tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post8622876242413574050..comments2024-03-29T17:12:19.648+13:00Comments on Bowalley Road: What A Real Labour Party Member Sounds Like.Chris Trotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-91435383823846391012014-10-23T14:31:53.275+13:002014-10-23T14:31:53.275+13:00Am currently reading Saskia Sassen's Expulsion...Am currently reading Saskia Sassen's Expulsions...your million homeless appears to be an understatement....but if you stop measuring they magically no longer exist.pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08727942156598555852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-515667945193340102014-10-23T12:03:23.428+13:002014-10-23T12:03:23.428+13:00Well said, Chris. It amazes me how right-wingers c...Well said, Chris. It amazes me how right-wingers can lie through their teeth so consistently and shamelessly.<br /><br />I remember watching a documentary on homelessness in the US (another blight that the market has so skilfully managed to heal). <br /><br />There was a man who had hurt his back and could no longer work. Since their was no free healthcare (the market failed to help him, surprisingly) he eventually liquidated all his assets and ended up sleeping in a homeless camp out in the woods with mentally ill and violent drug addicts.<br /><br />The beautiful and efficient purring of the market system was unable to help him in this case.<br /><br />I'd say he's not alone given there are over a million homeless people in Tom Hunter's beloved USA. I'm sure they wouldn't mind a bit of NHS love.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-7874213381942017802014-10-22T16:05:07.572+13:002014-10-22T16:05:07.572+13:00Come to think of it, if the American healthcare gi...Come to think of it, if the American healthcare gives poor people the same treatment as the wealthy, why was that Liberian immigrant with Ebola sent home with painkillers, even after he told them he came from Liberia? Surely he should have been rushed into an intensive care ward and given all sorts of anti-Bola treatments. If it were true :-). Mind you Charles, this is anecdotal evidence too :-).Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-36194749173224000422014-10-22T13:07:29.670+13:002014-10-22T13:07:29.670+13:00Actually Charles yes. As long as what you choose t...Actually Charles yes. As long as what you choose to read is proper research. You have is anecdote. Not at all scientific :-). In fact, I posted a quote from the British medical journal that showed the Acheson report blamed differences in income for differences in medical outcomes rather than anything to do with the national health service, which was held pretty much blameless. Doesn't seem to have shown up, but it is easy enough to find. I think the BMJ trumps your random guy in the street American though he may be.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-47868316253727548252014-10-22T11:56:02.669+13:002014-10-22T11:56:02.669+13:00"A 2014 study by the private American foundat..."A 2014 study by the private American foundation The Commonwealth Fund found that although the U.S. health care system is the most expensive in the world, it ranks last on most dimensions of performance when compared with Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The study found that the United States failed to achieve better outcomes than other countries, and is last or near last in terms of access, efficiency and equity. Study date came from international surveys of patients and primary care physicians, as well as information on health care outcomes from The Commonwealth Fund, the World Health Organization, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.[80][81]"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Access_to_care:_Cost.2C_affordability.2C_coverageGrantnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-85250708375421452982014-10-22T07:27:59.876+13:002014-10-22T07:27:59.876+13:00Excuse me Chris, you think relying on what you cho...Excuse me Chris, you think relying on what you choose to read is superior to talking to people first hand? Have you been to the US to try it? These people I talked to are Obama supporters. Yes left of centre mate. Would be Labour voters here even.! So you are wrong. My friend was treated it their expensive system (one of its faults) before they even knew if he had climbing cover. And he was not a Yank. Turns out he did have cover so yes perhaps his later treatment was better for that and he will not be chased for payment.<br /> But you do not read well perhaps: I said the French system best. Both the US & UK systems have major flaws. But you have lost this core argument: The Brit worker is not better off because of things like the NHS Labour there is so proud of. You are a Labour Pom now btw?<br />Capitalism & its science and technology is why all Brit & Yank workers no longer starve and die of bed sores, as they still did in many socialist countries until that system died quite recently.<br />Game , set and whole tournament to that well informed Tom. Are you a doctor perhaps Mr Hunter?Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-34133626228609724342014-10-21T13:35:08.616+13:002014-10-21T13:35:08.616+13:00No, Sweetie, I won't.
