Socialise the essentials.

[Deleted member 49]

I agree that it is not that radical in reality...wehad it for a long time...but the political debate in this country is set up to make suggestions like that sound radical.
Starmer needs to be a lot more assertive in his statements, and get that poker from out of his a*se, and I have a feeling that the cost of living/fuel/energy crisis that we are heading into, could strengthen the moves towards nationalisation/common ownership/socialisation, whichever is the current preferred term.

What gem did he come out with to help out with this....10 pounds a hour min wage ffs ! The fecking Tories are offering 10.50 lol.
Radical 🙄

 

[theclaud]

What gem did he come out with to help out with this....10 pounds a hour min wage ffs ! The fecking Tories are offering 10.50 lol.
Radical 🙄

I'm so old, I remember when he backed £15.

 

[Ian H]

The New Statesman has turned Starmerite and, in keeping with that, seems to be trying to resuscitate Blairism (if a philosophical vacuum can be an 'ism').

 

[newfhouse]

The New Statesman has turned Starmerite and, in keeping with that, seems to be trying to resuscitate Blairism (if a philosophical vacuum can be an 'ism').

Who are we bombing this time?

 

[slowmotion]

. Those that do would probably hark back to the era of waiting months for a phone line or gas installation but it doesn’t have to be that way. That was a management failure and nothing to do with the ownership model.

Some would argue that "public ownership" doesn't attract management of a high calibre.

 

[mudsticks]

Some would argue that "public ownership" doesn't attract management of a high calibre.

Some would say that private ownership of essential services prioritises the creation of profit for shareholder benefit.

See 'healthcare' provision in the US .

If management is expected to have its eyes primarily on shareholder profit, then whatever its calibre it won't necessarily deliver best outcomes in terms of service provision.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Some would argue that "public ownership" doesn't attract management of a high calibre.

It's such a poor argument in the current climate, especially with basic needs of food,heating your home,minimum income ?
I'm sure you've noticed how quite a few EU countries have protected consumers from energy profiteering.

 

[newfhouse]

Some would argue that "public ownership" doesn't attract management of a high calibre.

Do you know what their evidence and arguments might be?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Some would say that private ownership of essential services prioritises the creation of profit for shareholder benefit.

See 'healthcare' provision in the US .

If management is expected to have its eyes primarily on shareholder profit, then whatever its calibre it won't necessarily deliver best outcomes in terms of service provision.

Well, it depends on where you want to be.

US healthcare can deliver some of the most cutting edge, up to date and simply awe inspiring interventions on the planet.

Techniques designed and perfected in the US are now commonplace the world over. So I would suggest that you put the wrong word in quotes.
The healthcare is absolutely outstanding, it is the provision that is messed up. The problem is though, that the UK has this universal system that simply cannot cope with the current demand, that is the problem.

You run your own business, I would imagine you consider a good manager of both the business and the people, and you pride yourself on excellent customer service, and you turn an ok profit? By your own statement above, you can't do all of those things, so which do you let slip?

 

[FishFright]

Well, it depends on where you want to be.

US healthcare can deliver some of the most cutting edge, up to date and simply awe inspiring interventions on the planet.

Techniques designed and perfected in the US are now commonplace the world over. So I would suggest that you put the wrong word in quotes.
The healthcare is absolutely outstanding, it is the provision that is messed up. The problem is though, that the UK has this universal system that simply cannot cope with the current demand, that is the problem.

You run your own business, I would imagine you consider a good manager of both the business and the people, and you pride yourself on excellent customer service, and you turn an ok profit? By your own statement above, you can't do all of those things, so which do you let slip?

The US system is hugely inefficient, delivers a very patch service , regularly bankrupts middle class patients , is wide open for corruption and off label prescription of opioid drugs etc etc etc ....

But does deliver epic profits to the health insurance industry.

 

[mudsticks]

Well, it depends on where you want to be.

US healthcare can deliver some of the most cutting edge, up to date and simply awe inspiring interventions on the planet.

Techniques designed and perfected in the US are now commonplace the world over. So I would suggest that you put the wrong word in quotes.
The healthcare is absolutely outstanding, it is the provision that is messed up. The problem is though, that the UK has this universal system that simply cannot cope with the current demand, that is the problem.

You run your own business, I would imagine you consider a good manager of both the business and the people, and you pride yourself on excellent customer service, and you turn an ok profit? By your own statement above, you can't do all of those things, so which do you let slip?

If healthcare is supposed to provision for the health of that nation then US health provision is failing on many fronts.

Many US citizens will confirm this for all the reason FF has detailed.
Amazing cutting edge technologies for a few - doesn't make good healthcare for a nation.

You can have both - we have many fine research departments in our own university hospitals - that have come up with a lot of innovation and new developments.

I actually run two businesses - both of which are profitable, both provide good customer service ( so my customers say) and one of which employs people at a rate above the living wage.

What i don't have is shareholders demanding a dividend or share of the profit - that is where a large chunk of health ' insurance' ends up in the states.

Without shareholders i can make business decisions based on ethics, and ecology too - in fact that's why many people choose to use my services - and buy my products in the first place .

Of course i pay tax on my income above the threshhold - and thats all fine and as it should be - but it would be a great deal finer if we didn't have a craven bunch of chancers currently in power merrily siphoning off our taxes to their mates - allowing profits to be offshored and taxes avoided - whilst trying to privatise ( sell off for profit) those community resourced commons that belong to and have been paid for by all of us and by generations past -

Paid for and created through taxation and by the dedicated work of those people within those public services .

 

[Craig the cyclist]

If healthcare is supposed to provision for the health of that nation then US health provision is failing on many fronts.

But this isn't what the US system proclaims to do. You are comparing a paid for by insurance system with a free at the point of use system. That isn't a fair comparison.

Taxation will never ever be able to fully fund a health system that delivers everything that everyone wants, when they want it to the standard they want it delivered. Not if we want education, refuse services, an Army, Air Force, Navy and Police service too. It is utterly delusional to believe that.

 

[mudsticks]

But this isn't what the US system proclaims to do. You are comparing a paid for by insurance system with a free at the point of use system. That isn't a fair comparison.

Taxation will never ever be able to fully fund a health system that delivers everything that everyone wants, when they want it to the standard they want it delivered. Not if we want education, refuse services, an Army, Air Force, Navy and Police service too. It is utterly delusional to believe that.

In which case it's not really a healthcare system or service to the country is it ??

It's a product or service that can be bought at high cost by those who can afford it .

Tough luck if you're poor or disadvantaged.

Pretty much anything can be bought if you have enough money .

 

[newfhouse]

everything that everyone wants

Straw man. Nobody has demanded that.

 

[Deleted member 49]

But this isn't what the US system proclaims to do. You are comparing a paid for by insurance system with a free at the point of use system. That isn't a fair comparison.

Taxation will never ever be able to fully fund a health system that delivers everything that everyone wants, when they want it to the standard they want it delivered. Not if we want education, refuse services, an Army, Air Force, Navy and Police service too. It is utterly delusional to believe that.

Your delusional to think that the party you voted for has any intention of funding the NHS or anything else.Classic Tories defund,make it look like you tried and hand it over piece by piece to private companies.Understaffing and underfunding are all part of the game.