't look after themselves. At the very least the current system is vastly ineffieicent, and further moves towards a market approach would help to curb that.

but they aren`t less so, they`re demonstrably more so.

the second bit is laughable because it suggests that people are responsible for the state of their own health. in any case and as i`ve already said: no matter what system you choose apart from paying per use, cross-subsidisation is inevitable. it`s how insurance works (or in this case, how it wouldn`t work). further moves towards marketisation would only bring about more market failure.

retired_erynelouise · 10-10-2007, 10:05 PM

One problem in the whole health debate is that health remains massively oriented toward curative medicine. A long time ago, drugs and doctors became the religion and high priests of our fixation with good health. This is only getting worse with the rise in power of drug companies who continually impress on us the importance of taking our vitamins, buying their branded drugs, and taking the best possible pill to help with this year's fashionable disease.

The state health services in most countries are not doing much to help things in this regard but I fear that if the control of health was moved into the hands of private companies this approach to health provision would only become more damaging. Private companies would make more short term decisions without taking a strategic view of the best way for the nation to stay healthy. Where would be the incentive for the Government to encourage reductions in smoking if they no longer had to pay out to treat the sufferers? They do ok from the taxes. Similarly, the populace's overheightened fear of the illness du jour would just be sated by open doors treatment centres where nothing more than placebos (branded placebos, I expect) and handed over for cash.

I agree the NHS is inefficient and in a mess. The issue is, the whole of society's approach to health is broken and that's the only long term hope for the future.

retired_navy0614 · 10-10-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Zaitsev:
Of course there are potential faults with a PAYG/Health Insurance, but I see them as less so than a socialised provision. For a start, the utter unfairness in charging healthy people to pay for the healthcare of people who don't look after themselves. At the very least the current system is vastly ineffieicent, and further moves towards a market approach would help to curb that.

but they aren`t less so, they`re demonstrably more so.

the second bit is laughable because it suggests that people are responsible for the state of their own health. in any case and as i`ve already said: no matter what system you choose apart from paying per use, cross-subsidisation is inevitable. it`s how insurance works (or in this case, how it wouldn`t work). further moves towards marketisation would only bring about more market failure. </BLOCKQUOTE>

To a leftie, maybe

.

People ARE responsible for their own health though. Alcohol, drugs, smoking, obesity - all proven detriments to one's health. Government campaigns to cut down on consumption....randomness of course is excusable. But it's like car insurance - have a lot of accidents? Pay more. I see no wrong in charging more for healthcare to people who have demonstrated that they care not for their health. Or perhaps go the other way, tax credits for the healthy. How do you police that? Regular check-ups with your GP.

Oh, and dentistry seems to get along okay with charging people, as do opticians.

retired_erynelouise · 10-10-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zaitsev:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Smiley Dan:
Maths is all we need to teach, then we'd all get on.

tbh, maths and english are the only core subjects I'd demand people study after a certain point. But my education ideas are for another thread

. </BLOCKQUOTE>English is still too ambiguous and leads to disagreements. Maybe we should simplify the English language. We could join words together, make all words negateable by prefixing with 'un'...

retired_navy0614 · 10-10-2007, 10:09 PM

Of course, those who can afford it usually go elsewhere for their treatment anyway. There would have to be some basic level of provision for the most in need obviously, but I'm still adamant there should be some form of penalising towards those who show such a blatant disregard to their health.

retired_navy0614 · 10-10-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smiley Dan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Zaitsev:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Smiley Dan:
Maths is all we need to teach, then we'd all get on.

tbh, maths and english are the only core subjects I'd demand people study after a certain point. But my education ideas are for another thread

. </BLOCKQUOTE>English is still too ambiguous and leads to disagreements. Maybe we should simplify the English language. We could join words together, make all words negateable by prefixing with 'un'... </BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, basically so people can read and write coherently. If you stop them learning at 12, txtspk will be everywhere

.

Science is a massive waste of time though, only thing I learnt after the age of 12 was how to cure hiccups, and that was a complete tangent from the lesson at hand.

retired_erynelouise · 10-10-2007, 10:35 PM

You can read and write with calculus.

retired_kathydonatto · 10-10-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by johnsoncarmichael:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by theboydonegood:
but anyway - my point was that i dont see providing adequate treatment as a great selling point for the nhs, its a fact that certain critical drugs are not affordable to nhs so you just get the most affordable alternative, the answer in my mind is not to leech more money from hard working people especially when it is so frivolously wasted.

if it`s a fact then give some examples. nice authorise any medicine that is proven clinically and is cost effective per qaly.

you still haven`t said what "best" is or how you would achieve it. i`m interested. </BLOCKQUOTE>

i refer you to my previous answer about being so literal, jeeeesus.

as for exact examples I cannot thnk of any specifics but there have been countless (yes i am aware that literally you could count them!!!) examples of certain drugs being available in one place and not in another etc

Test 187 · 10-10-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smiley Dan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Rohan:
Monetary policy can affect the whole economy via a number of possible transmission mechanisms. There is a paper by Mishkin entitled "Introduction" in the Journal of Economic Perspectives that explains it better than I could, but it essentially says that montary policy can work via the interest rate, the exchange rate, other asset prices, bank lending and balance sheets.

There is a vast literature on whether fiscal or monetary policy is the more potent in controlling the economy. However, use of the IS-LM model can show that, in an economy with a floating exchange rate, fiscal policy is completely ineffective at affecting output, whereas monetary policy is fully effective.

Nonetheless, the above paragraph is taking an extreme view and other considerations (such as regulation etc, which are separate from fiscal policy) may affect economic performance. It is hard to measure the exact degree of this effect and as such is hard to decompose the overall performance of an economy into finding exactly what caused it.
[snip]

Nice post; my first paragraph was ambiguous, 'simply' was meant in a 'not only' way, and I was perhaps over simplistic on the blunt instrument point. </BLOCKQUOTE>

No worries - gave me a chance to put my degree to good use, and I'll need the practice for my Masters.

retired_christy23 · 10-10-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theboydonegood:
but anyway - my point was that i dont see providing adequate treatment as a great selling point for the nhs, its a fact that certain critical drugs are not affordable to nhs so you just get the most affordable alternative, the answer in my mind is not to leech more money from hard working people especially when it is so frivolously wasted.

and this would be different with a privatised healthcare system how?

Labour Stealing Conservative Policies

Grab a beer, sit back and relax.

Labour Stealing Conservative Policies