Transervice - UK needs Polish drivers!

[rjan]

Carryfast:
The only way to ‘over haul’ the benefits system is to ditch it altogether including the NHS.Then put the burden of social costs on wages in the form of private provision where it belongs and a realistic minimum wage which covers it all.While it’s obvious that existing claimants can’t make that transition.

But what does “private provision” actually mean?

Putting the burden on individuals to cover every adverse eventuality in their lives (through savings or insurance) usually leads to under-provision. It also typically leads to systematic under-charging of the wages necessary to meet that provision (if workers have the choice not to make the provision).

And if the provider of the services is a private firm, people then have to deal with all their crafty schemes for price-gouging, and all the ways in which they manipulate to make market transactions inefficient with time and labour (that is, above and beyond the inherent inefficiency of a market transaction).

It’s high time people stop pretending that the private sector is this lean and well-oiled machine as against the mechanical dinosaur of the state. The more things the state provides us with unconditionally, the better and more efficiently our society works over time. With the notable exception of British Leyland (beset by the workplace militancy of the 70s as much as anything), you name something that was ever provided by the private sector that worsened when the state took over?

Most of the time, the private sector appears to be more efficient on paper simply because it provides lower wages and benefits to its workers. Or, it is because they are smaller organisations who operate and replicate less reliably.

Any time a private sector business does grow to the size of a state organisation, it is either vastly less efficient with funds than the state for the same output, or else it eventually folds.

The state always has an advantage over the private sector in that it can shave several percent of its costs off in not having to return a profit into private hands (as separate from the public good it renders), and it has extensive political power (including the power to legislate to meet its public goals) that could never be entrusted to a private profit-making organisation (because a private firm would legislate for its own private profit goals).

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
The only way to ‘over haul’ the benefits system is to ditch it altogether including the NHS.Then put the burden of social costs on wages in the form of private provision where it belongs and a realistic minimum wage which covers it all.While it’s obvious that existing claimants can’t make that transition.

But what does “private provision” actually mean?

Putting the burden on individuals to cover every adverse eventuality in their lives (through savings or insurance) usually leads to under-provision. It also typically leads to systematic under-charging of the wages necessary to meet that provision (if workers have the choice not to make the provision).

And if the provider of the services is a private firm, people then have to deal with all their crafty schemes for price-gouging, and all the ways in which they manipulate to make market transactions inefficient with time and labour (that is, above and beyond the inherent inefficiency of a market transaction).

It’s high time people stop pretending that the private sector is this lean and well-oiled machine as against the mechanical dinosaur of the state. The more things the state provides us with unconditionally, the better and more efficiently our society works over time. With the notable exception of British Leyland (beset by the workplace militancy of the 70s as much as anything), you name something that was ever provided by the private sector that worsened when the state took over?

Most of the time, the private sector appears to be more efficient on paper simply because it provides lower wages and benefits to its workers. Or, it is because they are smaller organisations who operate and replicate less reliably.

Any time a private sector business does grow to the size of a state organisation, it is either vastly less efficient with funds than the state for the same output, or else it eventually folds.

The state always has an advantage over the private sector in that it can shave several percent of its costs off in not having to return a profit into private hands (as separate from the public good it renders), and it has extensive political power (including the power to legislate to meet its public goals) that could never be entrusted to a private profit-making organisation (because a private firm would legislate for its own private profit goals).

As I said ‘if’ you’re right how do you explain the situation in which train drivers have union approved private income protection cover rather than relying on the effectively worthless rationed state cover ?.IE you won’t see a medically discharged train driver being reliant on the conditions of ESA or the pathetic amount of benefit it provides even if by some miracle they did qualify for it.On that note Socialism can obviously be selective in its bs ideas by voting with its feet on the basis of some being more equal than others when it suits it.

The fact is the state cover system is more easily manipulated ( rationed ) to suit a low wage agenda in addition to being easily plundered by the government to fill shortfalls in other government expenditure.IE it isn’t subject to contract law like private cover is and it can be used as a political football as part of divide and rule tactics.Which explains the continuing reductions in the level of cover provided within the state social ‘security’ ( income ‘protection’ ) systems v private income protection cover.In which the governments of all types plunder the social security budget and get support for it by shouting scroungers.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

tommy t:
IDS is a sick and twisted individual , And His reforms have done nothing to cut the numbers overall

Oh and with all this imported slave like labour it isn’t difficult to be better off on benefits, even if you is only getting £73.10 per +housing costs because of [zb] like ZERO HRS contracts and the unliveable wage level that should be around £10 per hour by now

As I said IDS made it very clear that he was acting on the orders of those above him who themselves are acting on the orders of the CBI albeit enthusiastically in their case.He also made it equally clear that he has walked away from that on the basis that he could no longer personally stomach it.On that note it’s crucial to us getting out of the EU scam that the Labour vote gives him and Farage the benefit of the doubt on that issue.

