The Political Thread

[TordelBack]

Just to elaborate a bit, I think that organising healthcare is one of the biggest hurdle faced by the kind of quasi-anarchist localised/individualised society Sharky advocates. Many aspects of that vision appeal to me, but I find it very hard to see how specialisms, research, hyper-specific equipment and global approaches can be supported. Sometimes universal policy and centralised resources have benefits.

[ZenArcade]

In the interests of clarity, health and education are the touch paper issues....immigration has stolen up the list as well. Z

[Big_Dave]

anyoone who wants to educate themselvf and perform their own health care - or barter in exchange for medical care from someone else (trained or untrained) - can already do that
same for education 

don't moan about being forced to payning tax either - millions of hairdressers, dog walkwers, widow cleaners, tradesmen, artists etc already operate cash in hand - outside tax system
you could do that TOMRORROW

anarchisysts are just looking for excuses - they can't do make their fantasies real unless EVERYBDODY else signs up to their system .....
which is what they complain the guvrenment are doing to them

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

In the interests of clarity, health and education are the touch paper issues....immigration has stolen up the list as well. Z

Health and Education are definitely two of the big ones, and the areas I lean most left-wards (I don't know which I'd abolish first, faith schools or private schools).

The issue which won the last general election was probably "the economy", which is where Labour cocked up, and where Corbyn is going to struggle, if indeed he does defeat the vested-interests who seem to be gathering to the Cooper flag....

[Big_Dave]

if indeed he does defeat the vested-interests who seem to be gathering to the Cooper flag....

Corbyn: 76.9%
Burnham: 16.0%
Cooper: 6.4%
Kendall: 0.7% http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader

a YouGov poll of 1,400 eligible voters for The Times put Mr Corbyn on 53%, 32 points ahead of his nearest rival, Andy Burnhamhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34087829

[ZenArcade]

They'll have to wack him the way things are going. Z

[Professor Bear]

Labour do have a good track record with fake heart attacks when it comes to shifting inconvenient lefties from the top of the party.  Although Tony Blair, in his memoirs, insists that such things are in fact the work of God:

I remember waking up the first morning and then waking Cherie. I said to her "If John dies, I will be leader, not Gordon (Brown). And somehow I think this will happen. I just think it will."

[The Legendary Shark]

Governments do not provide healthcare, they preside over it. Governments take your money and then spend it how they wish, not how you wish. The government tells the NHS how much money it can have and the NHS has to deal with it. In a better world, the NHS would tell the government what it needs and the government would deal with it.
.
The idea that doctors, nurses and local people cannot run their own hospitals is insulting. Just because a hospital or surgery is locally run does not mean it pulls up the drawbridge and operates in a vacuum. The idea that ordinary people cannot grasp ideas like economies of scale and centres of excellence is silly. Locally run hospitals can still be part of a wider, national network and to think otherwise is simply wrong.
.
It's strange how ordinary people are unable to run anything unless they go through some arcane ceremony, emerging at the other end with the letters "M.P." appended to their names as if this ludicrous rite instils them with some superhuman knowledge or power.
.
The worst part is that most people believe in the divine right of the M.P. to rule. Even if you didn't vote for them, even if you disagree with everything they want to do you, you still think they have the right to do it.
.
Governments issue threats and call them laws, they steal your money and call it taxation and they tell you how to live and call it representation. Imagine if I came to your home, issued threats and stole your money and told you I was representing you. You'd call me insane and kick me out of your house - and so you should.
.
In my view, if we must have a government then it must serve the people, not rule them. It must serve the NHS, not rule it.
.
Even though Jim disagrees with just about everything I say, if I ran a local hospital I'd have one Jim on the board of directors before I'd have a hundred of those self-serving, deluded and frankly psychotic M.P.s. At least Jim would talk straight and use his not inconsiderable mind for the good of the hospital (and its partners in the network) and not himself.

[TordelBack]

Leaving aside the basic principle that people (in the majority) voluntarily cede these powers of taxation etc. to government because they believe centralised authority is a useful system, rather than evil government actively 'stealing' them...

