Health Care for Everyone

[JacktheHat]

False syllogism.

Has the NHS declined because of PFIs, or have PFIs arisen because the NHS was in decline?

It all boils down to choice.

With the NHS you have no choice. You can put up with the standard of treatment or... nothing. That's it. And you MUST pay for it, regardless of your judgment of the standard of treatment. If the standard of treatment is rubbish - and it is - tough. You still have to pay for it. You have no choice to pay for a different service that you judge to be better so there is no market incentive for the poorly-performing company (NHS) to improve their performance so that customers (tax-payers) buy (are taxed for) their product.

And the NHS's "product" is poor despite vastly higher income.

Arwin's parrot-style "socialised insurance" sounds interesting, but still has the flaw that the basic level of cover is provide by being taxed at source. What if I don't WANT any cover at all? I'm still taxed at source for it - so I don't have that choice.

Why are the NHS's costs higher? Do private health care companies train their own staff or do they poach ready-trained staff from the public sector?

 

[Famine]

Why are the NHS's costs higher? Do private health care companies train their own staff or do they poach ready-trained staff from the public sector?

How do private health care companies poach staff? With higher wages?

Again, I pay 1/6th to my health insurance what I pay in taxes to the NHS. Everyone of working age pays to the NHS - at an average of 1/8th more than I do - but only limited numbers of people pay to health insurance, and there's many different flavours all competing. Yet private hospitals offer FAR superior care.

THe NHS's problem is that only £1 in £4 goes to patient care.

 

[Ev0]

So in otherwords, the NHS would likely be much better off if it could spend money more efficiently? (Which is likely due to government red tape I assume)

 

[Famine]

So in otherwords, the NHS would likely be much better off if it could spend money more efficiently?

Yes.

(Which is likely due to government red tape I assume)

No.

It's due to only one in six NHS employees actually being involved with patients in any way. And I'm including in the "one" vital employees like caretakers, cleaners and maintenance staff without whom a hospital couldn't function.

 

[Danoff]

There are essentially four different ways of spending that you can do (this is from Milton Friedman’s book Free to Choose ).

1) Spending your money on yourself.
2) Spending your money on someone else (like for example a birthday present)
3) Spending someone else’s money on yourself (think dinner on the company expense account)
4) Spending someone else’s money on a 3rd person.


In the first case you have lots of incentive to keep cost down and get high value.
In the second case you have incentive to keep cost down, but the value is less important – you don’t really care as much if they like it as if you were buying it for yourself.
The third case you have very little incentive to keep cost down, but value is important.
In the last case you have little incentive to keep cost down and little incentive to get value.

The last case is analogous to government spending – which is why government is so terrible at doing things well. The first case is the majority of free market spending and illustrates why the free market keeps cost down and value high.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

There are essentially four different ways of spending that you can do (this is from Milton Friedman’s book Free to Choose ).

1) Spending your money on yourself.
2) Spending your money on someone else (like for example a birthday present)
3) Spending someone else’s money on yourself (think dinner on the company expense account)
4) Spending someone else’s money on a 3rd person.


In the first case you have lots of incentive to keep cost down and get high value.
In the second case you have incentive to keep cost down, but the value is less important – you don’t really care as much if they like it as if you were buying it for yourself.
The third case you have very little incentive to keep cost down, but value is important.
In the last case you have little incentive to keep cost down and little incentive to get value.

The last case is analogous to government spending – which is why government is so terrible at doing things well. The first case is the majority of free market spending and illustrates why the free market keeps cost down and value high.

The free market is efficient. It is not a panacea.

And I'm a bit confused about something... where would capital fall under on the 4 ways to spend according to Fried...man err -- Friedman?

 

[Danoff]

The free market is efficient. It is not a panacea.

That's not a rebuttle

And I'm a bit confused about something... where would capital fall under on the 4 ways to spend according to Fried...man err -- Friedman?

Huh?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That's not a rebuttle

Yes it is. You said:

which is why government is so terrible at doing things well. The first case is the majority of free market spending and illustrates why the free market keeps cost down and value high.

It sounds to me like your saying a totally free market is better than the government at handling most matters. I said the free market is effcient (an agreement). Then I said the free market is NOT a panacea (meaning you can't eliminate government and expect problems to just disappear).

Huh?

You said:

There are essentially four different ways of spending that you can do (this is from Milton Friedman’s book Free to Choose ).

I'm asking:

Which of the 4 would include capital (in general) spending?

 

[Danoff]

It sounds to me like your saying a totally free market is better than the government at handling most matters. I said the free market is effcient (an agreement). Then I said the free market is NOT a panacea (meaning you can't eliminate government and expect problems to just disappear).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Some necessary functions have to be performed by government - which is why I don't advocate anarchy. so the free market cannot rule all.

