Privatise the NHS

[manc-mag 1]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

I don't think Chez has been banging that particular drum tbf.

[Renton 21986]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

I don't think Chez has been banging that particular drum tbf.

 

I'm probably more guilty of that but its canny frustrating arguing against someone who is clearing trawling Google as the source of their knowledge.

 

All I've heard from HF in this thread is whining about the health service becoming a two tier system. Fair enough maybe, but no alternatives have been offered. I'd genuinely like an alternative 'real world' point of view on what we should do in the future. If one isn't forthcoming then that speaks volumes.

[ChezGiven 0]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

You what mate?

[Happy Face 29]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

I don't think Chez has been banging that particular drum tbf.

 

I'm probably more guilty of that but its canny frustrating arguing against someone who is clearing trawling Google as the source of their knowledge.

 

All I've heard from HF in this thread is whining about the health service becoming a two tier system. Fair enough maybe, but no alternatives have been offered. I'd genuinely like an alternative 'real world' point of view on what we should do in the future. If one isn't forthcoming then that speaks volumes.

 

We've had a nationalised health service since after the war, only a small percentage choose private treatment. We are living the real world alternative but it's being pushed slowly and surely towards an American model where forty odd million don't have any health care.

[Park Life 71]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

 

True but i'm offended by Parky/fop/Happy Face's insinuation that i'm incapable of independent thought and the frankly absurd notion that i'd spend my time on here posting some sort of 'party line' on this debate. If you step back and think about it, its a really fucking stupid perspective to have regarding an online debate on toontastic.

 

Tbf to me I never insinuated any such thing, I was just advising the general reader that perhaps you know what you're talking about and are in a position to frame the debate from a position of knowledge. Is all.

[ChezGiven 0]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

I don't think Chez has been banging that particular drum tbf.

 

I'm probably more guilty of that but its canny frustrating arguing against someone who is clearing trawling Google as the source of their knowledge.

 

All I've heard from HF in this thread is whining about the health service becoming a two tier system. Fair enough maybe, but no alternatives have been offered. I'd genuinely like an alternative 'real world' point of view on what we should do in the future. If one isn't forthcoming then that speaks volumes.

 

We've had a nationalised health service since after the war, only a small percentage choose private treatment. We are living the real world alternative but it's being pushed slowly and surely towards an American model where forty odd million don't have any health care.

 

As has been pointed out before, the world has changed so dramatically since then that the model is no longer working. Evidence for this is the change in policy that prompted this thread.

[Park Life 71]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

 

True but i'm offended by Parky/fop/Happy Face's insinuation that i'm incapable of independent thought and the frankly absurd notion that i'd spend my time on here posting some sort of 'party line' on this debate. If you step back and think about it, its a really fucking stupid perspective to have regarding an online debate on toontastic.

 

 

Yeah we're not worthy.

[Park Life 71]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Perhaps we need a 'Conflict of interest' disclaimer on Toontastic so people like you can be barred from these types of threads, you evil-pharma bastard.

 

I think you got the order wrong mind, pathetic would be at the start of my list.

 

True but i'm offended by Parky/fop/Happy Face's insinuation that i'm incapable of independent thought and the frankly absurd notion that i'd spend my time on here posting some sort of 'party line' on this debate. If you step back and think about it, its a really fucking stupid perspective to have regarding an online debate on toontastic.

 

As it happens, I've come across several forums (usually patient ones) where anyone who comes up with some EBM type comments (usually eminently sensible) has been labelled a 'pharma troll'. You'd expect different on toontastic like, still sure HF and Parky didn't mean offence and merely used it as a desperate tactic to downplay your posts.

 

Fop can't even comment without stating what he does imo.

 

Of course I didn't and Chesney knows that.

[Happy Face 29]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

You what mate?

 

If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up?

 

Anyway, despite all the slurs against me I'll not get bogged down in an argument about how we argue.

 

I was listening to five live this morning and they were talking about the chief executive and the trouble he's going to have balancing the Premier League interests with those of the grass roots game. To me it seemed perfectly analogous to the private healthcare debate.

