Ghostrider Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 The NHS pre-privatisation in the UK has been independently assessed as the best in the world so why waste money with unnecessary bureaucracy of market testing through privatisation of services? http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10907823/Britains-NHS-is-the-worlds-best-health-care-system-says-report.html The evidence of marketisation of health care adding value to the quality of service in the UK or elsewhere is unproven. God help the worst then, if the non-service we get up here constitutes a fair representation of the "best in the world". Though how they could make such a claim about the NHS and then make a statement such as this is a mystery to me. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th. It would be very interesting to know on just what criteria the overall judgement was made, given that's its awfully easy to reach whatever pre-decided conclusion you want to, simply by asking the "wrong questions". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Knows Posted September 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 Actually reading the report might help! The UK was ranked 1st in 8 out of the 11 evaluation categories, 2nd in 1 category and 3rd in 1 category. It only performed poorly in the 1 category. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign= Being the best does not necessary mean its perfect but is a better place to be than the market driven 11th place the USA sits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 ^ Like I said, God help the "worst" if ours in the "best". Okay, the report, which I hadn't noticed was a live link when reading the article, elaborates a bit on criteria, but for me at least only serves to muddy the waters further rather than explain. For example, stating that the NHS is No. 1 for Effective Care/Safe Care/Coordinated Care/Patient Centred Care, then turning around and saying they're 10th from 11 for "Healthy lives" on account of "deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare", at best is saying "we did brilliantly where we got to folk early enough and diagnosed/treated them right, but we missed a hell of a lot of people, and also misdiagnosed/mistreated one hell of a pile of folks too", which doesn't exactly portray an overall pretty picture. Its a kinda "when we're good we're brilliant, but when we're bad, which is as much of the time as we're good, we're pretty hellish actually" vista. The fact also that for some reason the NHS has the second lowest per capita spend, yet allegedly has the top service delivery, is one I'm having trouble resolving also. I'm not saying any other country's health care system is perfect either, the U.S. one what little I know of it is riddled with many flaws as well, but I do think that introducing a greater element of the free market and private enterprise in to the NHS, in a regulated environment, would go some way towards reducing the obvious shortcomings I'm seeing in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 I'm just wondering if Mr Sinisters business boycott has impacted on Shetlands supply lines yet. Has anyone run out of anything yet?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 I'm just wondering if Mr Sinisters business boycott has impacted on Shetlands supply lines yet. Has anyone run out of anything yet?.I went down to my local shop this morning looking for a bitter, spiteful nationalist, but there were none there and they weren't sure if any more would be available from Glasgow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hector the stag worrier Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Good morning to you all and I wouldn't lose any sleep over "Mr sinister's buisness boycott " as for the last 7 months he has been threatening to turn my island in the Hebrides into a toxic waste dump and last time I looked he had failed. I would take his spiteful nationalist persona with a pinch of salt as on one of the blogs I haunt he was going to vote No. He is just a troll with previous for saying anything to get attention and as several other sites have found out best not to feed him or he keeps coming back for more. He has so many disguises it is funny when he forgets who he is supposed to be and answers questions before he has asked them. I was directed to this blog by a friend because he had spotted the old troll and have enjoyed reading it. All the best and DON'T FEED THE TROLL. lilackirsty and Aaron Foord 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distortio Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 why would you rather side with those who you say have already sold out to corporate interests than those who as yet haven't? particularly with the grassroots groundswell who took an interest for the first time the pressure on the scottish government to resist corporate interests would be much greater. and remember scotland's nhs hasn't been sold off because we have some powers to prevent it. not enough to save it indefinitely as the westminster budget cuts will keep coming, but apply that situation to all public services and that should serve as an indication of the bigger picture for the next few years. your stance is very much one of resigned defeatism over hope. which would make for a poor election slogan... Because the painful part is