I do like James O'Brien when he's on form, but he falls into lazy stereotypes and generalisation far too often. He hates Corbyn largely as he doesn't oppose Brexit so O'Brien dislikes him.
Current Affairs Labour and Anti Semitism.......
- Thread starter peteblue
- Start date
- Status
I think that's something that needs to be understood.
A lot of people are annoyed at Labour's stance on Brexit, but that's best dealt with talking about that particular issue - as opposed to just [Poor language removed] slinging.
Slightly off topic, however I find this proposal rather baffling if I'm honest, as while I'm not expert on the matter I do feel it's a thinly veiled attack on a specific class.
Firstly, I find overly taxing people on healthcare quite worrying when you consider that private health care should theoretically lessen any burden on the NHS.
Secondly, I'm sure there's other forms of taxation that could help increase funding without penalising peoples' desire for a high standard of medical care.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it wreaks of wanting to punish (sorry tax) the groups who can usually afford such healthcare - middle and upper classes or large businesses.
With regards to Corbyn, I do personally feel that he has anti-Semitic tendencies, which are ultimately based on his own political preconceptions of people.
I believe that it is purely because perhaps people often perceived Jews as being aligned with conservative views and voting, and as such the opposite of his views.
There are those in the Labour party who are Jewish who he sees as friends, however they've proven that their ideologies match and as such not an issue.
Alternatively, there are those in the Labour Party for whom he and others are wary etc. because they haven't proven such allegiances to the socialist cause.
Now some may disagree with me on the above, that's your prerogative, however all the above was personally acknowledged by a prominent member of the party.
Last edited:
Those who can afford to pay, should.
But on healthcare? I have no issue on taxation on other areas which may focus on the more able, however for me it's a morally questionable act.
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
You will very quickly realise that blunt/high tax rises dont work. In theory, they look like they do, but in the real world, they dont.
Edit: Not a fantastic response, I'm in work right now staring at a abyss of Redis thread errors that need to be sorted out before tomorrow morning.
My reward for fixing that will be to respond to this, so bare with me.
Last edited:
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
So basically, you object to how people choose to spend their own money.
Are you referring to an individual's right to private health care (BUPA etc.) or the growing private health industry who are winning contracts for NHS services?
The latter I have serious issues with, however private medical insurance has been around for decades and I would argue how it can make such a huge impact.
The market itself is worth only a fraction of the £30bn it aims to recoup, so I would have serious questions regarding how long it will take to get such a figure.
I'm not saying it doesn't have any negative aspects and clearly is a facility open to the wealthier of society, but increasing taxation to me is morally questionable.
Taxing companies like Virign who are taking over NHS contracts to the detriment of the NHS? Go ahead!
Nah, one of the biologists attempted to bypass the API I set up and transform a document through the backend, and now we have a huge hash conflict going on that has rendered the entire document store completely useless. I'm having to rebuild the hashmap, but also ensure that internal users can't bypass the API anymore - which requires quite a lot of rewriting as I tried to avoid any sort of user-facing authentication.
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
The actual Labour pledge was to raise the £30BN via increased income tax on the top 5% of earners, they chucked in increased taxation on private healthcare as well, but it’d raise relative peanuts tbh.
So they pay taxes that go on the NHS, but don't use the NHS, yet you still think they should pay even more on the healthcare they pay for privately? As @Foot Long Hot Dog says, this would raise so little money, that it really does smack of class warfare.
I’m going to take the ideology out of this for a moment.
For the past couple of decades, both Conservative and Labour governments have worked toward reforming the NHS on an agenda of consumer choice, and greater market competition. Margaret Thatcher started this process in 1989 with her “internal market” reforms, which were then built upon under New Labour – metastasising to form the Health and Social Care Act of 2012. The overarching belief is that opening the NHS up to external providers will allow the state to benefit from a stimulation in market competition to lower running costs, increase responsiveness to individual patient care.
