Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Do you agree that the NHS should be privatised? - the Big Urban75 Poll

Do you think the NHS should be privatised?

  • I like some of the proposals but not all (specify)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    237
Yeah it's all very convenient for Labour to sit back and let tories and libdems take the flak for this as well as all the sickness benefits thing. Ed Miliband is the most useless labour "leader" I can ever remember. He makes Gordon Brown look dynamic!
 
Yeah it's all very convenient for Labour to sit back and let tories and libdems take the flak for this as well as all the sickness benefits thing. Ed Miliband is the most useless labour "leader" I can ever remember. He makes Gordon Brown look dynamic!

I'm not even sure we'd want a competent Labour leader though. I mean, Tony Blair was a good leader. Look where he led them.
 
I'm sure the blairites in the labour party agree with lots of the tory NHS agenda. However they are not the entirety of the labour party. More importantly, mobilising popualr anger agasint NHS privatisation would only help labour politically, whilst casuing serious damage to the government - whatever their true intentions, I dont understand why they are not doing this when faced with an open goal.
 
What illustrated the problem for me is the media's focus on enshrining the military covenant in law, whilst entirely missing the removal from law of a comprehensive service free at the point of use. It points to either corruption or incompetence. Probably both.
 
I'm sure the blairites in the labour party agree with lots of the tory NHS agenda. However they are not the entirety of the labour party. More importantly, mobilising popualr anger agasint NHS privatisation would only help labour politically, whilst casuing serious damage to the government - whatever their true intentions, I dont understand why they are not doing this when faced with an open goal.

They haven't opposed any of the removals of universal services. They didn't effectively oppose the ending of universal child benefit or the slashing of state funding for university education. Both actions were justified by the government by a massive lie - the idea that poor taxpayers are subsidising the rich through their taxes through these benefits. This is the exact opposite of the truth, which is that when you remove universality, the rich end up only paying for themselves and nobody else, whereas with universality, the rich pay many times over through their taxes.

Labour have allowed this lie to be repeated ad nauseum. I fully expect the argument to be made again in order to introduce means-tested doctor charges in the future.
 
I'm sure the blairites in the labour party agree with lots of the tory NHS agenda. However they are not the entirety of the labour party. More importantly, mobilising popualr anger agasint NHS privatisation would only help labour politically, whilst casuing serious damage to the government - whatever their true intentions, I dont understand why they are not doing this when faced with an open goal.

In agreement with lbj. Labour have been pursuing right wing economic policies for well over fifteen years now. When is this backbench uprising going to come? If the rest of the labour party had any fight in them or any power, why didn't they oppose any of the rabidly right wing policies of Blair and Brown? Have they been in a coma? What makes you think they're about to wake up?

As for popular anger about the NHS coming to an end - that would require people to know about it first.
 
It's coming. Then we'll start hearing about "health fraud"!

I see this attack on universality as pretty much the defining feature of this govt so far. They started with a 'soft' target - top rate taxpayers with kids - and now they're moving down the ranks. It's an old tory theme, but one that's being pursued with a new-found confidence, that the ideal is to be independent from the state, that collective provision should be there only for those who cannot provide for themselves. There ought to be loads there for an effective Labour party to attack as it's not a particularly coherent philosophy, but I think the opposition to this govt is going to have to come from elsewhere.
 
What if the NHS were run using a cooperative business model?

What of it? There are many ways the NHS could be run and many ways of improving it. You do realise this government isn't in the business of improving it though, right? The aim is to make a profit from it. If they thought a cooperative business model would do that, they would be all for it, if not, they wouldn't be interested.
 
The aim is to make a profit from it.

Well - to let certain private entities make a profit from it, rather than to have the NHS be some sort of money-raiser for central government. If you wanted to do the latter, the last thing you'd do would be subcontract everything to a load of overpriced cunts.
 
Well, I for one say no to privatising the NHS. They privatised the laundry (which is why there was no bedding for my babies when they were born). They privatised the food (least said about that, the better) and they privatised the cleaning and now superbugs are rife.
 
Well, I for one say no to privatising the NHS. They privatised the laundry (which is why there was no bedding for my babies when they were born). They privatised the food (least said about that, the better) and they privatised the cleaning and now superbugs are rife.

