How Labour Right Left the NHS Exposed to the Pro-Disease Libertarians
So I stopped by Squander Two’s excellent blog and got myself engaged in the same fight I do every time I share a comment section with a libertarian, the NHS Fight. The reason this always happens, without fail, is that for the most part I tend to find that crowd (besides the Guido Fawkes, Devil’s Kitchen, etc. faction) fairly agreeable & to find them wanting to cause more carnage than the Tories over something is always fairly jarring. Healthcare is an area where the market has proven utterly inadequate, indeed it’s hard to find any pure market approach outside of the Third World (company insurance is decided by CEO boards and unions, state insurance by governments), although I’d imagine that those who have died in America owing to lack of insurance didn’t rate the distinction that much. As it happens the last time I was in Squander’s comments the same thing happened, and on that occasion he handed me my head on a plate, but that’s just because I played it fancy and got tripped up for it.
This time around I play it nice and conventional and when he says it costs a lot I reply:
You’re supporting people who didn’t get as lucky.
Which is the basic argument, right? I could justify that to myself in my head for a few minutes, well enough: jobs are about fortune, not skill alone. Even leaving aside the fact that the most capable are largely those from the most advantaged backgrounds (which they got into by luck) this country doesn’t have full employment & it hasn’t had for a long time. Getting a job is a matter of chance.
Thank you, right-wingers.
So then my mind travels to Labour, or more specifically the New kind (is there any other sort that doesn’t exist outside of the history books and John McDonnell, now?). And initially my continuation is: and perhaps full employment would have existed, if the Labour Party had any left-wingers interested in job creation left, instead of just a bunch of Thatcher infused twats who were prepared to twiddle their thumbs crafting the crapper kind of statist crap that didn’t help anyone (police allowed to pretend nice old ladies are terrorists, an endless attempt to implement ID cards that don’t work, et al…) while waiting for the financial wankers to fuck up the nation with their incompetence twinned with centality.
But that’s when I realised that the poison runs just a tad deeper than that. Because when I said his money had gone to people who weren’t lucky I wasn’t exactly telling the truth, now was I? What I should have said was that most of the money, perhaps even part of it would have been safer, was going to those less lucky than him and the rest was going to those who were a lot more. The rest was going to big businesses lucky enough to land themselves involvement with a PFI scheme.
They’d get a massive amount of taxpayer cash, in return offering the efficiency which all of the private sector of course inevitably displays (hence the need to nationalise banks to stop the financial sector from disappearing) and then getting to maintain ownership of the hospitals which they’d built to fulfill their contract. They’d use poor Squander’s cash to help themselves, in short.
Which, as any socialist will tell you, is a daft and far from left-wing idea. But there haven’t been left-wingers in charge of Labour for a long time.
Which is fine for me operating upon the ideological level, that I can cope with: things aren’t meant to work out that way, but it’s the other sides fault, right? Well internally, all’s well. But on a national level, if you are looking for a reason why the left is flat on it’s back when it should be seizing the nation’s throat then beyond its instrinsic uselessness (which you should never underestimate, of course) then this is is.
Labour purports to be the left. Here’s Prescott championing the NHS and using someone who thinks of it as a mistake as a bogey-man (quite rightly). That’s a good political move, something which Political Betting have said that it would make sense for Labour to shift to, instead of going for Cameron in his own right (after the recent Smeargate bullshit, who’s going to argue otherwise?).
But the irony of New Labour is that presentation alone is the worst thing possible for the left. You get people depicting themselves as some sort of non-scary version of socialism, reaching power and ruining the country with their useless centralism and then Bevan getting the blame instead of Aristotle. They despoil that they’re claiming themselves to be the idolizers of and making it impossible to stage a proper defence. How am I meant to argue in favour of the NHS against right-wingers when most of the problems it suffers from are caused by the right-wing of the Labour Party?
But of course, I’m meant to be stuck here, on one side of the wedge. That’s the entire point. The entire notion of New Labour is keeping me stuck here ranting ineffectually, the Tories blustering on the other side and them shoved into power. The sole problem with this is that it’s prosperity politics: they could splash money at undeserving companies that were not going to benefit the public all they wanted during boomtime. Now we’re on the verge of the “Age of Austerity” the cunt Purnell’s foul plans to pay Walmart to wipe up the poor fell through pretty damn sharpish (& thank fuck for that). I doubt the loathsome little rightist oik will be able to afford his beloved lie detectors, either.
