mikey mikey wrote:
Thanks for that, I'm not sure I comprehend it though, who is paying these Trusts (NHS?) and who owns/comtrols these trusts? Can you link the source?
mikey mikey wrote:
Nothing to be concerned with so, good luck with the project.

Health care? I'd call it murder.

Yes the healthcare system sucks, however its to be expected with a larger population and lack of investment and planning to cover it.
The NHS was originally a great thing and a real world leader, it was also a great blessing to many british people who before then could not afford healthcare.

If you suggest improving it I would be all for it and thats easily achievable again if resources are the issue instead of money issued by bankers at interest. That would be the positive and intelligent thing to do.

The negative narrow minded daily mail response would be to abandon it without considering how they would even afford healthcare afterwards and most Brits are definitely NOT capable of affording it.
I personally pay for my own private healthcare in Ireland but I earn way way more than Brits in my job in the UK and that will now always be the case no matter what politicians do or do not do. The end is nigh for the current economical paradigm because outsourcing has brought it about, the system is eating its own tail.

Reptired wrote:
No. I wasn't calling that Torture/Euthanasia healthcare. In fact it is the removal of healthcare that is what the Liverpool Pathway actually is. And it is a result of the back door privatization of the NHS. It has now been abolished and you can read about how and why just using wiki and then following their external links.

The drive to dismantle a universal health care system is from the same folks that started that astroturfing in the US a few years back that called it socialism. And the folks behind that are the Koch brothers and co.

And there are armies of little Kochroaches and Randians to post total misinformation and misrepresent other peoples POV. They have conferences and everything.

Now, we seem to get our wires crossed quite a lot, so I can imagine that you just misunderstood me. But to be frank, you must have been only half concentrating on reading my post if you imagined that I was calling euthanasia "health care".

mikey mikey wrote:
I still don't understand this, I asked some questions which you ignored.

You said

"I am very familiar with the Liverpool Care Pathway, but I see that it can be used to attack the NHS, when in actual fact it was a result of backdoor privatisation."

You quoted wikipedia about trusts though.
According to wikipedia
"A National Health Service trust provides services on behalf of the English NHS and NHS Wales.
The trusts are not trusts in the legal sense but are in effect public sector corporations."

I still don't understand your claim.



Wise choice.

Theres no choice about it, I have to pay, simple as.

The income tax is also approx same as the UK so nothing new there.

If the UK dropped the NHS tomorrow they'd probably raise the taxes which is what they've done after cutting everything else and the wages are too shit to cut welfare in the UK, its welfare that props up business there, without it the business would just move elsewhere and everyone would be fucked, hence why I have no patience for any crap about how things would be better without it or how doleys and immigrants somehow drain the system. Banks and globalist elites and their puppet blood sucking upper middle class politicians drain the system, nothing else.
Everybody else puts something into the system including doleys and immigrants in their own way because they spend what they get.
The rich don't spend 90-100% of their income just surviving.

Theres too much income disparity and false value attributed to certain jobs. A hospital cleaner gets just above minimum wage yet is vital to the hospital. Just as the hospital would not exist without builders, labourers, electricians, plumbers, joiners.
All of these people are lucky if they even get to hold a job for a year, they work their balls off and they get fuck all in return.
The doctors who went to uni might think they are somehow special or more deserving but they are not. They do not work any harder than these other people and they most certainly do not suffer like those other people do and they would not exist or have a job without those other people. If I see another whining story about overworked doctors I swear I'll shove the journalist on top of a fucking ladder with a mop and bucket and tell the stupid cunt to try some real work for a change. See how they feel when they've stood there in howling wind and pissing rain with bleeding knuckles and backache and pain in your legs for hours on end and tell me about fucking stress when after all that you can't manage to pay the bills.

Reptired wrote:
I think I understand yours though.

The "claim" is simple fact: Trusts were given money if a patient died and they were on the pathway.

Financial incentives to Trusts that are under funded to make the NHS look like a failure and at the same time get patients out of bed and into coffins. One less suicide for ATOS to cause.

www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2...government-privatise

andyh wrote:

andyh wrote: I couldn't agree more with this, as you probably know. I'm lucky that I get to do a pretty bourgeois job now, but I've worked in fields picking spring onions, before the minimum wage was brought in, and it is no fucking picnic. One of my pet topics to talk about is the insanity of the food production industry, either the most or second most important industry in the country (you could argue that water production is more important), and the people that do it are treated like fucking crap. You can read about this extensively in Felicity Lawence’s excellent book ‘Not on the Label’, and there is a lengthy section in the film ‘Food Inc’ about it. But it’s common knowledge now, anyway, and it’s getting worse, not better.

Yet I know for a fact that fucking architects and accountants and doctors wander round fucking Waitrose not giving a moment’s thought to where their champagne comes from. Not even a moment’s fucking thought. And they would have the incredible conceit to think that they do important work! Oh yeah, how could we ever get by without accountants!

The entire food production system is dependent on abysmal wages, mass illegal immigration, these migrant workers living in appalling conditions and being treated like utter shit, and all manner of other completely unnatural and reprehensible processes and practices. And if it ever breaks down, which in a rational, even genuinely free market-driven world it would, we’re all totally fucked. Let’s see what good your degrees in medicine and architecture do you then, you fuckwits!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Whilst I agree with the large part of your post I have to lodge disagreement with that one. It's not my experience of farming that it's reliant on illegal immigrants. Nowadays you have a case for saying farming in Britain relies on Eastern European workers but not illegal immigrants.
Maybe in the wider World though

mikey mikey wrote:
So the NHS is paying bonuses to its trusts to murder people.
That's not privatisation, you don't murder your customers in a free market, because , if nothing else you wouldn't get paid.

