|
The Case Against Obama in a Nutshell (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Nationalised industries don't make any money for shareholders from the business they conduct... |
So you're against enriching shareholders (who put up capital to make the business viable), but you are not against enriching the doctors at the expense of the taxpayers? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So you're against enriching shareholders (who put up capital to make the business viable), but you are not against enriching the doctors at the expense of the taxpayers? |
That is correct (in the health industry, of course) |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I don't think it's particularly ethical for anyone to make money off people's misery, however, sometimes that is necessary. In this case however, I think it's disgusting that people can be denied a drug because they can't afford it. In my country, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) decide which drugs are too expensive to be given to patients through the NHS. There is currently uproar about this because we demand all drugs are available though the NHS and shouldn't only be available privately (and this is something right wingers and left wingers will agree). They're "too expensive" because of what the pharmaceutical companies charge for them. If these companies were nationalised the production costs would be reduced and there would be no profits factored into the final price of the product - it would be much cheaper and affordable
But also, once a company creates a new drug, what do they do? They stick a patent on it so only they can sell it or licence it to other companies! They basically prevent anyone else from having the ability to treat illnesses because they only care about making money! Imagine if one of the companies discovers a cure for cancer and won't let anyone else have it so they can make money! That is not ethical in anyway shape or form.
That's just not true. Why can't a "Ministry of Science", funded by tax payers money, be tasked to find cures for illnesses? |
I suppose a government funded entity could fund pharma research, however it would have to likely provide sufficient incentives for chemist not to focus on a non-nationalized field. Like it or not, government just doesn't pay as well as private industry. While you keep saying doctors in the uk make a good living, doctors have no choice but to accept government pay since there is no alternative. With respect to chemists, they have the opportunity to work in petrochemicals, agriculutral research, and a vast variety of field. Admittedly, some chemists will still be drawn to the work for the personal satisfaction of helping others. However, the most talented likely will be lured away by bigger paychecks from private companies. As a result, the brightest minds may not be developing the new drugs, and breakthroughs may take more time to develop. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
I suppose a government funded entity could fund pharma research, however it would have to likely provide sufficient incentives for chemist not to focus on a non-nationalized field. Like it or not, government just doesn't pay as well as private industry. While you keep saying doctors in the uk make a good living, doctors have no choice but to accept government pay since there is no alternative. With respect to chemists, they have the opportunity to work in petrochemicals, agriculutral research, and a vast variety of field. Admittedly, some chemists will still be drawn to the work for the personal satisfaction of helping others. However, the most talented likely will be lured away by bigger paychecks from private companies. As a result, the brightest minds may not be developing the new drugs, and breakthroughs may take more time to develop. |
We have private hospitals that NHS doctors also work at... |
|
|
| diesel_tron3000 |
in the most basic terms, we need some higher taxes right now. the laffer curve is straight BS in large open economies.
"trickle down is dead" |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
We have private hospitals that NHS doctors also work at... |
do those doctors get paid higher wages? are those positions more competitive than public jobs? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| 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 |
|
|
| George Smiley |
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 |
|
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| 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. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| 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... |
|
|
| mndeg |
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. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Ya look at Lehman bros |
|
|
|
|