already over. We know what they're like, know what can be expected from them, and treat them accordingly. Scotland would inevitably have to go through the painful process all over again, and if a Scottish Government resisted and fought the process, it would just make it all the more lengthy and painful, probably resulting in irreparable damage. You either work "with" financial institutions and business to have a thriving and bouyant economy, or you have a bankrupt country. just what painful part do you think is over? the austerity we're facing because osborne & co's city friends crashed the economy trying to bulk up their balance sheets is just beginning, and despite the raft of cuts and sell-offs the deficit is still rising. £25bn more in cuts in the pipeline, scotland's budget being slashed by £4bn... so a ghostrider view would be: we know what they're like: "a bunch of scraggy despotic liars" we know what can be expected from them: "sell out their principles to the city/corporate institutions" and treat them accordingly: "vote for them and voice support for them continuing to run our affairs" thinking we could have summarised this entire discussion by just posting this... http://youtu.be/8EI7p2p1QJI?t=49s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 why would you rather side with those who you say have already sold out to corporate interests than those who as yet haven't? particularly with the grassroots groundswell who took an interest for the first time the pressure on the scottish government to resist corporate interests would be much greater. and remember scotland's nhs hasn't been sold off because we have some powers to prevent it. not enough to save it indefinitely as the westminster budget cuts will keep coming, but apply that situation to all public services and that should serve as an indication of the bigger picture for the next few years. your stance is very much one of resigned defeatism over hope. which would make for a poor election slogan... Because the painful part is already over. We know what they're like, know what can be expected from them, and treat them accordingly. Scotland would inevitably have to go through the painful process all over again, and if a Scottish Government resisted and fought the process, it would just make it all the more lengthy and painful, probably resulting in irreparable damage. You either work "with" financial institutions and business to have a thriving and bouyant economy, or you have a bankrupt country. just what painful part do you think is over? the austerity we're facing because osborne & co's city friends crashed the economy trying to bulk up their balance sheets is just beginning, and despite the raft of cuts and sell-offs the deficit is still rising. £25bn more in cuts in the pipeline, scotland's budget being slashed by £4bn... At Westminster Government/Business have an established and very long standing "relationship" - ie. generally speaking both sides know what crap the other may try to pull, and both sides know what the other side probably will let them get away with, and what they won't. In an independent Scotland no such "relationship" would exist, and you can bet that "business" would have been looking to get a better deal for themselves than elsewhere when all the horse trading started over such things. They have quite a few "good" cards to play too, not least the "we'll only establish a Scottish base if Scottish tax rates are more favourable than the English ones". That's the "painful bit" I was talking about - the relationship building, the having to tolerate giving tax breaks to get those relationships established, etc. so a ghostrider view would be: we know what they're like: "a bunch of scraggy despotic liars" we know what can be expected from them: "sell out their principles to the city/corporate institutions" and treat them accordingly: "vote for them and voice support for them continuing to run our affairs" thinking we could have summarised this entire discussion by just posting this... http://youtu.be/8EI7p2p1QJI?t=49s No quite. I'll buy the bit in bold, but not the rest. Never said I'd vote for "them" or support "them". To me at least, there's a big difference between supporting, and believing something to be the lesser evil. What we have is a cumbersome ineffective pile of crap run by idiots, what was on offer with an independent Scotland in my opinion was even more cumbersome and ineffective pile of crap, and the potential players lining up to run it were even bigger idiots. When you're already up the creek without a paddle, you don't kick your heel through the hull as well, just because you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 I'm just wondering if Mr Sinisters business boycott has impacted on Shetlands supply lines yet. Has anyone run out of anything yet?. I did hear a pallet of longstands and skyhooks booked on last night's boat were a no show, so that's probably him. I don't think we'll be in any way deprived through, local production seems more than adequate to meet the demand of such valuable and vital products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distortio Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 why would you rather side with those who you say have already sold out to corporate interests than those who as yet haven't? particularly with the grassroots