Just as New Labour looked like the right call during times of big spend (& in its original & true incarnation seemed best for the construction of the Welfare State and the implementation of the Beveridge Report, although the difference is that they stuck to their manifesto pledges and managed some actual achievements instead of flailing around outlawing setting off nuclear devices on British soil) it’s going to be the Tories that look right during times of cutting. Which would be fine: it’ll be a recession, the Conservatives will have a terrible time.
But the damage is done: socialist institutions have been severely damaged by non-socialist policies implemented by politicians who successfully attempted to depict all opposed to their idiot centrism as a frothing-mouthed extremist nutjob semi-Leninist extremist. They’ve not only fostered that image of the left, but done so much harm that they’ve diluted the successes of actual socialists to the extent that they’re difficult to defend properly in terms that don’t reinforce the image. How are you meant to convince people who read blogs raging about “ZaNu Labour” that Tony & Co were a bunch of right-wing wreckers? Am I honestly going to be able to argue in favour of institutions already ruined by the Labour right with a straight face? Even arguing in favour of the tear-it-down-burn-the-corpse crowd I’m starting to struggle.
there is no point whatsoever in arguing in favour of the NHS. the NHS is very poor compared to private health schemes. it is prey to social ideology, inefficiency, and gross abuse(eg smoking areas closed in hospices even though they are legally permitted; nurses struck off for praying; nurses struck off for highlighting abuse; patients starving to death; patients catching preventable diseases like MRSA; a patient found dead in a toilet after 3 days; patients bullied or murdered by health-care workers; patients denied treatment after supplementing their medication by private means)
the method of funding for the NHS is immoral. NI contributions are compulsory. therefore the NHS is funded by government theft because the money is removed from wages without the wishes of the worker being taken into consideration. a private medical insurance scheme is cheaper than NI contributions and the service is better. but you can’t have one or the other.
the market is far from inadequate because most people who can afford to do so will go private. the market exists because the NHS is so crap. there is not and has never been (as far as i can determine) any occasion in any field in which a government tax-payer scheme or endeavour has ever outperformed a private venture.
without taxation, people could afford healthcare of a higher standard than the NHS, and would also be in a position to assist genuine charitable institutions to care for the poorer memebrs of society - such as barnardo’s or cheshire homes etc.
having said that, my NHS experiences have been favourable. nevertheless, my one experience of private medical care showed that it was vastly superior. but at the end of the day, even if the NHS was efficient, i object to paying every month for treating someone else’s illnesses.
Yes dear, the NHS is terrible. That’s why it’s so unpopular & parties with its abolition in their manifestos do so well.
thanks for that perfect example of the “straw-man” logical fallacy. that’s a common response when people don’t like what they’ve read but can’t refute it. Bupa seems to be doing OK, despite tha magnificent NHS, but not everyone can afford Bupa. we could, though, if NI contributions weren’t compulsory. go back and think again, dear.
Clearly then, the Libertarian Party will triumph at the next election. I’ll look forward to it, sweetheart.
i hope it does, since i’m a member. however, feel free to read my reply to James Hooper again (if indeed you read it properly in the first place) and comment on the points i made. to make it easy for you we’ll distill it down.
1. NI contributions are compulsory - why should an alleged “insurance scheme” be compulsory?
2. the MSM have reported the long litany of NHS disasters (starved patients, MRSA-infected patients, patients denied the treatment they have paid for beecause they had the nerve to supplement their treatment by private means) - do you think this is a good advert for state medicine?
3. the fact that BUPA etc exist and flourish; if NHS was top-quality would the private schemes not wither and die?
finally, you have again invoked the straw-man, this time that of a small, new party and it’s predictable lack of electoral success. however, small parties in general might do OK this time. if so it’s thanks to Labour. if anyone still votes Labour after their theft, illegal warfare, intrusive database state, erosion of British citizens’ rights, politicised policing, etc etc, it merely shows that some people would vote for a Baboon if it was wearing a red rose. if you have no intelligent argument to make,
kindly don’t bother. at least Mr Hooper has the ability to make a reasonable case according to his viewpoint. there is no indication thus far that you have anything to offer by way of argument.
oh dear - is this the same James as the author of the original post? i didn’t link the evasive and juvenile replies with the author of the original post, the regurgitation of which at least took some effort. if you are the same James, debating with you would be somewhat akin to shooting rats in a barrel. there is no point in discussing the matter further.