In your scenario Sharky, HOW do the local hospitals get together to organise, fund and standardize training, equipment, specialists, large-scale programmes like immunsation etc?  Who decides how these necessarily communal resources get prioritised and distributed? I just can't see how it would work without at least regional structures composed of representatives from the constituent localities, at which point you may as well give in and call it a governing body indistinguishable from a government department.

[Old Tankie]

They all meet in a tent.

[Modern Panther]

At what stage do we think those locally run hospitals would start telling government that they have quite enough money to be going on with, thank you? 

Would the savings brought about by the sharing of resources and economies of scale perhaps be better organised if there was a body responsible for overseeing the whole deal at a national level?

Does giving authority to a particular local person/doctor/nurse/professional to make decisions over healthcare give those people the right to make decisions I disagree with? Do we hold a vote to decide on this person? How is that different from electing an mp?

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Yes, that's understandable. The billionaire has far more freedom, by dint of his wealth, than the dishwasher and is therefore more likely to notice and strain at the constraints of governments. The dishwasher, on the other hand, has very little wealth and therefore very little freedom and is far more likely to mistake government control for government help.

Not really the case. The dishwasher was so far down the system he barely registers. No healthcare benefits or food stamps. The government is barely aware of him so he doesn't get any help. The billionaire on the other hand claims he shouldn't have to pay as much tax because he contributes to charities. Which is admirable but doesn't really help the dishwasher does it? Or the middle class family who couldn't afford to do anything for their wedding anniversary because of the cost of things like health insurance. Interestingly one of Amazon's chief investors (from day one) believed he should be paying MORE taxes so that the middle class family could do something, therefore creating more jobs at restaurants/hotels and helping improve the economy.

[ZenArcade]

It's not about improving economies anymore. What we have seen this past few years, post 2008 has been a myopic cash grab by seriously fucked up, greedy globalised interests and individuals. They are indemnifying themselves for the future on the backs of the rest of the global population.
There is little if any concern amongst.the globalised rich for national economies. Z

[The Legendary Shark]

Organization is simply a matter of communication. We have the internet, telephones, fax machines, letters, carrier pigeons and so on. We also have the Civil Service, which has a long history of organizing things. I'll gladly lend my tent as a communications hub but I fear it's not big enough to service the whole of the NHS.
.
I understand that the NHS is a huge and complex entity but that doesn't mean there's only one way it can be run. Of course, the whole system (not just the NHS but all our public services and institutions) are so deeply mired in the matrix of imaginary finance and corrupt politics that it will take a lot of effort and imagination to drag them out and clean them up. If we're going to wait for one person or one party to come along with all the answers we'll be waiting forever.
.
We do need a revolution before anything can change for the better. Not a revolution of blood and bullets but a revolution of the mind. That's the only kind of revolution that's worth a damn anyway. All the questions asked are valid - but they are asked of an external source; just as we have been trained to do. If we have a problem, we have been indoctrinated all our lives to ask the "powers that be" for a solution. The questions we should be asking are "how would I/we solve this problem?" That's the first step to dispelling the learned helplessness I mentioned in an earlier post.
.
Electing local people to run a local hospital in its capacity as a single node in a wider network is different from electing an MP in that the local hospital manager won't be able to vote in favour of bombing Foreignistan or spending the budget on nuclear warheads. Their purview would be the hospital and its services, nothing more.
.
Many, many things have to change but, first and foremost, our attitudes must shift. We need people to run things for the wider benefit of society, absolutely we do, but the time of leaving it all to a few hundred power-hungry pillocks must come to an end before anything meaningful can be achieved. We must run as much of our own lives as we can and trust the rest to people who are qualified, not just a handful who happen to have won a popularity contest.
.
It's your future - own it.

[The Legendary Shark]

Wait 'til the billionaire dies of a disease contracted from a dirty dish...
.
Don't get me started on money - you all know where I stand on that.