"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

[TheBigShort]

the wonder that is the free market with the law of Supply and Demand ensures that they keep producing what we need at a price we can afford

You are kidding me, aren't you? You think the 'free market' determines your grocery bill?
The agriculture industry in Europe is built on a highly centralized and subsidised quota system.
Farmers are guaranteed a fixed payment from their governments in return for a guarantee that they remain on the land producing. If they produce to much, the value of their product falls. But rather than let the 'free market' dictate supply and demand, the EU intervenes to ensure a minimum fixed income. The purpose of this is, ultimately, is to tackle any prospect of demand exceeding supply. When that happens, prices rise, people go hungry, people lose jobs, people revolt.
The so-called 'Arab Spring' is a useful example. The media liked to portray it as some people inspired movement for democracy. It wasn't. Food price hikes were leading to food shortages.

If a food goes out of fashion,

You mean if a particular brand goes out of fashion. Between bread, fruit, veg, meat and fish, which are in and which are out in 2017?

All this happens naturally and has done so since the dawn of the ages via bartering before even currencies existed.

No it doesn't.

 

[Firefly]

Because the British government has been a lot better at devaluing and demeaning the efforts of their own employees.

Care to back this up?

If you look at healthcare from sole perspective of value for money in an accounting sense, as opposed to economic sense, then it's easy to see why there are waiting lists that never clear, crisis in A&E etc.
It's because the money is spent in the wrong areas. But this is policy. Create crisis, make sure things don't work, then demotivated staff, defined and then privatise.
From Tatcher, New Labour and now Cameron and May. The NHS is under attack.

How would you compare the HSE to the NHS in overall terms? Better, the same or worse?

We haven't had to endure this level of privatisation yet.

I certainly agree with you there! But where we have I think the outcomes are better. Look at the number of options available to people when it comes to airline travel, healthcare, energy and telecoms to name a few.

 

[Purple]

Because the British government has been a lot better at devaluing and demeaning the efforts of their own employees. Hence, The greater levels of privatisation.

And yet our nurses are moving there to work, despite similar levels of pay, because their on the job training and rotas are better. They also have better career advancement for doctors (less of a closed shop). Their doctors do earn far less though and they cannot work in the public and private sector at the same time.

If you look at healthcare from sole perspective of value for money in an accounting sense, as opposed to economic sense, then it's easy to see why there are waiting lists that never clear, crisis in A&E etc.
It's because the money is spent in the wrong areas. But this is policy. Create crisis, make sure things don't work, then demotivated staff, defined and then privatise.
From Tatcher, New Labour and now Cameron and May. The NHS is under attack.
We haven't had to endure this level of privatisation yet.

Do you really think there is a multi-party inter-generational Machiavellian plot in the UK to privatise their NHS?
Is the more obvious and credible reason a reaction to the failings of the existing system? It's worth noting that their health system is better than ours and is delivered at a much lower cost.
I want a good healthcare system which offers value for money, i.e. reasonable outcomes at a price we can afford. I don't care how it is delivered but I am of the opinion that where there is little accountability, no sanctions for incompetence and no desire to punish criminal activity by staff (theft is rife in hospitals) I don't see how we can get the outcomes we need. People die unnecessarily because of the waste in our healthcare system. I don't think that's good enough.
I don't see any real evidence that Liam Doran and the INMO, the IMO, the Medical Consultants and the other vested interest groups in our healthcare system have any real interest in improving things, but rather use the sick and vulnerable to further their own goals. Otherwise every discussion wouldn't be linked to their own pay. Maybe that's the problem rather than a grand capitalist plot?

 

[Firefly]

I don't see any real evidence that Liam Doran and the INMO, the IMO, the Medical Consultants and the other vested interest groups in our healthcare system have any real interest in improving things, but rather use the sick and vulnerable to further their own goals. Otherwise every discussion wouldn't be linked to their own pay.

Isn't that the truth!

 

[TheBigShort]

Do you really think there is a multi-party inter-generational Machiavellian plot in the UK to privatise their NHS?

No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.

Is the more obvious and credible reason a reaction to the failings of the existing system? It's worth noting that their health system is better than ours and is delivered at a much lower cost.

Yes it is, and it is still under pressure to defend and ultimately privatise. Why? Why not increasing funding to enhance a good health system?

I want a good healthcare system which offers value for money, i.e. reasonable outcomes at a price we can afford. I don't care how it is delivered

I do care. Healthcare provided on the basis of one's ability to pay (through the health insurance circus) is not how I care for it to be delivered.

People die unnecessarily because of the waste in our healthcare system. I don't think that's good enough.

No it is not. And if we continue on the road as we are we will end up with a US style system, where greater numbers of people will die.

I don't see any real evidence that Liam Doran and the INMO, the IMO, ....and the other vested interest groups in our healthcare system have any real interest in improving things

I do, and I think that while they have there members interests to the fore (that is their job after all), those interests are complementary to providing good health care.