1. NI contributions are compulsory - why should an alleged “insurance scheme” be compulsory?
Because optional taxation is unreliable.
2. the MSM have reported the long litany of NHS disasters (starved patients, MRSA-infected patients, patients denied the treatment they have paid for beecause they had the nerve to supplement their treatment by private means) - do you think this is a good advert for state medicine?
I don’t think its a balanced assessment of the situation. There are also plenty of horror stories from privatised healthcare, I think you’ll find. That teenager who died because the insurance companies wouldn’t give her the treatment which she would have received over here? The US being beaten by the third world Cuba?
3. the fact that BUPA etc exist and flourish; if NHS was top-quality would the private schemes not wither and die?
People will pay for just about anything. I suspect that what you’ll see shortly, with the recession, is them headed in that direction. As with private schooling.
finally, you have again invoked the straw-man, this time that of a small, new party and it’s predictable lack of electoral success. however, small parties in general might do OK this time. if so it’s thanks to Labour. if anyone still votes Labour after their theft, illegal warfare, intrusive database state, erosion of British citizens’ rights, politicised policing, etc etc, it merely shows that some people would vote for a Baboon if it was wearing a red rose. if you have no intelligent argument to make,
Sorry, LPUK are headed nowhere. The NHS is hugely popular. Even the Tories shadow health minister is a serious enthusiast. If it was bad as you depict it then it would not be. That isn’t a strawman, it’s the truth.
kindly don’t bother. at least Mr Hooper has the ability to make a reasonable case according to his viewpoint. there is no indication thus far that you have anything to offer by way of argument.
Yet in your next post you assail me for being worse than myself! Please do make up your mind…
last point first - your original post indicated some intelligence, but your responses were unforgiveably lax and flippant, so i thought there were 2 James’. so thanks for at last responding to my points civilly.
1. the National Insurance is not meant to be a tax, but an insurance scheme, by which you receive treatment if you become ill. the problem is that the NHS is not a voluntary contibution - if you are like most people you don’t fall ill very often; you are then paying a lot for not much. as well as that, a waiting room on friday night is full of drunks getting stitched after fights, or treated for alcoholic poisoning. so i object to paying monthly for a service i don’t need, and to treat those i don’t care about.
2. it’s true the MSM report disasters, as something which works well isn’t news. nevertheless disasters happen, and the fundamental reason is that i have observed (as an ex-NHS worker) managerial incompetence is no bar to progress, because there are no share-holders to keep happy. unless someone dies nobody notices, because wages do not depend on results.
3. “people will pay for just about anything” - correct, but they have the choice to pay or not, unlike NI contributions. this is the point.
4, the LPUK will not succed at first, but it might in years to come. it might not. the straw man was that you invoked the poor electoral performance of small parties to sidestep the issue of forceable removal of wages to pay for a product (health insurance)
the NHS was set up with the best intentions, and my own experiences of NHS treatment have been good. staff at the sharp end are good in my experience. nevertheless NHS is founded on involuntary donations (or “theft” as some people call it) and is more expensive per month than a good private scheme.
finally, since you mention private schooling, in my part of the UK we have academic selection and our children are top in the UK by any academic standard. in comrehensive England, undisciplined classes sink to the lowest common denominator. literacy is at abysmal levels. a third of 1st year students (11 year old) can’t read or write. unfortunately our education minister has scrapped academic selection, because it’s “unfair” - forgetting that children are all different, and that brighter sparks should have the opportunity for more cerebral learning than those without the ability to benefit. it’s the same mindset as posessed by those teachers who scrap sportsday, because the wets and fatties who can’t run might get upset when they lose. no reward for excellence. no chance to achieve.
It isn’t a strawman: if the NHS was truly as terrible as you depict it then it would surely be a largely unpopular institution which most people wanted to get rid of. It is true that there are no shareholders but that is a fantastic thing: there is no one demanding that profit but made, & thus it’s sole function is treating the sick. This has lead to a health system no British party that ever wanted to get anywhere (& yes, I’m coming to the conclusion that LPUK is just a way of cheering up lonely bloggertarians) could propose scrapping. When there’s that degree of consensus amongst the parties and polling demonstrates that much of a majority of support for an institution I’m inclined to consider it functioning effectively. Additionally, the reason it is compulsory is to universalise treatment. The alternative is people going uncovered, which is totally unacceptable.