The Black and Acheson R...No, Sweetie, I won't.<br /><br />The Black and Acheson Reports entirely vindicate Harry Smith.<br /><br />Your use of them to attack the NHS was (to be kind) utterly disingenuous.<br /><br />Go peddle your craziness someplace else.Chris Trotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-71880879374763683502014-10-21T10:25:59.778+13:002014-10-21T10:25:59.778+13:00the debate over healthcare delivery systems has al...the debate over healthcare delivery systems has already been decided by the evidence... an essentially completely market driven private system (U.S.) has consistently been shown to be less economically efficient AND produces worse outcomes, all the reports and posturing in the world will not change that amply demonstrated fact.<br /> So the "bureaucratic" systems (e.g.NHS) are not perfect and have problems, I dont think anyone would dispute that, however advocating the repair/ enhancement of an imperfect system by applying an even less successful method of delivery is patently absurd.<br /> As has been stated, prior to the the social provision of health care there was essentially nothing available to large segments of society with the the consequent suffering, shortened life spans,nor was there the medical advancement and economic benefit of a largely (comparatively) healthy population.<br /> Aside from the humanitarian aspect of universal healthcare, I suggest you consider what your Rolls Royce Silver Ghost would be like now if it wernt for the advent of Ford, Nissan or Toyota....I would suggest that the few thousand or so beautifully handcrafted technologically stunted examples would be struggling to go anywhere due to a lack of roads or refineries.<br /> Inequality of provision/ access in all things will likely always be with us, is that a reason to abandon at least the attempt to provide for all?<br /> If so just come out and say it...."let the poor die and be quick about it".<br /> <br /> pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08727942156598555852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-12344978557024226422014-10-21T09:36:47.883+13:002014-10-21T09:36:47.883+13:00the vast "evidence" factories of the Ame...<i>the vast "evidence" factories of the American Right. These are the millionaire and billionaire-funded "Think Tanks" of the USA and the UK which, since the 1970s, have been advancing their bought and paid-for "studies"</i><br /><br />You'll be posting the first third of my comment, which contains the link to the cancer stats published in the <i>Lancet Oncology</i> magazine any moment now, won't you sweetie?Tom Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-27170122652721226712014-10-21T09:27:49.268+13:002014-10-21T09:27:49.268+13:00The reports cited address the inequality of treatm...The reports cited address the inequality of treatment arising out of class differences. Surely Harry Smith's starting point?<br /><br />Tom's argument similarly fails to address the simple historical facts that Harry uses to illustrate why the NHS was necessary. His over-riding concern, rather, is to demonstrate the superiority of the US market-driven health system.<br /><br />The straightforward concern of Harry and millions like him was to have the State provide access to basic primary health services and hospital care for working-class people. That is what Labour did - to the vast improvement of ordinary people's lives.<br /><br />Tom's facility for pulling ideologically-skewed "evidence" out of his market-driven hat strongly suggests that he is affiliated to (or an avid customer of) the vast "evidence" factories of the American Right. <br /><br />These are the millionaire and billionaire-funded "Think Tanks" of the USA and the UK which, since the 1970s, have been advancing their bought and paid-for "studies" as proof that, in the case of the USA, health care must never be socialised, or, in the UK case, would be improved by privatisation.<br /><br />Beware of geeks bearing gifts.Chris Trotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-89793446043440668962014-10-21T08:10:28.188+13:002014-10-21T08:10:28.188+13:00Finally there is this gem: The idea that people wi...Finally there is this gem: <i>The idea that people with no money get exactly the same treatment as people with money is nonsense.</i><br />True. Unfortunately it’s still true even for systems like the NHS or Canada’s that were specifically set up to avoid that. Several years ago this led one American health economist to make the following scathing comment:<br /><i>Aneurin Bevan, father of the British National Health Service (NHS), declared, <b>“The essence of a satisfactory health service is that rich and poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and wealth is not advantaged.”</b><br />More than 30 years after the NHS’s founding, an official task force found little evidence that it had equalized health-care access. Another study, 20 years later, concluded that access had become more unequal in the years between the two studies.</i><br /><br />He’s referring to the <i>The Black Report</i> from 1980 (commissioned in 1977, before Thatcher) - (which actually says that unequal access to healthcare was widening even then) and <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265503/ih.pdf." rel="nofollow">The Acheson Report</a> from 1998. Because I’m concerned about superficiality and mendacity I’ve provided the link to the latter (it should take you mere minutes to track down the former) and will even provide a quote from it<br /><i><b>For many measures of health, inequalities have either remained the same or have widened in recent decades. </b><br />These inequalities affect the whole of society and they can be identified at all stages of the life course from pregnancy to old age.</i><br />The Whitehead Report published in 1987, and the Marmot Review in 2010, came to the same conclusions.