Maybe that's the problem rather than a grand capitalist plot?

Nah, it's a capitalist plot.

 

[TheBigShort]

Care to back this up?

I've edited my comment to reflect more accurately my view.

How would you compare the HSE to the NHS in overall terms? Better, the same or worse?

For the brief experience I have had with either, HSE. In fairness, I have had very limited experience with NHS.

Look at the number of options available to people when it comes to airline travel, healthcare, energy and telecoms to name a few.

Airlines, granted. The other three - just a circus, adding to the cost of providing utilities required to live in a modern world, in order to generate a profit for shareholders.
So much waste and inefficiency. But who cares, it's the private sector, so it's kool!!

 

[Firefly]

No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.

I'm quoting this for posterity!!!

 

[TheBigShort]

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hospitals-running-out-of-cancer-drugs-35728109.html

More private sector inefficiency.

 

[TheBigShort]

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/20...reland-ceo-to-bring-international-experience/

€950,000 a year salary. These people must be highly talented. Where would BoI share price be without them...oh, wait!

 

[Purple]

No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.

Who is doing the plotting? Who are these people?

Yes it is, and it is still under pressure to defend and ultimately privatise. Why? Why not increasing funding to enhance a good health system?

Is it? I haven't seen any evidence of that pressure.

I do care. Healthcare provided on the basis of one's ability to pay (through the health insurance circus) is not how I care for it to be delivered.

That's how it is consumed, not how it is delivered. Belgium has the best healthcare system in the EU. It is 80% privately delivered but free at the point of consumption.

No it is not. And if we continue on the road as we are we will end up with a US style system, where greater numbers of people will die.

Do more people die in the USA? Remember that they spend far more than we do per head of population on socialised medicine.

No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.

Who is doing the plotting? Who are these people?

Yes it is, and it is still under pressure to defend and ultimately privatise. Why? Why not increasing funding to enhance a good health system?

Is it? I haven't seen any evidence of that pressure.

I do care. Healthcare provided on the basis of one's ability to pay (through the health insurance circus) is not how I care for it to be delivered.

That's how it is consumed, not how it is delivered. Belgium has the best healthcare system in the EU. It is 80% privately delivered but free at the point of consumption.

I do, and I think that while they have there members interests to the fore (that is their job after all), those interests are complementary to providing good health care.

In what way are their interests complementary with providing good healthcare? The job of vested interest groups is to look after the interests of their members. That's it. They have no mandate to look at any bigger picture. Spending money on pay rises instead of equipment is in their interest. Removing duplication of services which reduces headcounts and frees up more money for equipment and better services is not in their interest.

No, just a right-wing capitalist plot to profit out of human suffering.

Who is doing the plotting? Who are these people?

Yes it is, and it is still under pressure to defend and ultimately privatise. Why? Why not increasing funding to enhance a good health system?

Is it? I haven't seen any evidence of that pressure.

I do care. Healthcare provided on the basis of one's ability to pay (through the health insurance circus) is not how I care for it to be delivered.

That's how it is consumed, not how it is delivered. Belgium has the best healthcare system in the EU. It is 80% privately delivered but free at the point of consumption.

Nah, it's a capitalist plot.

Again, who are these capitalists? What is their aim? Since the vast majority of funding comes from the State how do they get our politicians to channel money into their pockets? How will they make money if they are providing bad services when people have the option of going elsewhere?

 

[Purple]

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hospitals-running-out-of-cancer-drugs-35728109.html

More private sector inefficiency.

So it is the private sectors fault that the HSE only has one supplier for a product which can be supplied by other producers? They were told about this 2 years ago.

 

[Purple]

You are kidding me, aren't you? You think the 'free market' determines your grocery bill?
The agriculture industry in Europe is built on a highly centralized and subsidised quota system.
Farmers are guaranteed a fixed payment from their governments in return for a guarantee that they remain on the land producing. If they produce to much, the value of their product falls. But rather than let the 'free market' dictate supply and demand, the EU intervenes to ensure a minimum fixed income. The purpose of this is, ultimately, is to tackle any prospect of demand exceeding supply. When that happens, prices rise, people go hungry, people lose jobs, people revolt.

Free trade would see prices drop as producers in poor countries got access to our markets. Instead we flood their markets with our subsidised produce and keep them impoverished.

 

[Firefly]

You are kidding me, aren't you? You think the 'free market' determines your grocery bill?
The agriculture industry in Europe is built on a highly centralized and subsidised quota system.
Farmers are guaranteed a fixed payment from their governments in return for a guarantee that they remain on the land producing. If they produce to much, the value of their product falls. But rather than let the 'free market' dictate supply and demand, the EU intervenes to ensure a minimum fixed income. The purpose of this is, ultimately, is to tackle any prospect of demand exceeding supply.

I should have clarified. You are of course right, the agricultural market is far from free and is highly rigged. What I meant was that within this rigged market, farmers can produce what they like with a price floor for certain produce. That's why we have such a wonderful array of products at so many price points.

