NHS among worst in Western world at preventing avoidable deaths, study finds

by Guest Tue Jun 26, 2018 5:27 am

The NHS performs worse than most developed countries in saving lives from many of the most common diseases, an international study shows.

The research by four think tanks shows Britain is the third worst of 18 western countries at preventing avoidable deaths.

And it also fared worse than average in the treatment of eight out of the 12 most common causes of death, including deaths within 30 days of having a heart attack and within five years of being diagnosed with breast cancer, rectal cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer and lung cancer.

Death rates for newborns are also consistently higher than elsewhere, the study shows, with seven in 1,000 babies dying at birth or in the week afterwards in the UK in 2016, compared to an average of 5.5 across the comparator countries.

The report’s authors said the research showed that claims the NHS “is the envy of the world” were exaggerated. So too were claims it was wholly inferior to other systems, they said.

The findings show the NHS also has fewer doctors, nurses, hospital beds and CT and MRI scanners than other countries and spends a slightly below average proportion of national income on healthcare.

The report, entitled “How Good is the NHS?” and published by the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and The King’s Fund, looks at three aspects of what constitutes a good healthcare system in the UK compared to 18 similar developed countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the USA.

These were speed and accessibility of care; the efficiency of the system; and the outcomes it achieves. It also looked at what the health service has to work with in terms of money, staff, equipment and the health of the population.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/25/nhs-among-worst-western-world-preventing-avoidable-deaths-study/

by Tommy Monk Tue Jun 26, 2018 9:31 pm

The NHS should get more funds going to the right things... and it would if the waste of NHS funds was to be hugely reduced...!

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:59 pm

Death rate figures

Amenable mortality scores: ranked out of 100, where lowest score is worst.
USA: 81
Portugal: 85
UK: 85
Denmark: 86
New Zealand: 86
Germany: 86
Greece: 87
Canada: 88
France: 88
Belgium: 88
Austria: 88
Ireland: 88
Italy: 89
Japan: 89
Netherlands: 90
Finland: 90
Spain: 90
Australia: 90
Sweden: 91

when you look honestly it's not that bad
the difference between Australia and the UK is almost the same as UK and USA
Only 1 point below NZ, they are still pretty good.

I think this is Definitely a Fascist Propaganda Piece trying to Further the Far Right Agenda of selling everything Cool

by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:19 am

Yep...

The O/P reads like nothing more than a scaremongering propaganda piece by pretend "think tanks" looking to paint the NHS in a bad light..

No doubt paving the way for new privitisation efforts by the privateers on the free market/"trickle down" rump of the British parliament.

"Follow the money trail" -- and find out who the health funds, private hospitals and 'Big Pharma' companies are who sponsor those lobbyist groups.. NHS among worst in Western world at preventing avoidable deaths, study finds 1399249160

NHS among worst in Western world at preventing avoidable deaths, study finds 1399249160

by Original Quill Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:04 pm

veya wrote:when you look honestly it's not that bad
the difference between Australia and the UK is almost the same as UK and USA
Only 1 point below NZ, they are still pretty good.

I think this is Definitely a Fascist Propaganda Piece trying to Further the Far Right Agenda of selling everything

I've never understood that RW argument. It lacks even common sense. There are four elements to production: land, labor, initiative and capital. When an entity is privatized, you add a fifth burden: profit. It's illogical to hypothesize that privatization is cheaper, when there is another mouth to feed.

More to the point here, increasing the burden decreases efficiency. As any family realizes, more mouths to feed, means less food for each person at the table. Particularly when you go from a lager to a smaller scale, such as from a government to a private entity. With smaller entities there are actual exclusions, because requisite levels of capital are simply unavailable.

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:16 pm

So the village idiot posts something out of thin air.

Where this report has been very thorough and again it shows people just post anything, including the absurd view, that now the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and The King’s Fund are Fascist. Its was and wait for it......

The BBC that asked the four below organisations to look at this..