<br />Similarly for Canada:<br /><i>In Canada, the wealthy and powerful have significantly greater access to medical specialists than do the less well-connected poor. High-profile patients enjoy more frequent services, shorter waiting times, and greater choice of specialists. Moreover, non-elderly, white, low-income Canadians are 22 percent more likely to be in poor health than their U.S. counterparts.</i><br /><br />Which led the US health economist to finish off with this observation:<br /><i>In developed countries generally, among people with similar health conditions, high earners use the system more intensely, and use costlier services, than do low earners. <b>It seems likely that the personal characteristics that ensure success in a market economy also enhance success in bureaucratic systems.</b></i><br /><br />Except the bureaucratic system you have so emotively defended <b>also</b> produces poorer healthcare outcomes - and all this with steadily rising expenditure on it.<br /><br />What a winner. It’s no wonder that British people actually have welcomed such sermonising reports (and the headlines) rather than “ra ra” support of one-eyed fanatical theorists, while also constantly returning to power the people <i>”they know”</i> have <i>”done these things”</i>. Apparently they either don’t know <i>”what would fix it”</i> or have no faith that it can be.<br /><br />About the only thing you've been correct about is that you’re certainly all stocked up on crazy here.Tom Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-12094118028674960342014-10-21T08:03:05.093+13:002014-10-21T08:03:05.093+13:00Do you read nothing, either of you? Honestly, the ...<i>Do you read nothing, either of you? Honestly, the ignorance you fellows both display - all the time believing that you are highly intelligent men of the world - is astounding.</i><br />Given the above, would you like to retract those ill-chosen words? I’ve been reading about various national healthcare systems for years - apparently to a greater degree than you or your commentators. I find it astounding that your friend did not run across the <i>Lancet </i> data, given what I wrote. A simple Google search lasting not minutes but seconds. Tell me about ignorance again if we choose to talk about drug treatments, hip surgeries and other such treatments instead of cancer.<br /><br />By contrast the ignorance buried in the comment about the cancer stats - <i>We don't know for instance if they are before after Obamacare. </i> - is just begging to be unpacked. Who in this field would ever imagine that a system which did not go live until the end of 2013 could possibly have had any effect, positive or negative by now? Or did you imagine the effects lead back to it's mere passage into law in 2010? Not to mention the hilariously unbounded faith that any government legislation could have such miraculous powers.<br /><br /><i>As I said, and I get this from reputable sources rather than some random guy, they are stabilised and sent home.</i><br />So we’re back to talking about the treatment of individuals rather than collective, societal outcomes? Given the horror stories uncovered by NHS studies themselves I’d say you’re on shaky ground comparing US and UK shrouds - and the collective outcomes still favour the “awful” US system.<br /><br /><i>… proceeded to heap praise on the United States' … </i><br />I merely pointed that specific outcomes from the US system - in this case cancer treatment - were superior to those of the NHS.<br /><br />If I wanted to I could find plenty of non-praise for the US system - probably more than you could. It’s just that my critiques would be different to yours.Tom Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-14878493705553347562014-10-21T00:45:24.870+13:002014-10-21T00:45:24.870+13:00It was about a week ago, when Sean Plunket on Radi...It was about a week ago, when Sean Plunket on Radio Live was playing part of this speech by Harry Smith, and abusing it, by not highlighting the actual purpose of the speech. He abused it by claiming that the speech showed, how out of touch "lefties" here in NZ were, as (according to Plunket) we have it better than ever, and as we would not have "real poverty" in this country.<br /><br />I sent Sean Plunket an email, pointing out that he was mischievous, and that Harry Smith was speaking to highlight the appalling fact, that the tories want to privatise the NHS. Of course he did not reply or mention my email during his show. <br /><br />That is how many in the media in NZ now operate, they manipulate progressive and leftist politicians and supporters, by playing them off against each other.<br /><br />And indeed, Harry reminded people of what life in Britain was like, before the NHS, and before social security, and what he meant was, that if we do not fight the tories now, we may one day be back there, where Harry and his comtemporary fellow citizens once were.<br /><br />Shame on Key and this government, wanting to sell off 20,000 Housing NZ homes, and to privatise social housing and welfare!<br /><br />As for the British Medical Association, they also support the culling off sick and disabled off benefits in the UK, which is slowly happening here too:<br /><br />http://accforum.org/forums/index.php?/topic/15463-designated-doctors-%e2%80%93-used-by-work-and-income-some-also-used-by-acc/<br /><br />Also google 'nzsocialjusticeblog2013' for more info!