TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Case Against Obama in a Nutshell
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 do those doctors get paid higher wages? are those positions more competitive than public jobs?

I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I'm not sure you can work exclusively in private hospitals without also working in NHS hospitals, so it may just be a "top up" wage working privately

This is what Wiki says (which doesn't really help!)

quote:

A feature of the NHS, distinguishing it from other public healthcare systems in Continental Europe, is that not only does it pay directly for health expenses, it also employs a large number of staff that provide them. In particular, nearly all hospital doctors and nurses in England are employed by the NHS and work in NHS-run hospitals. In contrast General Practitioners, dentists, optometrists (opticians) and other providers of local healthcare, are almost all self-employed, and contract their services back to the NHS. They may operate in partnership with other professionals, own and operate their own surgeries and clinics,and employ their own staff, including other doctors etc. However, the NHS does sometimes provide centrally employed healthcare professionals and facilities in areas where there is insufficient provision by self-employed professionals. As of March 2005, the NHS has 1.3 million workers, and is variously the third or fifth largest workforce in the world, after the Chinese Army, Indian Railways and (as argued by Jon Hibbs, the NHS's head of news, in a press release from March 22, 2005) Wal-Mart and the United States Department of Defense.[6][7] The BBC quotes an alternative workforce of 1.33 million people in 2004.[8][9] It should be noted that NHS workforce figures provided by the Department of Health include not only employees of NHS divisions but also local authority social services workers.[10] The full-time equivalent figure for 2005 was about 980,000 staff.[9] The NHS also plays a unique role in the training of new doctors in the British Isles, with approximately 8000 places for student doctors each year, all of which are attached to an NHS University Hospital trust. After completing medical school these new doctors must go on to complete a two year foundation training programme to become fully registerred with the General Medical Council. Most go on to complete their foundation training years in an NHS hospital although some may opt for alternative employers such the armed forces

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I'm not sure you can work exclusively in private hospitals without also working in NHS hospitals, so it may just be a "top up" wage working privately

it would be interesting to know the disparity in wages, and the difference in quality service.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 it would be interesting to know the disparity in wages, and the difference in quality service.

Well the service at private hospitals will be better as far as waiting times go (and availability of treatments/drugs that it is not possible to get on the NHS), but I doubt very much whether the quality of the actual doctors themselves will be much better.

Either way, I care about the quality of service to the entire population, not just the top 5% like you appear to do. The UK is ranked much higher than America for the service it provides to the entire population.

You cannot judge a policy on how it benefits only the top 5% richest people but gives no benefits to the other 95%...

The stats say the UK's nationalised system is better than the American privatised system...

The problem is that even after R&D expenses, there's likely a huge profit margin. All that money is definitely not poured into R&D to develop something that somehow betters society. It's payed out in bonuses and dividends to shareholders. As a company gets larger and more powerful, it starts to wield more influence, especially in a place like America that places corporate interests before other interests. (Look at Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan, they get so large that they essentially BECOME the government) This influence is used to discourage competition, to benefit the entity and nothing else. All of those things have negative externalities that decrease the quality of life of the average citizen.

The world needs to maximize utility not just among individuals, corporations, or countries. It needs to do it as one world entity.

Ya look at Lehman bros

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well the service at private hospitals will be better as far as waiting times go (and availability of treatments/drugs that it is not possible to get on the NHS), but I doubt very much whether the quality of the actual doctors themselves will be much better. Either way, I care about the quality of service to the entire population, not just the top 5% like you appear to do. The UK is ranked much higher than America for the service it provides to the entire population. You cannot judge a policy on how it benefits only the top 5% richest people but gives no benefits to the other 95%... The stats say the UK's nationalised system is better than the American privatised system...

not surprisingly you entirely missed the point. I don't care about your medical services compared to ours, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all I care about is the top 5%. If you trace our conversation you will see the point I was getting at was whether private enterprises can retain better professionals than those retained in public enterprises. From your response it appears that private services are better (from your implication that the top 5% in the UK utilize private enterprises, which from the tone of your response appears to be of higher quality). That would contradict your claim that the government would be able to retain the best chemists in a pharmaceutical nationalization to create the same breakthrough drugs.