groundswell who took an interest for the first time the pressure on the scottish government to resist corporate interests would be much greater. and remember scotland's nhs hasn't been sold off because we have some powers to prevent it. not enough to save it indefinitely as the westminster budget cuts will keep coming, but apply that situation to all public services and that should serve as an indication of the bigger picture for the next few years. your stance is very much one of resigned defeatism over hope. which would make for a poor election slogan... Because the painful part is already over. We know what they're like, know what can be expected from them, and treat them accordingly. Scotland would inevitably have to go through the painful process all over again, and if a Scottish Government resisted and fought the process, it would just make it all the more lengthy and painful, probably resulting in irreparable damage. You either work "with" financial institutions and business to have a thriving and bouyant economy, or you have a bankrupt country. just what painful part do you think is over? the austerity we're facing because osborne & co's city friends crashed the economy trying to bulk up their balance sheets is just beginning, and despite the raft of cuts and sell-offs the deficit is still rising. £25bn more in cuts in the pipeline, scotland's budget being slashed by £4bn... At Westminster Government/Business have an established and very long standing "relationship" - ie. generally speaking both sides know what crap the other may try to pull, and both sides know what the other side probably will let them get away with, and what they won't. In an independent Scotland no such "relationship" would exist, and you can bet that "business" would have been looking to get a better deal for themselves than elsewhere when all the horse trading started over such things. They have quite a few "good" cards to play too, not least the "we'll only establish a Scottish base if Scottish tax rates are more favourable than the English ones". That's the "painful bit" I was talking about - the relationship building, the having to tolerate giving tax breaks to get those relationships established, etc. wm functions like a revolving door of backroom deals with corporate lobbyists, funding the party coffers, corporation-friendly legislation and future directorships. that should be an affront to anyone's idea of democracy. perhaps it's the resigned passive acceptance of that which has turned so many of the electorate away from politics? until now. see how engaged people got when there was the prospect of breaking away from that system? ultimately, in a democracy, corporations shouldn't be running the country. elected government should. just because wm is mired in sharn doesn't mean we should expect that from holyrood. when corporations have power over governments (which may soon be enshrined in law: see TTIP...) you have a rather bleak and scary situation with rather too much in common with your average dystopic sci-fi movie. No quite. I'll buy the bit in bold, but not the rest. Never said I'd vote for "them" or support "them". well, you did say you were likely to be a tory/ukip voter... and you did vote and have been quite vocal about supporting 'no'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 I'm just wondering if Mr Sinisters business boycott has impacted on Shetlands supply lines yet. Has anyone run out of anything yet?. http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/09/23/firearms-incident-in-lerwick hector the stag worrier and Suffererof1crankymofo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 I'm just wondering if Mr Sinisters business boycott has impacted on Shetlands supply lines yet. Has anyone run out of anything yet?. http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/09/23/firearms-incident-in-lerwick Probably threatening to shoot anyone who voted 'No'....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 ^ Personally the four guys in black wandering around toting guns worry me much more than a lone shooter after the 'No' voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Good morning to you all and I wouldn't lose any sleep over "Mr sinister's buisness boycott " as for the last 7 months he has been threatening to turn my island in the Hebrides into a toxic waste dump and last time I looked he had failed. I would take his spiteful nationalist persona with a pinch of salt as on one of the blogs I haunt he was going to vote No. He is just a troll with previous for saying anything to get attention and as several other sites have found out best not to feed him or he keeps coming back for more. He has so many disguises it is funny when he forgets who he is supposed to be and answers questions before he has asked them. I was directed to this blog by a friend because he had spotted the old troll and have enjoyed reading it. All the best and DON'T FEED THE TROLL. Welcome, Hector. But we need entertainment during the long winter nights! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgonzola Butt-cheese Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 http://www.shetnews.co.uk/newsbites/9382-island-powers-meeting-soon "Shetland Islands Council leader Gary Robinson was unavailable for comment" Thank Christ for that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.