As opposed to Corbyn.Who says he’s all for ‘the workers’ while at the same time following the same CBI agenda as Blair and Cameron.

The best that can be said for IDS is that he’s a deeply confused man. I don’t think he’s so cynical as to feign tears - he clearly feels compassion. But it never translates into beneficial political policy - for men like him, that’s always the step that is just too hard to take in this crazy, cruel world.

In other words, it’s the crocodile tears of the industrial captains of the Victorian era. No matter how squalid the conditions for the workers (and what a minority of philanthropist-industrialists did to alleviate them on a small scale), those responsible were always aware, as Engel found in Manchester, that those conditions were yielding huge profits for the bourgeoisie.

[containers_only]

mike68:
The only shortage is the where people won’t work for 2 bob outfits on £8 an hour.

The country is awash with licence holders, the country is not awash with competent conscientious and professional drivers, these already have well paid jobs for decent employers.

I worked in logistics for nearly 10 years and never found one

[carryfast]

Rjan:
The best that can be said for IDS is that he’s a deeply confused man. I don’t think he’s so cynical as to feign tears - he clearly feels compassion. But it never translates into beneficial political policy - for men like him, that’s always the step that is just too hard to take in this crazy, cruel world.

In other words, it’s the crocodile tears of the industrial captains of the Victorian era. No matter how squalid the conditions for the workers (and what a minority of philanthropist-industrialists did to alleviate them on a small scale), those responsible were always aware, as Engel found in Manchester, that those conditions were yielding huge profits for the bourgeoisie.

Ironically there’s probably more chance of the working class trying to appeal to the better nature of Conservativism through the common language of Fordist Capitalism and Nationalism than to keep on with the same tired old failed opposition of Socialist v Victorian Tory.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

As I said ‘if’ you’re right how do you explain the situation in which train drivers have union approved private income protection cover rather than relying on the effectively worthless rationed state cover ?.IE you won’t see a medically discharged train driver being reliant on the conditions of ESA or the pathetic amount of benefit it provides even if by some miracle they did qualify for it.On that note Socialism can obviously be selective in its bs ideas by voting with its feet on the basis of some being more equal than others when it suits it.

I explain train driver benefits by the fact that the employers in this case are paying a disproportionate cost for those benefits. It could cost ten times as much as public provision, but if a strong union is there to ensure that employers are paying (and the inefficiency is borne ultimately by ticket-buyers and taxpayers) then it works for that minority of workers.

It’s no different in this respect to the cost of an industry supporting a gaggle of CEOs, with their benefits and insurances, which are a ■■■■ sight more than train drivers. The losers are everyone who has to pay for these in the prices of goods and services, without receiving the same benefits themselves at work (or as part of their civil entitlements). If everyone did receive these benefits privately, they’d cost a ■■■■ sight more overall than public, tax-funded provision - the prime example being the dysfunctional American system.

The fact is the state cover system is more easily manipulated ( rationed ) to suit a low wage agenda in addition to being easily plundered by the government to fill shortfalls in other government expenditure.IE it isn’t subject to contract law like private cover is and it can be used as a political football as part of divide and rule tactics.Which explains the continuing reductions in the level of cover provided within the state social ‘security’ ( income ‘protection’ ) systems v private income protection cover.

When something is being used as a political football, it is no solution to turn it into a profit football, because in the political arena we can score for the public good, but in the private profit arena the public good can never win whenever the public good conflicts with the interests of the already rich (for whom the existing sytem, with its public evils, warts and all, is something that they want to preserve, because whatever its public faults, it makes them privately very rich and they can usually overcome the effects of any public evils by spending their abundant private funds!).

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

As I said ‘if’ you’re right how do you explain the situation in which train drivers have union approved private income protection cover rather than relying on the effectively worthless rationed state cover ?.IE you won’t see a medically discharged train driver being reliant on the conditions of ESA or the pathetic amount of benefit it provides even if by some miracle they did qualify for it.On that note Socialism can obviously be selective in its bs ideas by voting with its feet on the basis of some being more equal than others when it suits it.

I explain train driver benefits by the fact that the employers in this case are paying a disproportionate cost for those benefits. It could cost ten times as much as public provision, but if a strong union is there to ensure that employers are paying (and the inefficiency is borne ultimately by ticket-buyers and taxpayers) then it works for that minority of workers.