I'm asking:

Which of the 4 would include capital (in general) spending?

I read that the first time. I still don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you can be more specific. What kind of spending? A business spending on itself? That's a mix depending on who is doing the spending.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Some necessary functions have to be performed by government - which is why I don't advocate anarchy. so the free market cannot rule all.

And I acknowledged that when I said:

It sounds to me like your saying a totally free market is better than the government at handling most matters.

I read that the first time. I still don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you can be more specific. What kind of spending? A business spending on itself? That's a mix depending on who is doing the spending.

Any kind of capital. Business for itself, consumers for themselves etc.

 

[JacktheHat]

How do private health care companies poach staff? With higher wages?

And how can they afford to pay higher wages?

Because they don't need to spend millions on training their staff, they poach them from the NHS (which has a world-wide reputation for it's high training standards).

 

[ledhed]

Yes.



No.

It's due to only one in six NHS employees actually being involved with patients in any way. And I'm including in the "one" vital employees like caretakers, cleaners and maintenance staff without whom a hospital couldn't function.

What do the others do ?

 

[Famine]

Manage.

 

[JacktheHat]

Manage.

And where put there by PFI's....

 

[ledhed]

It takes five friggin managers to handle only ONE worker ? Thats a system in dire need of an enema.

 

[JacktheHat]

It takes five friggin managers to handle only ONE worker ? Thats a system in dire need of an enema.

Indeed, although all the people pocketing money out of the scheme may disagree with you...

 

[Famine]

And where put there by PFI's....

Hang on...

Private healthcare puts government-paid staff in nationalised hospitals?

Explain this one.

 

[JacktheHat]

Hang on...

Private healthcare puts government-paid staff in nationalised hospitals?

Explain this one.

PFI's (privately financed initiatives - I think) are not private healthcare. They are parts of the NHS that were sold off to the private sector.

 

[Famine]

Exactly like the trains. Half-arsed privatisation...

What sort of "private" company runs at a loss and then gets £100 million of taxpayers' money to make ends meet? ******g trains! That's a different story though.


Explain this to me a little more. Every manager I've come across in the NHS has been paid by the hospital's Trust which gets its money from Lord Brown of Fudging.


ledhed - Say you have five people (it could be one (or none), it could be 20). Someone manages them. Then there's a manager for a groups of managers. Then there's a manager for the group of manager managers. Then there's a manager for a group of manager manager managers - and so on. It's a little more convoluted than that, but you get the picture.

 

[JacktheHat]

Exactly like the trains. Half-arsed privatisation...

What sort of "private" company runs at a loss and then gets £100 million of taxpayers' money to make ends meet? ******g trains! That's a different story though.


Explain this to me a little more. Every manager I've come across in the NHS has been paid by the hospital's Trust which gets its money from Lord Brown of Fudging.

Blame Maggie for the whole privatisation fiasco...

To answer your question: It depends who they are managing, clinical staff are still employed by the NHS as far as i am aware but just about everybody else has been transferred to PFI's.

It's all out there on Google if you can be bothered putting on your waders.

 

[Famine]

I'm not about to enter anything NHS-related into Google. I'd need a rescue helicopter, not waders.

 

[Danoff]

Every manager I've come across in the NHS has been paid by the hospital's Trust which gets its money from Lord Brown of Fudging.

Any kind of capital. Business for itself, consumers for themselves etc.

It depends on who is spending the capital and on whom (is that the right use of whom?).

Consumers spending on themselves is the first type.
Businesses spending on themselves is the first type if its the business owner - but very quickly the people farther down the food chain become type 3 or even 4. Which is why in businesses people far down the food chain don't get to choose how to spend money - to mitigate the type 4 spending.

Government is ALL type 4. Businesses limit type 4 to very minor purchases and play games with responsibility so that it becomes more like type 3 or even 1.

The question is too broad. I'd need a specific scenario to give an example. Suffice to say that when you're spending someone else's money on someone else, that's the least efficient way money can be spent - and that's the way government spends money.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/04/27/medicare.doughnuthole.ap/index.html

Just four months into the program, Lindley has hit the point in her coverage where she has to pick up, at least for a few months, the full cost of the medication she takes to keep her bone marrow cancer in remission. As a result, her two-month supply of Thalomid shot up from $40 to a whopping $1,300.

"If I can't get it, I guess I'm here until the Lord takes me out. That's all I can do, because there's no way I can afford it," said Lindley, an 80-year-old from Jonesboro, Arkansas.