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover I love America. But the point that I want to make is that Americans has shifted from individual responsibility to government dependence. People expect for college tuition to be free, to have free helthcare, the jobless want to be paid fopr not doing anything. I mean let me give you an example... I'm proud to say that I work to pay my bills, college tuition, health care, and personal expenses without relying on the government. Plus, and now we have "the chosen one" that has an illusive bracket on what he considers rich. All of a sudden, he wants to take more of my paycheck, for which I work hard, for someone that enjoys living off the government.

Nice to know you care about your neighbour.

What is wrong about giving someone job seeker allowance who is struggling to find a job because they were made unemployed by the companies who moved jobs abroad in exchange for tax breaks?

What is so outrageous about someone from a poor background who is intelligent, going to college for free? My cousin came from a poor family, went to a top University in London, graduated with distinction in surgery, and is now an A&E doctor. Why the hell should she have to be �35k in debt, just 'cos she's intelligent and wants to study?

Give me ONE, just ONE good justifiable reason why healthcare shouldn't be free.

I tell you what, the next time you're diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and your insurance company refuses it on the grounds of 'experimental treatment', come back and post the same shit you just did.

Fucking tool.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Give me ONE, just ONE good justifiable reason why healthcare shouldn't be free.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo

Point taken. But there has to be a way of getting round this, surely?

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Point taken. But there has to be a way of getting round this, surely?

similar arguments can be made about junk food/transfats, obesity in general, ect..

i dont know how you'd get around it because what it then comes down to ultimately is how far are you willing to submit your current lifestyle, your civil liberties basically, to some un-elected health board for the greater good?

i realize in Europe and the UK these things are common occurance and people tend to deal with these decisions with relative ease but this is America ffs, you know?

we got 300,000,000 people here that have been doing whatever the hell we want for generations. im not saying thats a good thing but thats just the reality in where we are as a society.

i'm in agreement with what Shakka said on this board years ago that healthcare is never free, it's a service provided by highly skilled and highly trained professionals. you're going to pay for it one way or another whether it's nationalized or not...if it is nationalized youre naturally going to be paying for other people's health indescretions as well as your own.

i'm not as pitiless as others. i believe healthcare costs can be offset or made cheaper by indirect means such as malpractice reform, tax incentives, maybe even limited government oversight/regulations or whatever. but i think the highest quality, most affordable, most specialized and realistic healthcare is obtained, like anything else that is provided by highly skilled professionals, through free market competition. certianly not the Federal government

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo similar arguments can be made about junk food/transfats, obesity in general, ect.. i dont know how you'd get around it because what it then comes down to ultimately is how far are you willing to submit your current lifestyle, your civil liberties basically, to some un-elected health board for the greater good? i realize in Europe and the UK these things are common occurance and people tend to deal with these decisions with relative ease but this is America ffs, you know? we got 300,000,000 people here that have been doing whatever the hell we want for generations. im not saying thats a good thing but thats just the reality in where we are as a society. i'm in agreement with what Shakka said on this board years ago that healthcare is never free, it's a service provided by highly skilled and highly trained professionals. you're going to pay for it one way or another whether it's nationalized or not...if it is nationalized youre naturally going to be paying for other people's health indescretions as well as your own. i'm not as pitiless as others. i believe healthcare costs can be offset or made cheaper by indirect means such as malpractice reform, tax incentives, maybe even limited government oversight/regulations or whatever. but i think the highest quality, most affordable, most specialized and realistic healthcare is obtained, like anything else that is provided by highly skilled professionals, through free market competition. certianly not the Federal government

Good points. People tend to be selfish which is where the problem lies. They don't realise that if they get taxed more and that money goes into healthcare, they will actually save money in the long run.

It's a short term cost, but increased health has been proven to increase productivity and general happiness among other things. This directly results in a better and more vibrant economy which benefits everyone.

Private health insurance is still good and those who can afford it should get it, but a basic healthcare system should always be in place for the people. This is what the US critically needs.

When it comes to taxes, I have no problems with governments spending it on health, education, transport and the like. It's when they start spending it on weapons for no reason and wars that people start to get pissed off.