It’s no different in this respect to the cost of an industry supporting a gaggle of CEOs, with their benefits and insurances, which are a ■■■■ sight more than train drivers. The losers are everyone who has to pay for these in the prices of goods and services, without receiving the same benefits themselves at work (or as part of their civil entitlements). If everyone did receive these benefits privately, they’d cost a ■■■■ sight more overall than public, tax-funded provision - the prime example being the dysfunctional American system.

The fact is the state cover system is more easily manipulated ( rationed ) to suit a low wage agenda in addition to being easily plundered by the government to fill shortfalls in other government expenditure.IE it isn’t subject to contract law like private cover is and it can be used as a political football as part of divide and rule tactics.Which explains the continuing reductions in the level of cover provided within the state social ‘security’ ( income ‘protection’ ) systems v private income protection cover.

When something is being used as a political football, it is no solution to turn it into a profit football, because in the political arena we can score for the public good, but in the private profit arena the public good can never win whenever the public good conflicts with the interests of the already rich (for whom the existing sytem, with its public evils, warts and all, is something that they want to preserve, because whatever its public faults, it makes them privately very rich and they can usually overcome the effects of any public evils by spending their abundant private funds!).

All of which seems to miss the point that the definition of Fordist Capitalism means an economy based on the idea of sufficient wages to cover the ( real ) social costs of the workforce.In addition to sufficient wages to sustain consumer demand to sustain the required wages.As for the US health system v the NHS again there’s more chance of sorting out decent health cover under the profit motive combined with the wages to pay for it.Than the doomed to economic failure under funded Socialist NHS based on the inherent flaw of being a cure for the symptom of a low wage environment which doesn’t cure the cause.The result being rationed health care staggering from one financial crisis to the next because of the resulting continuous financial deficits of costs exceeding incomes.On that note like the train driver example it’s laughable to see doctors in the NHS singing the praises of the Socialist idea of the NHS then voting with their feet by going to work in the US health care system because it is better funded.

Although Reagan’s Post Fordist ‘reforms’ of the US economy obviously mean that,like here,many people there are now calling for the same failed Socialist solutions to the problems of low wages caused by post Fordist Capitalism.

IE wages don’t cover Social costs and Health care provision.Which just like here won’t work because less money going in than being paid out is unsustainable regardless of whether it’s called Capitalism or Socialism paid for in the form of wages or taxes.Taxes just being a function of wages which obviously makes the ‘solution’ of the NHS a red herring.Especially in an environment where population levels are being artificially increased in order to over supply the labour market to keep wage rates low.Thereby increasing demand for social provision and health care while reducing the ability to pay for it.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
All of which seems to miss the point that the definition of Fordist Capitalism means an economy based on the idea of sufficient wages to cover the ( real ) social costs of the workforce.In addition to sufficient wages to sustain consumer demand to sustain the required wages.As for the US health system v the NHS again there’s more chance of sorting out decent health cover under the profit motive combined with the wages to pay for it.Than the doomed to economic failure under funded Socialist NHS based on the inherent flaw of being a cure for the symptom of a low wage environment which doesn’t cure the cause.The result being rationed health care staggering from one financial crisis to the next because of the resulting continuous financial deficits of costs exceeding incomes.On that note like the train driver example it’s laughable to see doctors in the NHS singing the praises of the Socialist idea of the NHS then voting with their feet by going to work in the US health care system because it is better funded.

I don’t follow you. “Socialism” isn’t a means by which a healthcare system can run on fresh air alone. And the Americans do have a decent healthcare system for those who can afford it - it’s just that it’s ■■■■ expensive for those who can afford it, and inaccessible for those who cannot. To use your favourite concept, it’s like bespoke car-building (American private healthcare) vs. Ford production-line car-building (NHS).

Although Reagan’s Post Fordist ‘reforms’ of the US economy obviously mean that,like here,many people there are now calling for the same failed Socialist solutions to the problems of low wages caused by post Fordist Capitalism.

IE wages don’t cover Social costs and Health care provision.Which just like here won’t work because less money going in than being paid out is unsustainable regardless of whether it’s called Capitalism or Socialism paid for in the form of wages or taxes.Taxes just being a function of wages which obviously makes the ‘solution’ of the NHS a red herring.Especially in an environment where population levels are being artificially increased in order to over supply the labour market to keep wage rates low.Thereby increasing demand for social provision and health care while reducing the ability to pay for it.

