Isn't this what Americans fear...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

One of the objections given to a government run plan was that it would be unfair to private insurance as they wouldn't have to make a profit, which I found quite amusing because an admission that private insurance is more expensive kind of helped the public option case.

Sowell's logic would be less squishy if he had also stated something along the lines of

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication AND a private for profit bureaucracy to administer it.”

His logic is squishy because it ignores the parallel flip side.

---

The "parallel flip side"?

Oh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

This, Bob...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

This situation is caused by the need to turn sections of the National Health Service into a profit making concerns so that it can be dissected and each profit making section privatised.

---

...is from your post.

To what/whose need do you refer?

---

The need of this so called socialist government to sell off parts of the NHS to private companies. They can't sell them off until they become super duper efficient and ripe for the private sector scavengers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

This, Bob...



...is from your post.

To what/whose need do you refer?

---

The need of this so called socialist government to sell off parts of the NHS to private companies. They can't sell them off until they become super duper efficient and ripe for the private sector scavengers.

---

Alright, then - this begs a question:

Why in the wide, wide world of sports does a socialist government need to even consider selling (selling?) off this wonderful and inherently self-sustaining portion of the NHS to a private concern?

Huh?

National health care is touted as the answer to all that ails us (see what I did there), yet you seem to be saying it isn't financially viable, at least under government auspices.

Tell me what I am misunderstanding, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

The need of this so called socialist government to sell off parts of the NHS to private companies. They can't sell them off until they become super duper efficient and ripe for the private sector scavengers.

---

Alright, then - this begs a question:

Why in the wide, wide world of sports does a socialist government need to even consider selling (selling?) off this wonderful and inherently self-sustaining portion of the NHS to a private concern?

Huh?

National health care is touted as the answer to all that ails us (see what I did there), yet you seem to be saying it isn't financially viable, at least under government auspices.

Tell me what I am misunderstanding, here.

---

You are misunderstanding that the British 'socialist' government is more right wing than Maggie Thatcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Alright, then - this begs a question:

Why in the wide, wide world of sports does a socialist government need to even consider selling (selling?) off this wonderful and inherently self-sustaining portion of the NHS to a private concern?

Huh?

National health care is touted as the answer to all that ails us (see what I did there), yet you seem to be saying it isn't financially viable, at least under government auspices.

Tell me what I am misunderstanding, here.

---

You are misunderstanding that the British 'socialist' government is more right wing than Maggie Thatcher.

---

Was Maggie more right wing than Ronald Reagan?

In any case, my question stands - why would a socialist government be "selling" off a NHS that, according to all testimony hereabout, is perfectly fine in all respects?

Or, does a socialist government which cannot maintain a financially viable NHS become conservative upon the occasion of finally realizing the idea of a NHS suffers a distinct lack of financial viability?

I don't think they are selling off the "NHS". Perhaps someone from the UK could confirm or correct this, but what they are doing is contracting out things like maintenance, catering and cleaning services. From my understanding the idea was that by contracting out to the lowest bidder they could save money. It appears that you get what you pay for and hygiene standards have fallen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

You are misunderstanding that the British 'socialist' government is more right wing than Maggie Thatcher.

---

Was Maggie more right wing than Ronald Reagan?

In any case, my question stands - why would a socialist government be "selling" off a NHS that, according to all testimony hereabout, is perfectly fine in all respects?

Or, does a socialist government which cannot maintain a financially viable NHS become conservative upon the occasion of finally realizing the idea of a NHS suffers a distinct lack of financial viability?

---

I honestly can't think of a success story, unless you are getting dividend, where a nationised industry has been privatised.

The train service is atrocious.

The bus service has cut out all the buses that went to the small outlying villages because there is no profit in it. I could go on and on.

Yes Kev. Thatcher was more right wing than Reagan. She ordered the sinking of a submarine that was no immediate danger to anyone, thereby negating negotions to solve the Falklands issue.

How would you feel if your Government 'privatised' all of your roads and highways, resulting in you having to pay a toll every time you drove over a change of ownership line?
I understand that at present 40% of your roads are a national concern. What is the reason for this 40% ownership in a country that is against nationalisation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

One of the objections given to a government run plan was that it would be unfair to private insurance as they wouldn't have to make a profit, which I found quite amusing because an admission that private insurance is more expensive kind of helped the public option case.

Sowell's logic would be less squishy if he had also stated something along the lines of

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication AND a private for profit bureaucracy to administer it.”

His logic is squishy because it ignores the parallel flip side.

---

Thanks for that quote. IMO that quote closes any further discussion.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

How would you feel if your Government 'privatised' all of your roads and highways, resulting in you having to pay a toll every time you drove over a change of ownership line?

---

There are a lot of turnpikes here. They charge different tolls for different stretches of the same road. The NTTA decided to take the "booths" away and have tags instead. Vehicles without tags get photographed on entry and exit and they send you a bill in the mail. They are not too efficient getting the bills out and often they arrive months later with an "administration charge" attached for late payment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

How would you feel if your Government 'privatised' all of your roads and highways, resulting in you having to pay a toll every time you drove over a change of ownership line?

---

There are a lot of turnpikes here. They charge different tolls for different stretches of the same road. The NTTA decided to take the "booths" away and have tags instead. Vehicles without tags get photographed on entry and exit and they send you a bill in the mail. They are not too efficient getting the bills out and often they arrive months later with an "administration charge" attached for late payment.

---

Definitely a case for nationalisation. IMO all national utuilities shoul;d be just that national otherwise you have dividend holders with too much control.

A small shopkeeper puts his customers first. A large company puts its shareholders first.