[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4377926.stm

[pyro-manic]

Bastards....

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Nice one, better than Labour anyhow. Anyone remember their talk of making dental care part of the NHS?

I think some of the greedier optometrists might hike the price of glasses a bit to make up for the loss in cash from eye tests though.
[/color]

[Flipside]

Well, the money for eye tests was only introduced a couple of decades ago by the government, before that all eye-tests were free.

This is sort of starting to undo all the damage to the NHS that Maggie did, I only hope the rest of the UK catch up on common sense and follow suit, though I doubt it, particuarly in London, where it's becoming quite apparent that profit is far far more important than quality.

[Grey Wolf]

You initially had free eye tests? How did that make sense in a capitalist economy? Services are (normally) initially introduced through the private sector, and only then move into the public sectore.

[vyper]

We have a National Health Service - you know, the kind of health system you have in a country where people give a **** about each other living through the various diseases that don't care about class.

[Kazan]

whoa vyper tone down the hostility.. he just has never been exposed to a effectively functioning NHS before

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
You initially had free eye tests? How did that make sense in a capitalist economy? Services are (normally) initially introduced through the private sector, and only then move into the public sectore.

The NHS was introduced in 1946-48, replacing existing disorganized services (the system was a shambolic disorganized mess where people were left relying on charity hospitals, insurance or doctors who gave their services free; the NHS took it under a national system, paid by taxation and a small surcharge on prescriptions).

One newspaper described it as 'part of the Socialist plot to convert Great Britain into a National Socialist economy' when it was introduced, comparing the government to (in 1946, remember...) Hitler.

[Flipside]

Thing is, all the NHS is, is private healthcare that is paid out of your wages via your NI contribution each month. The only real difference is how the money moves, it goes to the government, and then the Doc or Dentist applies for money back once they have completed treatment. Considering that NI contributions are usually more than most private health companies demand, we should have the best health system in the world, but then, if everybodies car-tax was actually spent on the roads, we would also have the finest transport system in the world, instead, the money was 'redeployed' to other things, like buffering up a failing privatised rail system etc.

Edit : Just worked out that I've paid over 2500 quid in NI in the last two years....

[aldo_14]

Yeah, but the point is that - despite horrible mismanagement - they treat everyone.  After a waiting list of months to get on the waiting list, granted, and having to go to a 'regional centre' about 2 hours from where you live...er.... anyways, the point is that treatment is not restricted by wealth.

Which I know you know, but it's still an important distinction.

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by Flipside
Well, the money for eye tests was only introduced a couple of decades ago by the government, before that all eye-tests were free.

This is sort of starting to undo all the damage to the NHS that Maggie did, I only hope the rest of the UK catch up on common sense and follow suit, though I doubt it, particuarly in London, where it's becoming quite apparent that profit is far far more important than quality.

Bollocks, privatising the opthalmic service was arguably the best result of privatisation in the NHS. Instead of having to wait weeks for an eye test and a prescribed set of specs, you can now do the same thing in a couple of hours. At least you admit that the 'free' tests were all funded by your tax income.

Privatisation may not work in all cases - yes, rail was a disaster - but the PFI model that Labour's so intent on spreading its rotting influence is far worse. Signing up the cheapest, least able companies to run public services and then bailing them out with tax money when they fail is the worst of both worlds.

[Flipside]

I just get somewhat annoyed that the NHS is often portrayed, even by our own government as 'A poor man's Private Medical Care', or 'Medics for the Masses', or even '2nd class treatment', when there is absolutely no reason for it to be so, I pay three times as much NI per month as my Dad pays for his medical care, and even including the fact that said money also has to pay for the treatment of unemployed etc, I simply cannot accept that Private medical care can afford the latest equipment etc, whereas NHS hospitals have to make do with 15 year old fittings or low quality modern equipment.

Edit : And Sid, wth are you talking about? I got eye appointments free within a week when I was a child, and the glasses are made faster due to advances in technology, nothing to do with funding.

[Descenterace]

The problem with expecting a government to run any kind of service whatsoever is that they have no incentive at all to make good use of money. As far as the government is concerned, throwing taxpayers' money at a problem makes it go away, and all they have to do to get more money is raise taxes; while the government in question is in power, there's bugger-all the voters can do about such robbery.

A company has to worry about making a profit. If there's only one company you get the same problem as with government 'services': they can charge as much as they like for crap service. Competition between companies, however, encourages efficient use of money.

Combining the advantages of distributing the bill over the entire country and the advantages of competition would probably result in government subsidisation of the most popular company, but the 'most popular' would probably be the cheapest, ie. the one being subsidised in the first place.

Government-run services are ultimately doomed to failure, or at least waste a ****load of taxpayer (not government, taxpayer) money. Private monopolies will do the same, only worse. Privatisation with government subsidies will continue the trend. The best thing to do is encourage competition between several companies, not favouring or hindering any, except maybe with advertising.

[Flipside]

This is often because a lot of our Chancellors etc have extremely limited financial backgrounds, and are often far more influenced by 'spin' than by what is actually needed. They will often ignore big problems simply to deal with little ones that are currently in the paper.
I suppose the best bet would be for the governments funds to be managed by an external source, which is required each year to produce a full spending report and is rewarded on the basis of effectiveness.

Of course, this will never ever happen, since if you take away the 'Governments' money, you take away it's power.

[Descenterace]

Well yeah, which is why the Human Race is, in the long run, totally ****ed.

[WMCoolmon]

Before this gets six pages long and locked...

Anyone else reminded of the Sixth Day thingamajigger?

[Janos]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Charismatic]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
Bastards....

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Descenterace
Government-run services are ultimately doomed to failure, or at least waste a ****load of taxpayer (not government, taxpayer) money. Private monopolies will do the same, only worse. Privatisation with government subsidies will continue the trend. The best thing to do is encourage competition between several companies, not favouring or hindering any, except maybe with advertising.

Too bad that's demonstrably false. For example, Canadians spend less of their own money on medical care than Americans do. Yet Canadians have universal, perhaps even superior, medical care.