Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Norlamand, Dec 26, 2004.
Funny how the TORIES of all people want more gov't intervention in health care, when their official party policy is to privatise it! Hypocrisy flourishing in the Tory camp...
The Tories would argue that this sort of shortage would not have occured under a privatised health system. So, the government should have privatised or at least made the NHS more market-orientated. Hardly hypocritical.
I don't think even the Tories would argue that. A good, prosperous, wealthy hospital would no doubt have no shortage of medicines, whereas a poor hospital with poor performance would have a far greater shortage. Theres no way that a more market oriented Health Service would actually make a difference, since the problem is in the supply of the medicines, not the demand:
The Tories wouldn't say outright that a more market oriented health service would have prevented the shortage, because that would be a lie. But the implication, as you picked up on, is still there. I have to hand it to the Tories, they're cunning!
The problem is a lack of market forces. You really think there would be a shortage, or at least a continuing shortage, if hopsitals were in it for the money? As soon as there was a shortage people would take their money to a different hospital requiring the initial hospital to get supplies damn quickly. In the NHS it doesn't really matter since the hospital doesn't care if the patients leave. Sure the supplies will come eventually but at a much slower speed. That's the tory argument I believe.
A lie is a deliberate misintrepretion of the facts. If the Tories said that a more market orientated NHS would have prevented the shortage it would not be a lie. It would be an unprovable allegation, which is why the Tories only allude to rather than outright say it. In the end it comes down to a matter of faith. I say this because I object to your tone and, in particular, your language. Politics is becoming far too hateful. A person is no longer adjusted to be mistaken, they must have decieved. I find this very disconcerting and hope that by pointing it out everyone will see it for what it really is.
Apparently, the problem was at one of the two companies who supply the NHS. Liberalising the NHS isn't going to help as long as the drugs continue to be supplied by just two companies. Unless you can show that having the hospitals negotiate deals individually will yield more a efficient system.
Yup. It should also be noted that, if the primary motivation for hospitals was money, services would be provided on the basis of profit -- if it becomes "unprofitable" to supply a patient with this drug, they will not be supplied. In this case, I would certainly expect the drug shortage to continue. Perhaps the hospital might find it more profitable to raise the price of the drug, such that less people get it than under the NHS. These scenarios would not be seen as a shortage under a privatised system, even though it clearly is in terms of how many people get the drug. So under a private system, I would certainly expect the shortage to have arisen, or worse, the "shortage" would be considered the norm.
Assuming they have the money. Presumably, patients of cheaper hospitals use them because they can't afford any better... You also don't say where exactly the hospitals are supposed to get the drugs from.
They'll come just as quickly. They're depending on two manufacturers, possibly because they are the only companies capable of supplying the drug (perhaps because they own the patent or medicine equivalent, or the only production facilities). Would liberalisation of our health service make a difference in this case? And do you think a patient on this particular drug would be physically and mentally willing or able to "move hospital" in this way? It's not like shopping at a different supermarket you know.
And if you think that the NHS management and staff don't care about their patients, you obviously haven't met my parents. (my Dad is a Doctor, and my Mum determines whether people have cancer or not. Believe me, they don't do it for the money.)
Speaking of use of language... do you mean that you believe that presented here is the Tory arguement, or do you personally believe in the Tory arguement presented here?
If I said "The Tories are liars", would that be an unprovable allegation? Would it matter? And if the Tories are going to use emotive hyperbole such as "suffer needless pain", then I think I'm justified in my reaction.
Well stated Mise
This is where governemnt subsidies come into play, therefore making it profitable to treat all patients. Say, for example, every patient was given enough money to cover their treatment by the government but instead of the government giving it straight to the hospital the patient got to choose which hospital they wanted to be treated in. This would force hospitals to be more efficient to attract patients and to make money. Patients would be treated in better hospitals, quicker, and for the same price.
Look at the defence industry. Defence contracts are regularly overcost and overdue. Why? Because the government doesn't do anything about it because they don't have too. It's easier just to ignore it. However this would not occur in the private section. A company needs their supplies on time and on cost. If this shortage occured in a private health industry then that manufacturer would not be trusted again. Do you think the government will stop getting their supplies from the drug companies that caused this shortage?
They could employ a service that moves them automatically to the best-suited hospital.
Despite the fact that you can't judge a million+ strong organisation from the actions and beliefs of two people, I take your point. I did not mean to suggest the NHS does not care about their patients. Just that moving a massive government bureaucracy, such as the NHS, to meet patients needs is much harder than allowing market forces to do it. I apologise for the misconception.
I believe cancer determines whether people have cancer or not. Also, doctors are traditionally very well paid. That doesn't mean all doctors are, just that the majority are, or will be.
I do not personally believe in the Tory argument presented here. However since no one else is presenting it I felt it was necessary to do so. That does mean I completely agree with your opinion.
No. If you call someone a liar you are making a statement of fact based upon their actions. To lie you must deliberately say something was untrue. To call someone a lie you must be able to prove not only what they said was untrue (you can't in this case) and that they did it deliberately (again in thise case you can't). The situation is that you disagree with the conclusions the Tories have derided from the facts but for some reason you felt the need to call them liars. That is what I object too. Next time just say you disagree rather than resort to name-calling.
@Norlamand: What in gods name does this have to do with you? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
What two weeks of reducing useage and using alternatives, oh dear god no.
Moderator Action: copy, paste, and run type troll. author already restricted yesterday.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Separate names with a comma.