<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-20579500459230338892014-10-20T21:55:49.574+13:002014-10-20T21:55:49.574+13:00There are a lot of myths about healthcare, both th...There are a lot of myths about healthcare, both the NHS and the American system. One of these myths is that care is rationed under the NHS but not under the private system. Of course, it is rationed under both systems, just in the private system it's called economic rationing if I remember my economics papers from years ago. Those who can afford it can have it.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-86625746865934056602014-10-20T18:34:41.126+13:002014-10-20T18:34:41.126+13:00No, Charles, I haven't been "shot down&qu...No, Charles, I haven't been "shot down" because Tom has tossed some unattributed and decontextualized figures into a comment and then, like you, proceeded to heap praise on the United States' market-driven health system.<br /><br />And what can one say about your notion that US hospitals treat uninsured people for free out of fear of being sued - other than it reveals you to be every bit as one-eyed as Tom.<br /><br />Do you read nothing, either of you? Honestly, the ignorance you fellows both display - all the time believing that you are highly intelligent men of the world - is astounding.<br /><br />Your friend was treated well in an American hospital? Because? He had insurance? Yes? Well, I'd say that's QED for all of us who understand that the US has an excellent health system for those who can pay. And a crap health system for those who can't.<br /><br />Of course, the fact that those who fall through the cracks are overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic renders them utterly invisible to smug white gentlemen of right-wing opinions like yourselves.<br /><br />Which says rather a lot about both of you - and none of it good.Chris Trotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-67881041679298751652014-10-20T18:29:37.263+13:002014-10-20T18:29:37.263+13:00The idea that people with no money get exactly the...The idea that people with no money get exactly the same treatment as people with money is nonsense. If that were so, no one would ever pay. They'd just hide their assets and pretend to be poor. As I said, and I get this from reputable sources rather than some random guy, they are stabilised and sent home. No follow-up care at all. It's all done in the emergency department.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-9608944379314081072014-10-20T18:22:05.244+13:002014-10-20T18:22:05.244+13:00Private healthcare is great .....for the one perce...Private healthcare is great .....for the one percenters. A few stats for Tom.<br />World Bank 2009-2013<br />Percentage of GDP spent on healthcare UK 9.4%, US 17.9%<br />Life expectancy (all) UK 82 years, US 79 years<br />Infant mortality (per 1000 live births) UK 4, US 6<br /><br />Add to this the fact it is estimated there are 10s of millions of Americans without access to healthcare.<br /> Yes the market is a fine instrument to deliver healthcare....if your goal is some form of eugenic population control.<br />pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08727942156598555852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-39257492371610760602014-10-20T16:49:14.137+13:002014-10-20T16:49:14.137+13:00Game set and match to Tom I reckon, Chris.
I just ...Game set and match to Tom I reckon, Chris.<br />I just came back from a climbing trip to the US and a friend (Kiwi) had a bad fall while climbing with another guy. His hospital care was simply fabulous, almost over the top. I asked friends I was staying with what happens to people who have no insurance and cannot pay. They get the same treatment, as the hospitals will be sued if they do not. And a large bill which gets written off if they cannot pay. So the people who get done by the system are those that don't have insurance but do have some significant assets for the debt collectors to chase. Those with no assets don't pay anything, just like in the UK but get much better treatment. Obamacare is set to fix this. Perhaps ....<br />The best system is the French in my view, where you pay or have insurance but get reimbursed by the state. Way better than the NHS with its ideology resulting in universal second rate care. Sort of like Cuba really.<br />So let me see: You raised the NHS as a great Labour creation and have been shot down. Then there was that appalling racist FDR. Woops. Oh and Kirk, who I only recall as a sour moralising windbag similar to but not as funny as Lange. He was a fake too: My socialist academic uncle went to a lunch with him once and came back appalled he had told them: "All you need to do to secure the workers' votes is keep the price of fags & beer down". He still voted Labour though, as he was an academic and so thought himself an intellectual, superior to thick Tories. Nothing much has changed eh!<br />Charlesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-19291216175714328312014-10-20T16:23:05.424+13:002014-10-20T16:23:05.424+13:00Tom's figures are a little disingenuous. We do...Tom's figures are a little disingenuous. We don't know for instance if they are before after Obamacare. And the devil may be in the detail 2 – for instance "treated". Many people simply are treated. Not as such. If you don't have any money, or any health insurance you are simply stabilised and sent home. A sort of emergency uncare. You can cherry pick stuff too. I think the best appreciation recently has been done by the Commonwealth Fund, which said the NHS was the best of pretty much all the developed world's healthcare systems. Consistently outperforming the others in most areas. It only took a couple of minutes on the Internet to find this stuff and I'd sooner believe them than some random guy I don't know, thanks. :-)Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-23783117483831648892014-10-20T14:31:45.870+13:002014-10-20T14:31:45.870+13:00Well, Tom, here's a challenge for you.