No bedding? They managed to stretch to bedding when I was there (not long ago) altho I noticed they refuse to hand out nappies (except to neonatals) or sanitary towels/ maternity pads. But they still waste other stuff like the sterilised baby bottles which just get chucked after use, not re-used, but got themselves in a state about anyone throwing away syringes.. was weird.
 
Well, I for one say no to privatising the NHS. They privatised the laundry (which is why there was no bedding for my babies when they were born). They privatised the food (least said about that, the better) and they privatised the cleaning and now superbugs are rife.

Back in the early '90s ('91-'92 IIRC) half a dozen teaching hospitals in south London switched from internal laundry services to contracting laundry services from an external provider. That provider was a company fully-owned by the govt, and the "contractors" doing the laundry were the inmates of two south London prison laundries.

Decent cost savings, but also provided a source of sharps. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff that went in with the sheets (besides full bedpans, that is). :facepalm
 
Well it's not free 14% of your tax if u work goes to it considering that said shit organisation didn't pin a finger to save money years back gives me grief and two years ago again other hand finger was broken and they didn't set it right whereby I would have had to have it amputated but was set right privately and recently as I'm laid up with a broken knee which they didn't diagnose correctly but private treatment means I will be okay aside from relatives catching MRSA and dying and the botch job of my partners labour give me the option of opting out thank you and spend money on insurance
 
Well it's not free 14% of your tax if u work goes to it considering that said shit organisation didn't pin a finger to save money years back gives me grief and two years ago again other hand finger was broken and they didn't set it right whereby I would have had to have it amputated but was set right privately and recently as I'm laid up with a broken knee which they didn't diagnose correctly but private treatment means I will be okay aside from relatives catching MRSA and dying and the botch job of my partners labour give me the option of opting out thank you and spend money on insurance

^Try that again when the painkillers aren't in full effect...
 
no, no and thrice no.

What I would like to know is: which senior politicians stand to make money by way of investments/etc in private health care providers? That's obviously on top of the 750,000 donated to the Tories, and also not including the corrupt conflict of interest of Care UK funding Lansley's office in opposition.
 
No bedding? They managed to stretch to bedding when I was there (not long ago) altho I noticed they refuse to hand out nappies (except to neonatals) or sanitary towels/ maternity pads. But they still waste other stuff like the sterilised baby bottles which just get chucked after use, not re-used, but got themselves in a state about anyone throwing away syringes.. was weird.

instrument cleaning was outsourced as well. Hey presto, dirty fucking tools.

You knew the minute the tories got in the NHS was going to get shafted, again- having said that I recall the nulab gov. also part marketizing the nhs. These scum won't be happy till we are bled white.
 
no, no and thrice no.

What I would like to know is: which senior politicians stand to make money by way of investments/etc in private health care providers? That's obviously on top of the 750,000 donated to the Tories, and also not including the corrupt conflict of interest of Care UK funding Lansley's office in opposition.
A lot of it will be in the form of jobs after they've left govt so we can't know exactly who will get which sinecures with which health company. We do know a bit about labour though:

The former health secretary Patricia Hewitt took a consultancy with Alliance Boots seven months after standing down and a £55,000 role with Cinven, which bought 25 private hospitals from Bupa. Alan Milburn and Norman Warner also took jobs with health firms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/17/labour-ministers-consultancy-private-sector
 
You knew the minute the tories got in the NHS was going to get shafted, again- having said that I recall the nulab gov. also part marketizing the nhs. These scum won't be happy till we are bled white.

I don't think this should be confused with other times the Tories have shafted the NHS. Sure they're making cuts and they always do that. But this is moving from a system of universal healthcare towards a public/private insurance-based model. The NHS will be a 'kitemark', in the words of some of the architects of this change. That is to say, it won't exist as an organisation.
 
I don't think this should be confused with other times the Tories have shafted the NHS. Sure they're making cuts and they always do that. But this is moving from a system of universal healthcare towards a public/private insurance-based model. The NHS will be a 'kitemark', in the words of some of the architects of this change. That is to say, it won't exist as an organisation.

oh yes, a state healthcare insurance provider for the love of god. Its sometimes hard to discern the line between amoral avarice and ideological impulses with these cunts.
 
oh yes, a state healthcare insurance provider for the love of god. Its sometimes hard to discern the line between amoral avarice and ideological impulses with these cunts.
I suspect they are unable to separate the two in their own minds so there's no way we can. Their confusion serves them well of course.
 
Back
Top Bottom