& let’s not get into the education debate. In summary my view is that if there was a proper comprehensive system it would work fine, but with faith schools and private schools in existence a truly comprehensive system is an impossibility. But I’d need a few more thousand words.
we agree a little - a proper comprehensive system could work very well, provided pupils are streamed on intellectual merit as their educational career develops. nevertheless, private schools should still be an option for those who can pay, based on the old “freedom of choice” thing, which socialists tend to despise. i personally don’t like the idea of religion being taught in schools, but i wouldn’t fel happy endorsing a system which imposes my personal views on anyone else - libertarian, see?
the point about people being uncovered by medical care is also valid, and is th main forseeable problem in a private system. however, since people charitably donate to PDSA (to treat sick animals!) they would no doubt charitably donate to organisations such as Cheshire homes etc (which still do OK) and would no doubt be more inclined to do so if they had more disposable income.
however, a private insurance scheme could cover future treatment when retired, or unemployed.
the main 3 problems with the NHS is that people don’t get sacked for bad performance (although they DO get struck off for exposing abuse!) and that peole have no choice but to pay, and that they are paying constantly when not sick, and paying for a lot of idiotic people (eg who are injured by alcohol abuse or through their own stupidity)
whether NHS is hated, tolerated or admired by the majority of parties doesn’t make it’s method of funding right or fair. it relies on wages being plundered without the say-so of the worker. i believe that what we earn should be ours.
LPUK may well cheer up lonely bloggers: possibly contibuting to S.E.S does as well. (ad-hominem attack = another logical fallacy) however lonely people probably find something else to cheer themselves up, with a “click to enter if you are over 18″ - i would imagine.
finally, the fact that most parties want to keep the NHS would possibly suggest that NI contributions exceed the NHS budget and represent an additional tax.
as an aside, i would guess - like most Socialists - you are well-read. i would respectfully recommend Neville Shute Norway’s book “sliderule”. the first half of this book is an insightful description of the competition (for that’s what it was) between the State and a private company in building two airships for the proposed trans-atlantic service which was forseen in the ’30s. Norway was a chief mathematician in the private company which built the R100; the State built the R101. the description of the mechanisms of the State, compared with the private company’s way of doing business explains why the R101 was a ship destined to fail; and why the State is fundamentally incapable of top quality work when compared to the private sector.
(NB the R100 made successful trans-atlantic trips, the R101 crashed in france on her maiden voyage, killing most of the crew and passengers.)
my own interest in Eastern-bloc motorcycles (i have owned 5 communist-built machines and still have one, much-loved) and the dozen or so japanese bikes i have owned at one time or another, have allowed me to experience the products of the capitalistic and socialistic philosophies in direct contrast. there is no comparison in performance, build quality, fuel economy or sales success, (except in captive markets) between the two, despite the engineering genius and passion put into the east german machines. Socialism condemned these fine makers and their machines to exist as living fossils while progress marched on elsewhere, and without their captive market they sadly ceased trading.
does a captive market hinder progress? yes. does this principle apply to the NHS? if most medical advances emanate from the private sector, the answer must also be “yes”
Hello Richard,
The tone seems to have been raised now, which I am happy with.
I’m not opposed to private schools existing, not even private faith school. I myself went to one of them. I do agree, however, with the argument that if they did not exist things would be a lot better, as there would be more push parents in the state system to improve things. That is not an open-shut case for banning them, however.
What I object to is state faith schools where (and you’ll like this bit) tax payer’s money is used to prop up Britain’s withering religions.
As for charities being an apt substitute for state care, I say not a chance. There’s two places where that was attempted I want to raise: America & British history. In neither did it prove adequate.
As for communist motorbikes, I cede to your superior knowledge. But I hardly see how Japan provides a bolster to your individualism. Japan’s corporatism is rampantly collectivist. Indeed, there are a myriad variety of collectivism, which is why focusing in upon a single disastrous example (the Soviet Union, an edifice I have no high view of) will never suffice in demonstrating the strength of libertarianism.
