124 Reasons

[4th gen]

BUMP

is this a worthwhile post from hypoluxa?



(read the first post in the topic)

[1234]

An example: Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases).

My govt has a national health service and it is closer to the truth to say that it's biggest single expense (barring wages maybe) is paying money to those drug companies you say would suffer.

The UK also have a very vibrant medical research field, funded both by the state and private industry.

Care to prove your claim that 85% of the costs are "bureaucracy"?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 11:15
Would I be over-stepping if I asked you to prove perhaps even 10% of your charges?

That would only be 12.4; a manageable number, I think.

these are all public record.that said i did give up reading after a while....we could probably compile a similar list about most political leaders...just happens GW is in power now and he is a hot topic, especially in an election year.
as to the context of each individual point well they are open to retort

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 1234@11 January 2004 - 10:13
Care to prove your claim that 85% of the costs are "bureaucracy"?

I would prefer you prove that it is not.

Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?

85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.

It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.

Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?

Or have you solved that problem already?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@12 January 2004 - 18:13
[
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?

appoint a quango to look into it

[j2k4]

Whatzit?

[Biggles]

A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@12 January 2004 - 15:35
A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.

Figures.

I don't know how that one could possibly have slipped by me.

Pretty sorry for a conservative, eh?

[Biggles]

When one is distracted by DIY (destroy it yourself?) these things take second place.

[1234]

I would prefer you prove that it is not

Eh? You make a spurious claim and the onus is on me to disprove it? Sorry but the way this works is that you have to prove your claims.

Example - The planets orbiting our nearest neighbour stars are made of green cheese. Prove me wrong otherwise I am right.

You can't, as the data is not available since we can only track these planets by gravitational distortions not direct observations. Does that mean they are made of green cheese just because I said so? Nope, I'd have to prove it.

So please prove your claim otherwise it is uninformed opinion and nothing more.

Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?

Nope, so why are you claiming to have knowledge of how the NHS is financed?

85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.

The US is one of the fiscally corrupt western nations (cf Enron, Worldcom etc and their links to the Bush administration. Halliburton overcharging on Iraq contracts etc) where contracts are given to old friends and financial backers of the imcumbant administration. However, I still want to see you prove this claim too. Lets say social security in the US has a budget of 100 billion (just to keep figures simple), are you saying 85 billion is administration costs and only 15 billion is spent on benefits? If the UK operated at those levels the Audit Commission would have apoplexy. So, prove this claim too if you would be so kind.

It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.

From your previous posts I am guessing the real reason is that you don't like paying taxes to pay for them. As Thatcher said once, "No such thing as society" could apply to you maybe?

Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?

The Audit Commission.

Anyway, lets not stray from the point here. Prove your claim that 85% of the NHS's budget is spent on bureaucracy. Hell, lets make it 80% so we fit into your +/- 5%.

You see you have made a simple mistake, so I will help you out a little. You are lumping in service providers with regulatory bodies and statutory functions. There is a difference you know