As you said, health is a service provided by highly skilled professionals so it's only logical that it will cost people, but that cost is nothing when compared to the cost not only in monetary value but in lives as well in the long run.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Good points.

thank you. i'm kinda stoned right now, when i get some sleep i'll wake up tomorrow and revert back to not believing in any healthcare whatsoever and relying on prayer alone to cure what ailes me

quote:

but a basic healthcare system should always be in place for the people. This is what the US critically needs.

we already have that. it's called MEDICAID.

Well not really. A quick glance on the net and wikipedia (sic) shows that it doesn't even cover most poor people.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo

Well in the UK all taxes spent on cigarettes goes to the NHS

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 not surprisingly you entirely missed the point. I don't care about your medical services compared to ours, and I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all I care about is the top 5%. If you trace our conversation you will see the point I was getting at was whether private enterprises can retain better professionals than those retained in public enterprises. From your response it appears that private services are better (from your implication that the top 5% in the UK utilize private enterprises, which from the tone of your response appears to be of higher quality). That would contradict your claim that the government would be able to retain the best chemists in a pharmaceutical nationalization to create the same breakthrough drugs.

But I don't think private hospitals do steal the "best" doctors from NHS hospitals, I think they use the same pool of doctors who are paid for by the government. I also didn't say the quality of staff was better at private hospitals, just the waiting times were smaller and some treatments are available that are not on NHS

There is a very easy way around private hospitals stealing the best workers tho and that would be to make private hospitals illegal

As for chemists, well pharmacy chemistry is a different subject at university than petro chemistry or other strands of chemistry, so I can't really see people switching mid career to get a "better paid" job, and pharmacy chemists would still be earning a shit load even if it were nationalised. I have no idea where you get this lie from that public sector workers must be p[aid poorly

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But I don't think private hospitals do steal the "best" doctors from NHS hospitals, I think they use the same pool of doctors who are paid for by the government. I also didn't say the quality of staff was better at private hospitals, just the waiting times were smaller and some treatments are available that are not on NHS There is a very easy way around private hospitals stealing the best workers tho and that would be to make private hospitals illegal As for chemists, well pharmacy chemistry is a different subject at university than petro chemistry or other strands of chemistry, so I can't really see people switching mid career to get a "better paid" job, and pharmacy chemists would still be earning a shit load even if it were nationalised. I have no idea where you get this lie from that public sector workers must be p[aid poorly

look at statistics. when i'm not so busy i will cite some for you.

EDIT:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1996/05/art2full.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 look at statistics. when i'm not so busy i will cite some for you. EDIT: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1996/05/art2full.pdf

Irrelevant, we're talking about a specific job, not public vs private sector jobs in general because obviously those in the public sector will not be paid as highly.

Also, if there is no private sector equivalent, then a comparison becomes even less relevant

Anyway, I like you and I enjoy reading your posts (I would even say the same about Shakka) but all I did was answer LatinLover's question on what industries I would nationalise and a comment that I believed it to be unethical to make a profit in an industry such as pharmaceuticals. I really don't think my answer warranted 5+ pages of petty and irrelevant squabbling between us all!

So, I'm out

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo

Tax it for the health system.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Irrelevant, we're talking about a specific job, not public vs private sector jobs in general because obviously those in the public sector will not be paid as highly. Also, if there is no private sector equivalent, then a comparison becomes even less relevant Anyway, I like you and I enjoy reading your posts (I would even say the same about Shakka) but all I did was answer LatinLover's question on what industries I would nationalise and a comment that I believed it to be unethical to make a profit in an industry such as pharmaceuticals. I really don't think my answer warranted 5+ pages of petty and irrelevant squabbling between us all! So, I'm out

fair enough, although i was commenting on what I perceive as the consequences of your initial comment, not some tangential issue. I don't think i was straying from the relevant.

CHANGE? CHANGE?????? What change is Obama talking about?



Or is it this one:

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Or is it this one:

heh, mind-numbingly boring office jobs. I can relate to that!

Wow. Government education at its finest.

Didn't see that coming at a political event.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.