Finally, it wasn’t an ad hominem. I genuinely think that that is what LPUK is for. Seemingly the entire membership is bloggers. SES doesn’t assuage my loneliness because I’m now the only contributer due to the other two being massively busy and I very rarely get any comments. I’m working on a new project which should remedy this, though, so stay tuned.
there is someting in what you say re. charities as a stand-alone replacement for the NHS, so i will concede the point. combined with private insurance it might work, but whether an insurance company would pay out for treatment regardless of circumstances is another question. i am inclined to study the matter further, re. the NHS as comapred with welfare and medicare in the USA.
the NHS advantage is that anyone can turn up and be treated. where it falls down is the fact that anyone can turn up and be treated! workers’ money (NI) is wasted on treating imbeciles who drunkenly attack staff, or “health tourists” ie foreigners who don’t contibute to the system. so the noble ideal is abused. is the system flawed in consequence? i believe so. (plus, to repeat myself, the compulsory deduction from our wages is immoral - if you don’t get ill, why pay for someone else’s diseases? why can’t i forego NHS treatment, pay for private insurance, and pocket the difference?)
anyway - the products of Japan (and elsewhere) were subject to market forces and improved, those of the communistic countries didn’t. i don’t understand the intricacies of collectivism or corporatism, but Jap bikes improved incredibly over 30 years whereas Eastern Bloc machines didn’t, and have all but vanished. i would class the former Eastern Bloc as comprising countries with Socialistic, illiberal systems.
the LPUK has at least one non-blogging member - me. i agreed with the manifesto so i joined.
finally, thanks for the civil exchange of views. i will drop by in the future.
http://leg-iron.livejournal.com/178876.htm
- just for your info…
best regards
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090607/tuk-man-dies-after-ambulance-detour-6323e80.html
BBC news today - MRSA and C.Diff. infections down, but they only made up 15% of hospital infections. pneumonia and urinary infections are up. local news today - at least 6 people starved to death IN HOSPITAL, and some who died at home of malnutrition as well.
the NHS is not fit for purpose. with my own eyes i saw a staff nurse cough into her hand and then a second later pat an old lady on the hand with the same contaminated hand. what is going on?
last week i had to phone the emergency dentist as i developed a pinful abcess over the weekend. my NHS dentist kindly tells me that the next appointment is in August! two months of pain and possible blood-poisoning or infection of the jaw bone. a pox on the NHS - i could have afforded dental insurance if i wasn’t paying NI.
Well good for you, well done for having a job.
and the NHS delay? and the starved patients?
There are reasons I hate New Labour.
lord Darzi today welcomed the reduction in junior doctors’ hours to 48 as it would reduce the 44 to 98,000 (yes, THOUSAND!)deaths of hospital patients who die of “adverse” complications due to NHS crapness. need i say more?
Look you little glibertarian fuckwit, that is nothing next to the tens of millions uninsured in America & furthermore does nothing to respond to the point of my original post. That being that the New Labour cartel in charge of this country are not leftists. They’re Aristotelean fuckwit centrists who’d rather spit on a socialist than call them a comrade. This means that taking the fucked state of the NHS (regardless of whether or not that’s excitable anti-statist fantasy or isn’t) as an indication of how socialism is “Doomed, DOOOOMED I say!!” rather than “Oh look, right-wingers can wreck shit, indeed can damage severely even the noblest of institutions” makes you a partisan eejit.
If you can’t tell the difference between a real red & a machine careerist cunt out only to seize power & then cling onto it then that’s your loss. You certainly shouldn’t bother me with your moronic quotations of establishment tosspots, while under the impression that the fact a pack of neo-liberals are capable of fucking up a socialist institution is meant to amaze me & utterly undermine my ideology.
Now do me a favour & Fuck. Off.
if it makes you happy then i will fuck off. i can see that there is no point in debating. your abuse and temper rises in proportion to disclosure of inconvenient truths. if it makes you happy why not chase your Utopia? i don’t care what you believe, but i DO care that a self-confessed Socialist party has wrecked the country. no-one in charge of any Socialist country or regime has done anything except get rich and fuck the poor. id doesn’t work, never has and never will. if you can’t see it, that says all i need to know about you. all the evidence in the world has no effect on a closed mind. goodbye, and kindly take a flying fuck at yourself, since that’s the level of learned discourse which you seem to prefer.
i don’t care what you believe, but i DO care that a self-confessed Socialist party has wrecked the country
That’s a lie. Goodbye.
Fucking hell lads, it’s all getting a bit heated ain’t it?
The problem with comparing the NHS and BUPA is that you are comparing apples and oranges. The work which BUPA do is not comparable with the work that the NHS do.
The long ward stays, the chronic care, the emergency care in A&E is all done in NHS facilities; patients BUPA don’t want to treat get dumped on the NHS. A semi-Socialist NHS is better than private healthcare, but it could be a lot better. Pointing to BUPA as an example gets us all no where.