I’m sorry I don’t follow you again at all. I certainly hope my posts are not so incoherent to other readers here.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
All of which seems to miss the point that the definition of Fordist Capitalism means an economy based on the idea of sufficient wages to cover the ( real ) social costs of the workforce.In addition to sufficient wages to sustain consumer demand to sustain the required wages.As for the US health system v the NHS again there’s more chance of sorting out decent health cover under the profit motive combined with the wages to pay for it.Than the doomed to economic failure under funded Socialist NHS based on the inherent flaw of being a cure for the symptom of a low wage environment which doesn’t cure the cause.The result being rationed health care staggering from one financial crisis to the next because of the resulting continuous financial deficits of costs exceeding incomes.On that note like the train driver example it’s laughable to see doctors in the NHS singing the praises of the Socialist idea of the NHS then voting with their feet by going to work in the US health care system because it is better funded.

I don’t follow you. “Socialism” isn’t a means by which a healthcare system can run on fresh air alone. And the Americans do have a decent healthcare system for those who can afford it - it’s just that it’s ■■■■ expensive for those who can afford it, and inaccessible for those who cannot. To use your favourite concept, it’s like bespoke car-building (American private healthcare) vs. Ford production-line car-building (NHS).

Although Reagan’s Post Fordist ‘reforms’ of the US economy obviously mean that,like here,many people there are now calling for the same failed Socialist solutions to the problems of low wages caused by post Fordist Capitalism.

IE wages don’t cover Social costs and Health care provision.Which just like here won’t work because less money going in than being paid out is unsustainable regardless of whether it’s called Capitalism or Socialism paid for in the form of wages or taxes.Taxes just being a function of wages which obviously makes the ‘solution’ of the NHS a red herring.Especially in an environment where population levels are being artificially increased in order to over supply the labour market to keep wage rates low.Thereby increasing demand for social provision and health care while reducing the ability to pay for it.

I’m sorry I don’t follow you again at all. I certainly hope my posts are not so incoherent to other readers here.

Firstly you say that Socialism doesn’t mean that you can run a health system on fresh air.In which case what is the NHS all about.IE supposedly a method by which the same under paid workers can suddenly miraculously afford health care which they couldn’t afford before.IE what changed and how do you fix the issue of the missing money in either case.

As for US health care as I said that’s more a case of lost jobs and reducing wage levels caused by Reagan’s ‘reforms’ in throwing the US economy to the global free market.Just like here thereby reducing the ability of workers to pay for/obtain the required cover.Having said that have you actually seen the value for money contained in 1 month’s unlimited health cover for a US holiday for example v the same in the form of the monthly tax burden for NHS cover here.

[dolph]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
All of which seems to miss the point that the definition of Fordist Capitalism means an economy based on the idea of sufficient wages to cover the ( real ) social costs of the workforce.In addition to sufficient wages to sustain consumer demand to sustain the required wages.As for the US health system v the NHS again there’s more chance of sorting out decent health cover under the profit motive combined with the wages to pay for it.Than the doomed to economic failure under funded Socialist NHS based on the inherent flaw of being a cure for the symptom of a low wage environment which doesn’t cure the cause.The result being rationed health care staggering from one financial crisis to the next because of the resulting continuous financial deficits of costs exceeding incomes.On that note like the train driver example it’s laughable to see doctors in the NHS singing the praises of the Socialist idea of the NHS then voting with their feet by going to work in the US health care system because it is better funded.

I don’t follow you. “Socialism” isn’t a means by which a healthcare system can run on fresh air alone. And the Americans do have a decent healthcare system for those who can afford it - it’s just that it’s ■■■■ expensive for those who can afford it, and inaccessible for those who cannot. To use your favourite concept, it’s like bespoke car-building (American private healthcare) vs. Ford production-line car-building (NHS).

Although Reagan’s Post Fordist ‘reforms’ of the US economy obviously mean that,like here,many people there are now calling for the same failed Socialist solutions to the problems of low wages caused by post Fordist Capitalism.

IE wages don’t cover Social costs and Health care provision.Which just like here won’t work because less money going in than being paid out is unsustainable regardless of whether it’s called Capitalism or Socialism paid for in the form of wages or taxes.Taxes just being a function of wages which obviously makes the ‘solution’ of the NHS a red herring.Especially in an environment where population levels are being artificially increased in order to over supply the labour market to keep wage rates low.Thereby increasing demand for social provision and health care while reducing the ability to pay for it.

I’m sorry I don’t follow you again at all. I certainly hope my posts are not so incoherent to other readers here.

Firstly you say that Socialism doesn’t mean that you can run a health system on fresh air.In which case what is the NHS all about.IE supposedly a method by which the same under paid workers can suddenly miraculously afford health care which they couldn’t afford before.IE what changed and how do you fix the issue of the missing money in either case.

As for US health care as I said that’s more a case of lost jobs and reducing wage levels caused by Reagan’s ‘reforms’ in throwing the US economy to the global free market.Just like here thereby reducing the ability of workers to pay for/obtain the required cover.Having said that have you actually seen the value for money contained in 1 month’s unlimited health cover for a US holiday for example v the same in the form of the monthly tax burden for NHS cover here.