 

The top 4 teams in the league hold most of the power, they buy the best players, win most of the trophies and collect most of the TV money. The idea of the premier league was that it would benefit the English game as a whole, that money would 'trickle down', but all that's happened is the strong get stronger and every season more and more clubs are threatened with closure as they can't afford to exist in the modern game.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Happy Face

[Park Life 71]

It's rare that HF/Parky/Fop are on the same side...So we must be right.

[Guest alex]

It's obvious to me the area in which someone works isn't irrelevant to the more specific technical issues within the debate. That said, it's largely irrelevent when discussing macro-economics since Chez wasn't commenting on that from the point of view of someone who works in the pharmaceutical industry, i.e. 'toeing the party line'.

[Renton 21986]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

You what mate?

 

If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up?

 

Anyway, despite all the slurs against me I'll not get bogged down in an argument about how we argue.

 

I was listening to five live this morning and they were talking about the chief executive and the trouble he's going to have balancing the Premier League interests with those of the grass roots game. To me it seemed perfectly analogous to the private healthcare debate.

 

The top 4 teams in the league hold most of the power, they buy the best players, win most of the trophies and collect most of the TV money. The idea of the premier league was that it would benefit the English game as a whole, that money would 'trickle down', but all that's happened is the strong get stronger and every season more and more clubs are threatened with closure as they can't afford to exist in the modern game.

 

I can't see how that is even vaguely analogous to the discussion in this thread.

[ChezGiven 0]

If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up?

 

I didnt, Parky did. I then spent pages ignoring it and then decided to address it properly. The debate on the economics of Singapore's system etc is backed up by academics, not by someone's profession.

[Park Life 71]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

[ChezGiven 0]

It's rare that HF/Parky/Fop are on the same side...So we must be right.

 

Yeah but the Secretary of State for Health and Joseph Stiglitz are on mine.

[Guest alex]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

I used the phrase real world to mean the one existing outside your 6th form-style ramblings about 'free' healthcare. Whatever that means.

[Park Life 71]

It's rare that HF/Parky/Fop are on the same side...So we must be right.

 

Yeah but the Secretary of State for Health and Joseph Stiglitz are on mine.

 

"Yates and Keats are on mine:.

[Happy Face 29]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

You what mate?

 

If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up?

 

Anyway, despite all the slurs against me I'll not get bogged down in an argument about how we argue.

 

I was listening to five live this morning and they were talking about the chief executive and the trouble he's going to have balancing the Premier League interests with those of the grass roots game. To me it seemed perfectly analogous to the private healthcare debate.

 

The top 4 teams in the league hold most of the power, they buy the best players, win most of the trophies and collect most of the TV money. The idea of the premier league was that it would benefit the English game as a whole, that money would 'trickle down', but all that's happened is the strong get stronger and every season more and more clubs are threatened with closure as they can't afford to exist in the modern game.

 

I can't see how that is even vaguely analogous to the discussion in this thread.

 

 

You don't think the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are getting rich while poor people die or go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare in the US?

 

Or you don't think Premier League Chairman, players, managers, agents are getting rich while lower league clubs are docked points for going into administration?

[Guest alex]

It's rare that HF/Parky/Fop are on the same side...So we must be right.

 

Yeah but the Secretary of State for Health and Joseph Stiglitz are on mine.

 

"Yates and Keats are on mine:.

Keats and Yeats

[Park Life 71]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

I used the phrase real world to mean the one existing outside your 6th form-style ramblings about 'free' healthcare. Whatever that means.

 

Most basic healthcare in the U.K is free at point of need if you fill the right forms in....

[Meenzer 15716]

It's rare that HF/Parky/Fop are on the same side...So we must be right.

 

Yeah but the Secretary of State for Health and Joseph Stiglitz are on mine.

 

"Yates and Keats are on mine:.

 

I've got Nye Bevan on my Facebook.