Why do...Well, Tom, here's a challenge for you.<br /><br />Why don't you stand for Parliament on the platform of substituting our public health system for that of the United States - and see how many votes you get.<br /><br />Your analysis of the ills of the current NHS is as superficial as it is mendacious. No one living in Britain would welcome your sermonising on the subject. They know what's been done to their public health system, and they know who did it. They know what would fix it, too.<br /><br />Your referencing of Robert Conquest (a right-wing historian notorious for his splenetic hatred of the Soviet Union) simply confirms my original suspicion - that you are one of those unfortunate souls who swallowed the neoliberal Kool-Aid, cannot get rid of the taste, and now seeks company for your misery.<br /><br />So, please, in the immortal words of Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets": "Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here." Chris Trotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-78222829311358463442014-10-20T13:41:29.106+13:002014-10-20T13:41:29.106+13:00And, sadly, if you missed that, then you've mi...<i>And, sadly, if you missed that, then you've missed the most important aspect of the entire debate.</i><br /><br />I thought the most important aspect of a healthcare debate would be the which system provides the best healthcare outcomes in practice - but thanks for reminding me of the awful results that can arise from fanatical insistence on an ideology.<br /><br />The fact that you think it's about advertising your ideological preference for universal, no-questions-asked access - even in the face of rationing that denies such things in practice - means that you will continue on this increasingly doomed quest.<br /><br />I don't think there could be a better example of such an ideological approach than your statement that:<br /><i>... given your praise for the American system ...</i><br /><br />My praise is for a system that has almost 83% of women diagnosed with breast cancer, still alive after five years - compared to Britain's 69.9%. Or men's prostate cancer, where the five year survival rate is just 51.7% - barely better than the flip of a coin. In the US it's 91.9.<br /><br />Those are collective statistics, societal statistics achieved in spite of "PROVIDED YOU CAN AFFORD IT", as opposed to NHS stats, achieved in spite of your "CORE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP". Even stipulating that the latter is morally and ethically superior to the latter, do the result not cause even a moments doubt in your mind?<br /><br />Why would not such a system be praised. If you think that simply doubling the amount of NHS spending will achieve those results then do it. The results of increased spending to date suggest that you will be disappointed.<br /><br />Practical results vs ideology. Tell me about it.<br /><br />Oh, and by the way, all this talk about the horrors of modern Labour and Conservative approaches to the NHS put me very much in mind of this quote:<br /><i>The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.</i><br /><br />That's Robert Conquest of course, who very well understood the results of a fanatical application of ideological faith.<br /><br />Best of luck with the arguments here over <i>the most important aspect of the entire debate</i>. Just don't be surprised when the toiling masses increasingly tune you out.Tom Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-31452553944547166532014-10-20T13:12:29.829+13:002014-10-20T13:12:29.829+13:00Well, Tom, I think you've established your ide...Well, Tom, I think you've established your ideological credentials very clearly.<br /><br />Who could doubt it - given your praise for the American system. (Which is, indeed, a very good one PROVIDED YOU CAN AFFORD IT!)<br /><br />To argue for a targeted NHS only further polishes your "more market" credentials.<br /><br />It also suggests that you have missed the essential message of Harry Smith's address: that health care is a core right of citizenship, not to be rationed according to one's ability to pay, nor to be provided on the grounds of deserving poverty; entirely.<br /><br />And, sadly, if you missed that, then you've missed the most important aspect of the entire debate.Chris Trotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-89373174822212759902014-10-20T11:36:46.026+13:002014-10-20T11:36:46.026+13:00And if you want to talk about a "harsh and in...And if you want to talk about a <i>"harsh and inhuman worldview"</i> I suggest you read that <i>Guardian</i> article again, with the Labour MP's concerns about a <i>normalisation of cruelty</i>. Anybody who has ever had dealings with your average government bureaucrat would know the feeling.<br /><br />Also - in response to the <i>"it says you are just an ideologue."</i> bloke above - let me say that if I was suggesting a complete abandonment by the government from healthcare, then that accusation would stand.