Healthcare must be provided to every citizen of the country(whichever it is). US has the most evil healthcare system in the western world. Even if people can afford it its in no use, because people should not pay tens of thousands for simple procedures. Have you ever dealt with the stupid US health system CF??
Hernia surgery - $25 000, to be “affordable”, you need to have deductible of around $5000 to $6000. In order to have the actual operation you need to pay the deductible upfront. Thats with good insurance company.
Appendicite run up to $50 000. Child birth $10 000.
My boss was in debt of $90 000 for eye surgery of his kid. My flat mate - shoulder X-ray $317, and he never had the x-ray in his possession, it circulate inside the hospital on the monitors only.
MRI breast scan $3000 to 4000 and on and on.
How much money this people have to make, if Reagan didnt “screw” US as you say in order to afford this basic health needs?

[carryfast]

Dolph:

Carryfast:
As for US health care as I said that’s more a case of lost jobs and reducing wage levels caused by Reagan’s ‘reforms’ in throwing the US economy to the global free market.Just like here thereby reducing the ability of workers to pay for/obtain the required cover.Having said that have you actually seen the value for money contained in 1 month’s unlimited health cover for a US holiday for example v the same in the form of the monthly tax burden for NHS cover here.

Healthcare must be provided to every citizen of the country(whichever it is). US has the most evil healthcare system in the western world. Even if people can afford it its in no use, because people should not pay tens of thousands for simple procedures. Have you ever dealt with the stupid US health system CF??
Hernia surgery - $25 000, to be “affordable”, you need to have deductible of around $5000 to $6000. In order to have the actual operation you need to pay the deductible upfront. Thats with good insurance company.
Appendicite run up to $50 000. Child birth $10 000.
My boss was in debt of $90 000 for eye surgery of his kid. My flat mate - shoulder X-ray $317, and he never had the x-ray in his possession, it circulate inside the hospital on the monitors only.
MRI breast scan $3000 to 4000 and on and on.
How much money this people have to make, if Reagan didnt “screw” US as you say in order to afford this basic health needs?

What makes you think that the costs of the same procedures are any less here.

kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nh … nhs-budget

bbc.co.uk/news/health-35596991

pulsetoday.co.uk/home/financ … ullarticle

theguardian.com/society/2012 … -haven-nhs

On that note no I’ve never been unfortunate enough to need health care in the US.But I’ve been there enough times to know that a decent unlimited health cover policy is better value for money,on a pro rata basis,than the taxation requirement for the same period of cover under the NHS.

On that note what do they expect for just $89 ‘per month’.Compared to the amount we pay in taxes for our NHS cover.

time.com/money/4044394/average-h … le-premium

[rjan]

Carryfast:
Firstly you say that Socialism doesn’t mean that you can run a health system on fresh air.In which case what is the NHS all about.IE supposedly a method by which the same under paid workers can suddenly miraculously afford health care which they couldn’t afford before.IE what changed and how do you fix the issue of the missing money in either case.

I don’t follow you. The NHS certainly isn’t about getting healthcare to run on fresh air.

As for US health care as I said that’s more a case of lost jobs and reducing wage levels caused by Reagan’s ‘reforms’ in throwing the US economy to the global free market.Just like here thereby reducing the ability of workers to pay for/obtain the required cover.Having said that have you actually seen the value for money contained in 1 month’s unlimited health cover for a US holiday for example v the same in the form of the monthly tax burden for NHS cover here.

I doubt that US insurance cover is anything comparable to the cost of the NHS around the time when you actually seem likely to need healthcare. I would assert that insurance only really has any use if it distributes costs amongst people and across lifetimes, which is completely the opposite direction of the private insurance industry today (because for various reasons they can increase profits by not distributing losses).

The better off might vastly over pay personal tax relative to their use of the NHS, but that simply reflects that taxation isn’t a charge for a facility in the first place. The NHS is an unconditional civil entitlement, and the government simply has to extract the overall cost of that from the economy. If it decides to tax wages to make that extraction, then if everyone were paid incomes that were nearly the same, it could do it with a flat tax or a fixed fee.

In reality, the market does not allocate sufficient funds to the poorest to pay for essential infrastructure, and allocates a great excess of funds to the wealthiest, which if unchecked (and if a fixed fee were levied) would not allow our society to function properly. Consider the example of how children could not be expected to fund their own schooling from market wages, and nor could the poorest parents be expected to pay either - it is perhaps most obvious in this case that the market would not, left to its own devices, make the allocation of funds which are necessary.