Maybe she should try paying for the drugs she uses? I don't see why I should be requried by law to keep her alive. Can she and her family not find $3k necessary to keep her alive? If not, I say tough ****. She should have thought of that when she was refusing to earn/save money.

She wants everyone to feel bad for her because she has to pay for her medicine. Well, what about the people paying for her medicine most of the time? Does she feel any remorse for them? Does she feel bad for being a burden on society? Of course not, we're just supposed to feel bad for her carrying her own weight. Well I say, what makes her money/life more valuable than mine? Why is my money ok to be spent on her drugs, but not hers? Why is my livelihood sacrificed at the cost of her own? Where's her self-respect?

 

[ledhed]

The Gov . Up noeth might actually have a good plan. Lets see. Hmmmm making everyone responsible for their own health care by requiring each person to have HC insurance ? Soundss like most states with No fault car insurance. You MUST have insurance to register.....hmmm you must havee insurance to live ?

 

[Sage]

Hey Dan – did you hear on the news today (or maybe yesterday?) about how California wants to make healthcare mandatory in the state (to follow Massachusett’s lead)? I nearly drove off the road when I heard that.

Land of fruits and nuts, I tell ya.

 

[Danoff]

Hey Dan – did you hear on the news today (or maybe yesterday?) about how California wants to make healthcare mandatory in the state (to follow Massachusett’s lead)? I nearly drove off the road when I heard that.

Land of fruits and nuts, I tell ya.

Oooo I did not hear that. I hope they can kill that, or will it be voted on? If it goes through it's going to create even more problems the state.

Thanks for the heads up. Glad you stayed on the road.

 

[Sphinx]

What a sorrowful place to live.

 

[boombexus]

While the post Danoff made of this womans plight is meant to play on the heartstrings of those who read the story. Her story seem to want others to feel sorry for her.
Maybe some will, and some will help her cause. That is a wonderful thing about humanity, that others have the compassion to help.

But those that want to help her, it is through there own choice.

Do I feel sorry/sad for her. Sure. However, I do agree with danoffs and dukes posts in the first few pages of this thread. And might I add that I had a great time reading them.

I wonder what milefile is doing these days. danoff?

I'm sure there are some people out there that would like to help contribute to her cause but I agree that it should be compulsary and not mandatory. I have a hard enough time keeping my head above water financially with my own needs let alone trying to provide for the needs of others. I need more of the money that I have rightfully earned.

True, there is a compassionate side to me that thinks she is in a difficult situation, but on the flip side, I can't be bothered to be burdened with her situation and have it coupled with mine.

To go back to the first few pages of this thread, I'm in full aggreance with danoff and duke in there stance that health care should remain privatized.
I like having the choice of paying for it.
I may feel that I have to pay for it at times, but in all actuality, I know that I don't.
I choose to pay for it. And that's the greatest thing. It's my choice and it should remain that way.

 

[Sage]

Oooo I did not hear that. I hope they can kill that, or will it be voted on? If it goes through it's going to create even more problems the state.

Here’s an article about it (it was surprisingly hard to find any coverage on this). I’m not sure how the exact politics work, but I’m assuming that if the panel okayed it, then the California State Assembly will probably okay it too? Too bad both houses are overwhelmingly Democrats.

 

[Danoff]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/29/obama.health.ap/index.html

Obama has announced his plan to get every american health care coverage. It's brilliant. Far from the usual solution that the democrats come up with, his plan is unbelievably carefully thought out, and quite complex. With this kind of outside the box thinking the guy is a shoe-in for the presidency. I honestly can't believe nobody has thought of this solution to the health care problem before. In fact, this solution doesn't just work for health care. It works for all kinds of things that politicians like to promise in order to buy votes.

What's his master plan you ask? What is this ingenious strategy for getting health insurance for every american? What is this brilliant new public policy?

Tax the rich.

Wow... if only more politicians thought like that maybe we could actually cure the problems in this country. Take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor - cures everything. I guess if you eliminate differences in wealth you can eliminate poverty because everyone will have the same amount of money. Russia tried this with great successs. Communism is one of those great ideas that will just keep coming back. We all know at this point that poverty did not exist in communist russia because they made sure that rich people did not exist. That's what I remember thinking when I learned of the bread lines in soviet russia - that everyone there was so increadibly lucky to have a system that eliminated poverty. I'll bet they all had fantastic health care.

Have you ever heard a democrat explain to you when it could possibly be a bad idea to raise taxes on the rich? Have you ever heard any of them acknowledge economics in any way shape or form? Afterall what good would that do? Voters like to hear that things are going to magically get better and it won't cost them a dime.