<br /><br />But I'm not. <br /><br />What I would like to see is a government that focuses on the areas where the private sector would not go - the treatment of things like some types of cancer and especially focusing on people who cannot afford healthcare. The arguments about barriers to entry, knowledge and so forth, are increasingly not true in 21st century healthcare (and I would note the equally ignorant assumption that food production does not have these things nowadays - have you seen the price of land and capital equipment required just to grow food on a farm, let alone process it downstream?).<br /><br />Perhaps it's a matter of size - there's no doubt that the NZ health sector works much better than the NHS. But in the UK at least, a left-wing government could do what I suggest - but <b>not</b> if it continues to mono-maniacally focus on near 100% health ownership and free universal access. In light of the many other failures of 100% government ownership, as well as the specific failures of the NHS it begs the question of who the real ideologues are here?<br /><br />Finally - if electoral failure or the failure of left-wing governments that are elected with Hope and Change in your hearts (the 2008 Obama worship being an echo of what was lauded on Blair in 1997) to actually work miracles with Government Health Care - has still not convinced you that you're wrong, then the failure of the British public to support the <i>Save Our NHS</i> protests in 2011 should have. As the following article headlined: <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100090028/why-arent-the-masses-joining-the-protests-to-save-our-nhs-perhaps-because-the-nhs-treats-them-with-utter-contempt/" rel="nofollow">Why aren't the masses joining the protests to 'Save our NHS'? Perhaps because the NHS treats them with utter contempt</a><br /><br />Voters, Ordinary people. Workers. Their everyday experiences with the State, rather than blaring Murdoch headlines, are what counts.<br /><br />You used to know that.Tom Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-61429277844879268342014-10-20T11:36:27.901+13:002014-10-20T11:36:27.901+13:00Uncertain of the point you are trying to make here...<i>Uncertain of the point you are trying to make here, Tom.</i><br /><br />Well in that case I won't bother dumping more such NHS horror stories on your readers - of which there are many - since the point I'm making with that piece is that you need to be on very solid foundations of rectitude before making emotive, shroud-waving calls that condemn the private sector and extoll the NHS.<br /><br />If the point you're making - with partisan attacks on Cameron and ideological attacks on Blair and company - is that the problems are recent, then you're also going to find yourself standing on quicksand. For all the talk above about how getting cancer is not like buying a hamburger, the cancer survival rates in the UK are godawful compared to that supposed vipers nest of neoliberalism, the USA - and have been for decades.<br /><br />The more recent disasters: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522878/National-Health-SHAMBLES-Three-damning-reports-mothers-abandoned-labour-hospital-blunders-day-patients-lost-faith-GPs.html" rel="nofollow">one quarter of new mothers abandoned by their mid-wives during childbirth, thousands who've given up trying to get GO appointments, consulting rooms with maggots in them</a> - may well trace some of their problems to the "managerialist" approach of Blair and company.<br /><br />But that approach itself is a classic example of a left-wing government that still believes the same things that you do about NHS-style approaches to healthcare - thall shall not blaspheme against the state religion - but who have to face the awful truth that more money has not fixed the problems.<br /><br />As the following parliamentary paper notes. - <br /><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn00724.pdf" rel="nofollow">The last financial year for which there was a reduction in the percentage of central government expenditure devoted to the NHS was 1996/97 </a> - and as that paper also pointed out:<br /><i><br />Expenditure on the NHS has risen rapidly and consistently since it was established on 5th July 1948. In the first full year of its operation, the Government spent £11.4bn on health in the UK. In 2010/11, the figure was over ten times that amount: £121bn. Growth in health expenditure has far outpaced the rise in both GDP and total public expenditure: each increased by a factor of around 4.8 over this period.<br /></i><br /><br />I well remember the delightful chirrups several years ago from <i>Nine To Noon's</i> UK correspondent about the wonderful Gordon Brown who had deluged the NHS with more money - all part of the campaign to paint him as a "real" Old Labour type, as opposed to that nasty Blair that it was hoped he would soon replace.<br /><br />All wasted. All down the drain. <br /><br />Tom Hunternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-4946570459644438932014-10-20T11:17:45.150+13:002014-10-20T11:17:45.150+13:00Not just in the NHS Chris. Those who work in the g...Not just in the NHS Chris. Those who work in the general area of social welfare will tell you that efficiency is more highly regarded than effectiveness, leading to more and more of this sort of thing. If you can quickly clear a case by deciding that someone is not entitled to your help, or for that matter by passing the case along to someone else – you'll do it. I've posted this link before, but it would do some people well to read it.<br /><br />http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/13/adrian-mole-sue-townsend-welfareGuerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.com