Progressive taxation can only be understood once you realise that the state doesn’t have to respect the market distribution of wages in the first place as being fair or proper. So the rich aren’t paying too much - they’re paid too much.

Just as adults are paid too much in the market, and children and babies too little in the market, when it comes to funding the compulsory education of children.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Firstly you say that Socialism doesn’t mean that you can run a health system on fresh air.In which case what is the NHS all about.IE supposedly a method by which the same under paid workers can suddenly miraculously afford health care which they couldn’t afford before.IE what changed and how do you fix the issue of the missing money in either case.

I don’t follow you. The NHS certainly isn’t about getting healthcare to run on fresh air.

As for US health care as I said that’s more a case of lost jobs and reducing wage levels caused by Reagan’s ‘reforms’ in throwing the US economy to the global free market.Just like here thereby reducing the ability of workers to pay for/obtain the required cover.Having said that have you actually seen the value for money contained in 1 month’s unlimited health cover for a US holiday for example v the same in the form of the monthly tax burden for NHS cover here.

I doubt that US insurance cover is anything comparable to the cost of the NHS around the time when you actually seem likely to need healthcare. I would assert that insurance only really has any use if it distributes costs amongst people and across lifetimes, which is completely the opposite direction of the private insurance industry today (because for various reasons they can increase profits by not distributing losses).

The better off might vastly over pay personal tax relative to their use of the NHS, but that simply reflects that taxation isn’t a charge for a facility in the first place. The NHS is an unconditional civil entitlement, and the government simply has to extract the overall cost of that from the economy. If it decides to tax wages to make that extraction, then if everyone were paid incomes that were nearly the same, it could do it with a flat tax or a fixed fee.

In reality, the market does not allocate sufficient funds to the poorest to pay for essential infrastructure, and allocates a great excess of funds to the wealthiest, which if unchecked (and if a fixed fee were levied) would not allow our society to function properly. Consider the example of how children could not be expected to fund their own schooling from market wages, and nor could the poorest parents be expected to pay either - it is perhaps most obvious in this case that the market would not, left to its own devices, make the allocation of funds which are necessary.

Progressive taxation can only be understood once you realise that the state doesn’t have to respect the market distribution of wages in the first place as being fair or proper. So the rich aren’t paying too much - they’re paid too much.

Just as adults are paid too much in the market, and children and babies too little in the market, when it comes to funding the compulsory education of children.

If the NHS isn’t about trying to do something for nothing.How do you explain a system,which is actually based on the idea of providing unaffordable health care to low wage earners who aren’t earning enough to cover their own health care cover costs ?.

As I said the American system is doing more with less assuming an average $89 per month premium per capita.On that do the maths bearing in mind the NHS takes around £100 billion per year divided by around 70 million population.On that note it seems clear that the US problem is people expecting too much for too little.Much like the UK system.IE it has to be paid for in the form of sufficient wages.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
If the NHS isn’t about trying to do something for nothing.How do you explain a system,which is actually based on the idea of providing unaffordable health care to low wage earners who aren’t earning enough to cover their own health care cover costs ?.

As I said the American system is doing more with less assuming an average $89 per month premium per capita.On that do the maths bearing in mind the NHS takes around £100 billion per year divided by around 70 million population.On that note it seems clear that the US problem is people expecting too much for too little.Much like the UK system.IE it has to be paid for in the form of sufficient wages.

There’s nothing unaffordable about the NHS. The government is simply choosing not raise the necessary revenue from the areas of the economy that can support it.

It’s the same story with roads, schooling, elderly care, and every other public service - not a single penny of public spending is affordable, if the government simply refuses to raise revenue from the economy!

We’re back to 1930s thinking, where everything (even bare necessities like food and housing) is “unaffordable” if the priority for politicians is preserving the huge private capital of the wealthy and maintaining the rate of profit on that capital.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
If the NHS isn’t about trying to do something for nothing.How do you explain a system,which is actually based on the idea of providing unaffordable health care to low wage earners who aren’t earning enough to cover their own health care cover costs ?.

As I said the American system is doing more with less assuming an average $89 per month premium per capita.On that do the maths bearing in mind the NHS takes around £100 billion per year divided by around 70 million population.On that note it seems clear that the US problem is people expecting too much for too little.Much like the UK system.IE it has to be paid for in the form of sufficient wages.

There’s nothing unaffordable about the NHS. The government is simply choosing not raise the necessary revenue from the areas of the economy that can support it.

It’s the same story with roads, schooling, elderly care, and every other public service - not a single penny of public spending is affordable, if the government simply refuses to raise revenue from the economy!