Reptired wrote:
Did you know that US hospitals make more money on insurance if they fuck up operations?

andyh wrote:
I didn't, I'm not surprised though, and it will only get worse as the state gets even more involved.

The state is not involved, its private healhcare and private insurance.

thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/17/1880...s-surgical-mistakes/

knobmeup wrote: At the time 'Not on the Label' was written there were an estimated one-million illegal immigrants in the UK, and many worked in food production. Many of them are now no longer illegal, of course! This is really a technicality, the point is that the food production industry finds the cheapest possible workers that it can, and squeezes every last drop of juice possible out of them. And frequently acts in a morally reprehensible and criminal way towards them. And, inevitably, many of these people end up being economic migrants. I saw a report on the BBC about this just a few months ago. Here they are a few years ago implying that it's a good thing:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/7326232.stm



The conclusion is never that maybe something as important as food production ought to pay something more than a derisory wage so that people in the local community might want to do it. Oh no, the fruit "can't be picked" because there aren't enough migrant workers!

In principle, I'm in favour of total open borders, but in this economic system that exists now there has to be some form of protectionism to prevent this from happening, particularly in such an important industry. Otherwise you reach the point where we're at today where the whole system is utterly dependent on exploitation. The situation is far worse in the US where it's entirely run by migrants or people from the economic underclass who are treated little better than cattle and paid peanuts, while corporations such as Tyson and Cargill walk away with billions. And, of course, our dependency on this mass industrial food production system, dominated by a handful of companies, is total and absolute.

andyh wrote:
The state is involved with everything andyh.
The article mentions Medicare as well as "private" patients.
It is stretch compare 5% error rate within a statist system infected with 50 yrs Socialism (Medicare) that costs insurers more with the state murdering vulnerable people.

The US does not have a statist healthcare system lol.
You pay for it, medicare is insurance backed, the point is that its profitable to make mistakes just as its profitable to sell drugs that don't work.
The state is not involved with everything, nor does the state have anything to do with profit motive which ofc kills people.

Whats the point in selling drugs that cure disease ffs lol? Pretty soon you'll be out of business.

andyh wrote:
Sorry andyh, I don't know a lot about it, I'm just going on wikipedia which is why I thought it was a statist system.

"In the United States, Medicare is a national social insurance program,"
" Part A largely is funded by revenue from a 2.9 percent payroll tax levied on employers and workers (each pay 1.45 percent) established by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954. Until December 31, 1993, the law provided a maximum amount of compensation on which the Medicare tax could be imposed each year.[16] Beginning January 1, 1994, the compensation limit was removed. A self-employed individual must pay the entire 2.9% tax on self-employed net earnings (because they are both employee and employer), but may deduct half of the tax from the income in calculating income tax.[17] Beginning in 2013, the 2.9% hospital insurance tax will continue to apply to the first US $200,000 of income for individuals or $250,000 for couples filing jointly and will rise to 3.8% on income in excess of those amounts.[18] Parts B and D are funded by premiums paid by Medicare enrollees and general fund revenue. In 2011, Medicare spending accounted for about 15 percent of the federal budget, and this share is projected to increase to over 17 percent by 2020.[19]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Financing



The state is also involved with everything, even if it's not a state run system like Medicare,through Taxes, Regulation and Monopoly Centralised Fiat it irrevocably destroys any possibility of a free market in any field.

Can you explain how it's profitable to make mistakes in a voluntary situation?

andyh wrote:
Because in a free society you could charge more for an actual cure, any rational person would be willing to pay more, surely.
Really though there would likely be much more emphasis on preventative measures as it's more efficient for provider and customer.

"Historically in China, each village was under the care of one doctor. In return, they took care of him (fed him, clothed him, etc.). What's so different about this from the exchange that goes on in modern healthcare? The traditional Chinese doctor's job was to keep the village from getting sick in the first place. Once people got sick, they were unable to support the doctor. It made more sense for him to keep them well than to wait until they were sick."
https://www.acupuncture.com/Conditions/pulse_prevent.htm

Its profitable to make mistakes if theres extra money to be had form insurance claims.

Its also quite incorrect to state that simply charging more will solve the problem of having a cure for disease, market saturation would be inevitably reached and there would then be no demand and therefore no profits. If you charge too much then there would be no demand anyway because there'd be no-one who could afford it...apart from stupid things like banks who can print infinite money ofc but that would skew the free market model wouldn't it and what free market economist would want that?

Its pretty obvious to most people with half a brain cell that its profitable to sell as much as you can. garages do preventative maintenance on cars and repairs on cars that have had the preventative maintenance anyway, same deal. They do not do merely one extreme or the other so the argument is invalid.

andyh wrote:
This is complete nonsense, nobody would repeatedly enter into a voluntary contractual agreement with another if one party was repeatedly making unnecessary mistakes causing one party to profit.
It's like saying someone would choose to return to a dark alley where they were robbed time and again.
It's only when you put a gun to someones head and remove their capacity to take responsibility for themselves that you see this kind of idiocy.
andyh wrote:



It would be a problem if all disease would be cured due to "market saturation" ?


If all disease was cured I think the individuals who were competent enough to manage this would find another source of income.

You can only charge what people can pay, the realities of maximum resources of a physical system are the same whether a society is free or Statist, again you're dragging the state into something that could be a Voluntary solution with your reference to State Fiat /Fractional Reserve, of course State fiat could not exist in a free society by definition and no rational person would engage with a Fractional Reserve monetary system such as we see today, given a choice.