Since you seem to be so against a market economy, can I ask you again, do you have another method to calculate what a farmer should be paid??

 

[Firefly]

You mean if a particular brand goes out of fashion. Between bread, fruit, veg, meat and fish, which are in and which are out in 2017?

That's not what I meant and you know it. I mentioned Quinoa and could easily add Pomegranate seeds to that. Taking bread as an example, do yourself a favour and pop in to SuperValu and look at the selection of breads available. Now ask yourself what the selection would look like in a social utopia where no-one would have any incentive to do anything! For real world examples, try Googling North Korea and start reading up on what Hugo Chavez did to one of the worlds largest oil producers. Ditto for which way people moved when the Berlin wall came down and ditto when the USSR opened up and you had all these states clamboring for independence. I thank my lucky stars that I live in a relatively open market society and I joy at the selections available.

I also thank my lucky stars that the oforementioned socialist and communist experiments have already happened and that anyone with half a brain knows that the further we are away from this the better.

PS, you can add Pol Pot to that list and of course Stalin.

 

[Firefly]

More private sector inefficiency.

You know, I think this post sums up your core belief system:

Public Sector Good

Private Sector Bad

 

[Firefly]

For the brief experience I have had with either, HSE. In fairness, I have had very limited experience with NHS.

Well I would argue that if you asked 100 punters on the street if they would like to have the standard of healthcare in the NHS instead of the HSC they would bite your arm off!!

 

[Deiseblue]

How come the public/private wages differential is a lot closer in the UK?

According to the the Public Service Pay Commission report which has concluded that the public-private earnings differential are relatively on a par.
Such a report is hugely influential as it will basically form a template for the Government/Union negotiations on a successor to the Lansdowne Road Agreement which will undoubtedly hasten pay restoration.

 

[TheBigShort]

pop in to SuperValu and look at the selection of breads available.

Yes, plenty of different brands available.

For real world examples, try Googling North Korea and start reading up on what Hugo Chavez did to one of the worlds largest oil producers.

Why? NK is a country technically still at war with SK and with US imposed economic sanctions. It is ruled by a dictator and there are no democratic elections. NK is about as much socialist as the US is. But at least they both have one thing in common, they use their vast resources to build WMD.
Although in fairness to Chavez, he was the democratically elected leader and did try to do a lot for the poor. Those pesky US economic sanctions, CIA attempts to overthrow didn't do him any favours.

the USSR opened up and you had all these states clamboring for independence

Oh no! We are back in the USSR again! Why?

you can add Pol Pot to that list and of course Stalin.

Dictators. It's fine to label yourself socialist, as a means to achieving power,but if you rule by dictatorship then you are no socialist.
This of course would never happen in our free and open market system. We have democratic values and our capitalist leaders would never engage with brutally dictators in Lybia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, would they?
I mean, can you imagine if a democratic capitalist society would ever engage in arms sales for the slaughter of innocent people in foreign countries.

You know, I think this post sums up your core belief system:

Public Sector Good

Private Sector Bad

I've already explained my core belief system to you. I believe we should capitalise on the resources of the earth in an ethically and environmentally sustainable way.
Would you take issue with that core belief?

Well I would argue that if you asked 100 punters on the street if they would like to have the standard of healthcare in the NHS instead of the HSC they would bite your arm off!!

I'm not sure. It's the delivery of the service that I think is the issue. Once you are in the system it is generally excellent from my experience.

 

[TheBigShort]

So it is the private sectors fault that the HSE only has one supplier for a product which can be supplied by other producers? They were told about this 2 years ago.

Not at all. It is the inefficiency of the private firm to deliver on the product they are contracted to deliver.
The point being, the lauding of the private sector free market efficiency is totally exaggerated. I can think of dozens of examples where there is wastage, inefficiency etc. This all adds to the price I pay as a consumer.
No doubt there are inefficiencies in the public sector but I would hazard a guess that in this case the contract to supply the drugs demanded exclusivity on the part of the supplier. So instead of saying "sorry", how about working with a competitor to temporarily supply the necessary drugs?
Or would that eat into profit margins?

 

[Firefly]

According to the the Public Service Pay Commission report which has concluded that the public-private earnings differential are relatively on a par.
Such a report is hugely influential as it will basically form a template for the Government/Union negotiations on a successor to the Lansdowne Road Agreement which will undoubtedly hasten pay restoration.

Firstly I would like to see this backed up. And secondly, am I reading this correct - are you saying that because the gap between earnings in the private and public sectors has narrowed you think it should be widened again? @BigShort, as you have liked Deise's post, can you confirm you would be happy to promote this policy of inequality?

I also note you use the term "pay restoration". That's funny, as when wages were reduced they were roundly referred to as "cuts" but now that there is a move to increase them they are called pay restorations. Of course the flipside of this could equally be argued, that when pay was reduced that was pay restoration back to pre Celtic Tiger madness and the moves to increase pay now are pay rises..