We’re back to 1930s thinking, where everything (even bare necessities like food and housing) is “unaffordable” if the priority for politicians is preserving the huge private capital of the wealthy and maintaining the rate of profit on that capital.

Great idea.Don’t bother to fix the wage issue.Instead let’s confiscate all private property and assets and give it all to the zb wit Socialist Party faithful.That’ll fix the NHS deficit crisis.

Meanwhile the national debt stands at somewhere between £1.5 - 4 + trillion increasing at the rate of over £5,000 per second not surprisingly in a country which is now an importer of just about everything.All because it’s supposedly better to minimise wage rates in the global free market rather than maximise them with Nationalist protectionist policies.To which your answer is wealth redistribution of what we’ve still got.Rather than create the wealth needed to reduce/reverse the debt figure.

[dolph]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
If the NHS isn’t about trying to do something for nothing.How do you explain a system,which is actually based on the idea of providing unaffordable health care to low wage earners who aren’t earning enough to cover their own health care cover costs ?.

As I said the American system is doing more with less assuming an average $89 per month premium per capita.On that do the maths bearing in mind the NHS takes around £100 billion per year divided by around 70 million population.On that note it seems clear that the US problem is people expecting too much for too little.Much like the UK system.IE it has to be paid for in the form of sufficient wages.

There’s nothing unaffordable about the NHS. The government is simply choosing not raise the necessary revenue from the areas of the economy that can support it.

It’s the same story with roads, schooling, elderly care, and every other public service - not a single penny of public spending is affordable, if the government simply refuses to raise revenue from the economy!

We’re back to 1930s thinking, where everything (even bare necessities like food and housing) is “unaffordable” if the priority for politicians is preserving the huge private capital of the wealthy and maintaining the rate of profit on that capital.

Great idea.Don’t bother to fix the wage issue.Instead let’s confiscate all private property and assets and give it all to the zb wit Socialist Party faithful.That’ll fix the NHS deficit crisis.

Meanwhile the national debt stands at somewhere between £1.5 - 4 + trillion increasing at the rate of over £5,000 per second not surprisingly in a country which is now an importer of just about everything.All because it’s supposedly better to minimise wage rates in the global free market rather than maximise them with Nationalist protectionist policies.To which your answer is wealth redistribution of what we’ve still got.Rather than create the wealth needed to reduce/reverse the debt figure.

You obviously don’t want to read what he wrote. For example: the communist tv licence tax you have in this country could all go to NHS and that is 5 billion pounds.

[carryfast]

Dolph:
You obviously don’t want to read what he wrote. For example: the communist tv licence tax you have in this country could all go to NHS and that is 5 billion pounds.

I did read what he wrote.The suggestion was that the problem is all about the government protecting private capital/assets at the expense of what is obviously a health demand v revenue problem. We won’t fix that by redistribution of existing wealth and minimising wage levels in whatever form.Whether it be importing goods made in cheap labour countries.Or over supplying the domestic labour market with with immigrant labour from low wage expectation countries thereby reducing revenues even more and increasing demand even further.

On that note what makes you think that all taxation revenue isn’t diverted to the NHS as a first priority whether it’s Road Fuel Duty or VED or TV ‘licence’ fee.You do know how much around £100 billion per year actually is to find.Although not paying the EU a fortune for the privilege of being a net importer of EU goods would obviously help in that regard.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
I did read what he wrote.The suggestion was that the problem is all about the government protecting private capital/assets at the expense of what is obviously a health demand v revenue problem.

It’s not just private capital assets that are being protected. It is the private income of the wealthiest that is being protected - the wealthy have never paid so little tax, and it’s a fraction of the rates they were paying when the NHS was set up.

Also, the cost of the NHS might seem high (a rough mean average is £4k a year cost per adult), but when you consider that GDP is about £80k per year per adult, it seems like a perfectly appropriate fraction of our productivity to spend on keeping ourselves alive and maintaining our health. I mean, food costs us thousands of pounds a year, but no one is saying we should cut back on that or that it’s too much to afford.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
I did read what he wrote.The suggestion was that the problem is all about the government protecting private capital/assets at the expense of what is obviously a health demand v revenue problem.

It’s not just private capital assets that are being protected. It is the private income of the wealthiest that is being protected - the wealthy have never paid so little tax, and it’s a fraction of the rates they were paying when the NHS was set up.

Also, the cost of the NHS might seem high (a rough mean average is £4k a year cost per adult), but when you consider that GDP is about £80k per year per adult, it seems like a perfectly appropriate fraction of our productivity to spend on keeping ourselves alive and maintaining our health. I mean, food costs us thousands of pounds a year, but no one is saying we should cut back on that or that it’s too much to afford.