However we have seen a number of NHS trusts declare that they’re unable to provide services to the standards set by central government, citing an upsurge in demand and a lack of resources.
Something obviously isn’t right.
Anyone that has even a remote interest in the health economics should know who Kenneth Arrow is. He has cited that the provision of healthcare suffers from an inherent issue of market failure. To break this down a bit, the healthcare market is implicitly uncertain, whether it be the prediction of service demand or the efficacy of treatment – both of which have been cited as being major precursors of market failure. I’m trying to find it, but there was a paper published earlier this year with detailed how price competition has led to a worsening of patient care – illustrating how serious this market failure problem is.
Moreover, the increased involvement of the private sector has amalgamated to create a bureaucracy so big that billions of pounds are being drawn from the frontline patient care. This is why I always tend to cringe whenever I see a politician state that they’ll save the NHS by conducting “efficiency savings”, which usually involves furthering private sector involvement in the service – increasing the levels of bureaucracy required to keep the private-public relationship going.
Another thing to understand is that private firms are ultimately interested in maximising profits. Strategies that increase profitability usually revolve around reducing staff levels, thus the quality of care. Furthermore, even policies of reduced private sector involvement in the NHS (akin to what end Ed Miliband’s Labour Party was offering in 2015) did nothing to stop any cherry picking of profitable services, and would have left the state to manage only unprofitable services (ergo, the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS trust).
I’m rambling on a bit here, but the main premise of my argument is that market failure is inherent in the provision of healthcare, and there is a large enough corpus of real-world evidence that points toward private involvement in the NHS resulting in a lesser quality of health service.
For the past couple of decades, both Conservative and Labour governments have worked toward reforming the NHS on an agenda of consumer choice, and greater market competition. Margaret Thatcher started this process in 1989 with her “internal market” reforms, which were then built upon under New Labour – metastasising to form the Health and Social Care Act of 2012. The overarching belief is that opening the NHS up to external providers will allow the state to benefit from a stimulation in market competition to lower running costs, increase responsiveness to individual patient care.
However we have seen a number of NHS trusts declare that they’re unable to provide services to the standards set by central government, citing an upsurge in demand and a lack of resources.
Something obviously isn’t right.
Anyone that has even a remote interest in the health economics should know who Kenneth Arrow is. He has cited that the provision of healthcare suffers from an inherent issue of market failure. To break this down a bit, the healthcare market is implicitly uncertain, whether it be the prediction of service demand or the efficacy of treatment – both of which have been cited as being major precursors of market failure. I’m trying to find it, but there was a paper published earlier this year with detailed how price competition has led to a worsening of patient care – illustrating how serious this market failure problem is.
Moreover, the increased involvement of the private sector has amalgamated to create a bureaucracy so big that billions of pounds are being drawn from the frontline patient care. This is why I always tend to cringe whenever I see a politician state that they’ll save the NHS by conducting “efficiency savings”, which usually involves furthering private sector involvement in the service – increasing the levels of bureaucracy required to keep the private-public relationship going.
Another thing to understand is that private firms are ultimately interested in maximising profits. Strategies that increase profitability usually revolve around reducing staff levels, thus the quality of care. Furthermore, even policies of reduced private sector involvement in the NHS (akin to what end Ed Miliband’s Labour Party was offering in 2015) did nothing to stop any cherry picking of profitable services, and would have left the state to manage only unprofitable services (ergo, the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS trust).
I’m rambling on a bit here, but the main premise of my argument is that market failure is inherent in the provision of healthcare, and there is a large enough corpus of real-world evidence that points toward private involvement in the NHS resulting in a lesser quality of health service.
Can we get real about this here? Labour's proposal is hardly some sort of ideological attack everyone that dares to work.
Those that earn over £80,000 will see a nominal 5% increase on the tax that they pay. Those who earn in excess of £123,000 a year will see a nominal 10% increase on the tax that they pay.
That money will be taken, and redistributed in a manner that'll ensure a decent standard of living for millions of poverty struck children.
Is that really class warfare?
- Status