[Renton 21986]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

 

Well the FACTs are the demographics of the western world are ageing at a time when ever more expensive health technologies are becoming available. The FACTs are there is only a finite amount of money in the pot and somehow this has to be distributed, hopefully as fairly as possible. The FACT is people who deny this and still believe in a universal health care system which can treat everybody for everything are not living in the real world.

[Happy Face 29]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

I used the phrase real world to mean the one existing outside your 6th form-style ramblings about 'free' healthcare. Whatever that means.

 

Most basic healthcare in the U.K is free at point of need if you fill the right forms in....

 

 

I think Alex's point is, all healthcare is paid for, whether by the government or the consumer.

[ChezGiven 0]

The idea that someone working in the profession knows better and can't be debated on the issue is wrong if you ask me. Working for a private paharmaceutical company doesn't make you the authority on private healthcare, no doubt it arms you with all the arguments for that side of the debate, but it's like saying a British citizen can't debate an al qaeda operative on the merits of suicide attacks on the west, as they don't blow themself up.

 

If only Fop would 'debate'

 

Fop believes that the economy, social welfare, GDP have some sort of impact on the ability of an economy to introduce private resource allocation mechanisms into healthcare, without explaining the macro- or more importantly micro-economic dynamics that support this. I've highlighted nobel prize winning economists that have outlined the key factors in determining how this all works. Thats the authority i would use in a debate with someone uninformed.

 

How i earn my salary is irrelevant. Its thanks to Parky that it has become an issue as he pointed it out in this thread. I find the notion that i would post something on a football forum that merely reflected the commercial interests of my employers offensive, stupid, crass and pathetic. In that order too.

 

Having a Nobel Prize doesn't make someone right. Friedman won it in the past and Paul Krugman won it most recently with his neo-Keynesian views.

 

If you have such contempt for the notion that someones employment shapes their opinion, I'm suprised you brought it up as some sort of proof that you alone are privvy to the incontrovertible truth of the matter or berate others for refusing to do so.

 

You what mate?

 

If employment is irrelevant why do you bring it up?

 

Anyway, despite all the slurs against me I'll not get bogged down in an argument about how we argue.

 

I was listening to five live this morning and they were talking about the chief executive and the trouble he's going to have balancing the Premier League interests with those of the grass roots game. To me it seemed perfectly analogous to the private healthcare debate.

 

The top 4 teams in the league hold most of the power, they buy the best players, win most of the trophies and collect most of the TV money. The idea of the premier league was that it would benefit the English game as a whole, that money would 'trickle down', but all that's happened is the strong get stronger and every season more and more clubs are threatened with closure as they can't afford to exist in the modern game.

 

I can't see how that is even vaguely analogous to the discussion in this thread.

 

 

You don't think the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are getting rich while poor people die or go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare in the US?

 

Or you don't think Premier League Chairman, players, managers, agents are getting rich while lower league clubs are docked points for going into administration?

 

Wrong about pharma, universal coverage brings another 50 million people into our market. Thats a good thing commercially by the way

 

Also, those who are getting richer in the US whilst others go bankrupt are taxpayers, no one else. I mean that categorically too.

[Park Life 71]

The funniest thing for me in these debates is when people start banging on about 'the real world'...Apparently the domain of multi-nationals and blue chip outfits...Of course it is from the ranks of these 'big companies' (the holders of truth) that huge collapses occur year after year and people see they had no clue what they were doing. In America and Europe half these companies are at the door of bankruptcy or held up by subsidies or state bail outs. They are wildly inefficient and neoptistic and are the worst when it comes to innovation (unless they are stealing ideas from smaller companies). FACT.

 

Well the FACTs are the demographics of the western world are ageing at a time when ever more expensive health technologies are becoming available. The FACTs are there is only a finite amount of money in the pot and somehow this has to be distributed, hopefully as fairly as possible. The FACT is people who deny this and still believe in a universal health care system which can treat everybody for everything are not living in the real world.

 

People who think there isn't enough cash need to step back and consider why private sector opportunism is so keen on nationalized institutions.

 

They also perhaps might read George Soros treatise on the money supply.