Yes I agree the top rate of tax is a joke proportionally.The problem then being how do you keep very high earners domiciled here under a 75% let alone 90% tax regime ?.

However I can still remember my father being left on a trolley in a corridor while waiting for A and E assessment for hours with numerous broken vertebrae among other serious injuries having been involved in a collapsed roof incident at the factory he was working in at the time.That was during the Wilson government of 1965-70.While even the ward surroundings were more Soviet Union dormitory accomodation than US private room standards.Which is a situation which hasn’t changed much well into the 21st century.

On that note the relevant figure is around £100 billion in a country with a working population of around 38,000,000 which seems like less than £4,000 each on average more like £2,500 ?.But which still puts that US $89 per month figure into perspective and what the US health care system manages to do with it.

While obviously answering the questions of the so called ‘bad’ US health care system which is anything but.IE give it realistic funding per capita in the form of decent insurance premiums then make the same comparison.Bearing in mind that even at $89 per month the US is still an attractive destination for disillusioned emigrant NHS doctors on the grounds of better funding.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
I did read what he wrote.The suggestion was that the problem is all about the government protecting private capital/assets at the expense of what is obviously a health demand v revenue problem.

It’s not just private capital assets that are being protected. It is the private income of the wealthiest that is being protected - the wealthy have never paid so little tax, and it’s a fraction of the rates they were paying when the NHS was set up.

Also, the cost of the NHS might seem high (a rough mean average is £4k a year cost per adult), but when you consider that GDP is about £80k per year per adult, it seems like a perfectly appropriate fraction of our productivity to spend on keeping ourselves alive and maintaining our health. I mean, food costs us thousands of pounds a year, but no one is saying we should cut back on that or that it’s too much to afford.

Yes I agree the top rate of tax is a joke proportionally.The problem then being how do you keep very high earners domiciled here under a 75% let alone 90% tax regime ?.

The answer is international co-operation and co-ordination. Eliminate tax rate competition, then the rich can’t shop around for low tax rates. That is the current challenge, to globalise politically, because whilst the economy has already become globalised (and it is the global economy from which the wealthy are extracting their “earnings”) but political control has not, the rich will just shop around and vote with their feet.

And even in the meantime, the risk of exodus is overstated - particularly if the rich understand that the political will is there to override extreme market verdicts and to bind them into economic regulations to which they may not individually consent.

That in the end is why the rich are all natural Brexiteers and anti-EU, because political integration threatens them with democratic control. Just like now, the Tories can only abolish human rights or employment rights (on behalf of their wealthy donors) by violating previous European treaties - whereas they’d quite like to give prisoners a kicking to make the law-abiding poor feel better about austerity, and they’d quite like to abolish paid holidays, and they’d quite like to abolish limits on working time, and so forth.

However I can still remember my father being left on a trolley in a corridor while waiting for A and E assessment for hours with numerous broken vertebrae among other serious injuries having been involved in a collapsed roof incident at the factory he was working in at the time.That was during the Wilson government of 1965-70.While even the ward surroundings were more Soviet Union dormitory accomodation than US private room standards.Which is a situation which hasn’t changed much well into the 21st century.

Things certainly haven’t changed here in that respect.

The difference is that in the US in 1965, lots of people weren’t waiting for treatment on trolleys in the corridor, they were waiting on pavements to die. Any comparison that is ever made with the US system (and especially historically), has to bear in mind that lots of people (often the sickest and most impaired) simply do not get inside the hospital in the first place in the US.

The Queen has a private doctor in Buckingham Palace, but you wouldn’t seriously suggest that that is the luxurious standard of UK healthcare, because most people can simply never afford such a facility, and will simply never see the inside of Buckingham Palace with its gaggle of private doctors.

On that note the relevant figure is around £100 billion in a country with a working population of around 38,000,000 which seems like less than £4,000 each on average more like £2,500 ?.But which still puts that US $89 per month figure into perspective and what the US health care system manages to do with it.

Well you do the maths, but it’s clearly still a modest amount (relative to the per-adult GDP of £80k a year) for what amounts to the basic maintenance of the human body.

While obviously answering the questions of the so called ‘bad’ US health care system which is anything but.IE give it realistic funding per capita in the form of decent insurance premiums then make the same comparison.Bearing in mind that even at $89 per month the US is still an attractive destination for disillusioned emigrant NHS doctors on the grounds of better funding.

$89 dollars a month doesn’t even begin to reflect what the real average costs of healthcare are in the US. Which, to be clear, the cost of US healthcare is substantially higher than the UK. If you’re paying that, then it means some pensioner is paying $500 dollars a month (or dying of conditions they can’t afford to treat), or it means some unemployed fellow who can’t afford even $89 a month is suffering with an untreated condition.