The Political Thread

[Jim_Campbell]

The point is the path we're on is heading towards the point the NHS won't pay for it. At best, the NHS becomes a shield for private corporations who can take a load of cash and leg it when things go south. At worst—and this is likely—we will within another decade end up with a US-style—NOT a European-style—insurance-based system.

A timely article from the inside, on the NHS's stealth privatisation.

Jim

[Proudhuff]

90-odd million A YEAR! for the house of lords...

[IndigoPrime]

The Lords is a joke. Hack it down to the same numbers as the Commons. Perhaps do with Menzies Campbell says and retain a small proportion for special interests/expertise (he says 20%, but I think that's high), and have the rest become an elected body, elected via regional PR in thirds.

Or stitch everyone up in the way Burnham's talking about, by voting for Lords on the basis of PR from the GE vote. (Bye-bye, cross-benchers! Mind you, cross-benchers would find the going tough in a kind of regional senate.)

[The Legendary Shark]

Better government-led than Richard
Branson.

.
How about doctors, nurses and members of
the local community served by the hospital or
surgery in question?

[Jim_Campbell]

How about doctors, nurses and members of
the local community served by the hospital or
surgery in question?

We've been through this before. I'm not explaining why this wouldn't work again. Notions such as economies of scale, or centres of excellence really are lost on you, aren't they?

Jim

[The Legendary Shark]

And the idea that governments don't have the right to interfere with people's health is lost on you, Jim, isn't it?

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I recently read Jon Ronson's *Lost at Sea. It's a collection of his columns. In one, he travels to America and interviews someone from every economic bracket, from a Haitian dishwasher on minimum wage right up to a Californian billionaire. Sharks attitude to government mostly matches the billionaire's

*Fantastic journalist

[The Legendary Shark]

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.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

And the idea that governments don't have the right to interfere with people's health is lost on you, Jim, isn't it?

It's certainly lost on me, but then I support the NHS.

[Richmond Clements]

Al Ewing wins the internet: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/marvel-villains-are-now-quoting-david-cameron--WklhQIWs0Nx

[TordelBack]

Brilliance.

[TordelBack]

And the idea that governments don't have the right to interfere with people's health is lost on you, Jim, isn't it?

It's an idea, but it's not one I'd support. States where government 'interferes with', or to put it another way, 'provides for', people's health are almost universally the ones with the healthiest populations.  Healthcare is something that, in aggregate, really is best when supported by a state structure. In fact if I was to pick out one single benefit of the modern state (an organisation I have relatively little love for) it would be public health.

[ZenArcade]

The key policies on pre election manifestos are invariably health and education. Z

[Richmond Clements]

And the idea that governments don't have the right to interfere with people's health is lost on you, Jim, isn't it?

Yes. The eradication of Smallpox was a gross and disgraceful trampling of civil liberties.

[TordelBack]

Are they? My impression would have been taxation (in all its forms), and to a lesser extent proposing legislative changes.EDIT: In reply to Zen.