The BBC, is about as left wing as it gets

NHS among worst in Western world at preventing avoidable deaths, study finds 3489511464

NHS among worst in Western world at preventing avoidable deaths, study finds 3489511464

Now if the Village idiot wishes to class the left as Fascist, Im sure Tommy, will have a field day, being as the BBC is know for its left leaning bias

lol!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44602358

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44567824

Seriously, its no wonder I continually laugh at this clown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuffield_Trust
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Foundation
https://www.health.org.uk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Fiscal_Studies (just about the only organisation here, that could have political leanings, though nothing fascist lol)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Fund
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/

So let me publish the report for people, instead of gibberish presented by the Village idiot lol
As he clearly has not grasped what it means about certainly some types of deaths like deadly deseases, that could be avoidable.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-06/NHS_at_70_how_good_is_the_NHS.pdf

Thanks Village Idiot, you just proved again, why you have won Dumbo of the year award for the 6th year running

Laughing

by Original Quill Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:18 pm

Didge wrote:So the village idiot posts something out of thin air.

Haha...nailed you, in one fell swoop. And he was so skillful and brief in the way he undressed your argument/source.

Nuff said about that...

Another way you're like Trump, Didge, is in your use of made-up disparagements in third-party conversation. Trump used 'Lying Ted' and 'Low-energy Jeb' and 'Lil Marco' to belittle his interlocutors. Did he teach you that?

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:So the village idiot posts something out of thin air.

Haha...nailed you, in one fell swoop. And he was so skillful and brief in the way he undressed your argument/source.

Nuff said about that...

Another way you're like Trump, Didge, is in your use of made-up disparagements in third-party conversation. Trump used 'Lying Ted' and 'Low-energy Jeb' and 'Lil Marco' to belittle his interlocutors. Did he teach you that?

Actually it showed he was that stupid. He did not even grasp what was being said about unavoidable deaths, it certain deseases

You are such a baby its hilarious, just about on every thread, I have you perpetually with your back to the wall.

I love how you bring Trump to just about every thread

I seriously think you must wank constantly over what sexual harm you can do to him

Its that obsessive

The best laugh is why he thought this was from Fascists, proving beyond doubt your Far Lefties, are completely unhinged loons

Tommy is going to have a field day on that

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2018 8:09 pm

Oh and here is the table from the study by Lancet, that Veya is using.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30818-8/abstract

Its over a 15 year period, from 1990 to 2015

Interesting study, but its a very long time frame to cover and thus dated, for this present one.

Anyway, lets hope people read this and then comment

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-06/NHS_at_70_how_good_is_the_NHS.pdf

by veya_victaous Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:20 am

and dimwit can't count so can only parrot propaganda

91 Highest
85 UK
81 USA

that's not bad You're not the best but your British why would you expect to the best when the NHS has employed Dimwits like you?

this is obviously scaremongering to sell off the NHS, and there are cowardly dumbfucks that will take every piece of propaganda hook liner and sinker because they Are in capable of thinking
Literally Cant see that 85 is not a lot below 91

by veya_victaous Thu Jun 28, 2018 12:22 am

And those figures are from the OP article
BUT as Usual you NEVER read the whole thing before posting Rolling Eyes

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:05 am

It is EU rules that force public services to allow private companies to take over running of big parts of services...

Just look at EU procurement rules...!!!

Yet the lefties are against privatisation... while also arguing that the EU is great...!!!

What is wrong with these idiots...!!!???

They are like turkeys voting for christmas dinners!!!

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:45 am

veya_victaous wrote:And those figures are from the OP article
BUT as Usual you NEVER read the whole thing before posting

Read the Telegraph link, what does it say under the table, village idiot?

lol!

Now, it shows you have failed to read the latest report and even understand it.

Okay, so what does it say about Breast cancer in the latest report

Is the UK good or poor at preventing deaths?

We all have enjoyed how you think that the left is fascist

by Original Quill Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:19 am

vwya wrote:this is obviously scaremongering to sell off the NHS, and there are cowardly dumbfucks that will take every piece of propaganda hook liner and sinker because they Are in capable of thinking

Too bad RW'ers can't think. I'd like to hear them justify their thesis that privatizing increasing efficiency.

Then I'd like to hear them tell us why random killing of babies is good for the species.

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:26 am

Original Quill wrote:
vwya wrote:this is obviously scaremongering to sell off the NHS, and there are cowardly dumbfucks that will take every piece of propaganda hook liner and sinker because they Are in capable of thinking

Too bad RW'ers can't think. I'd like to hear them justify their thesis that privatizing increasing efficiency.

Then I'd like to hear them tell us why random killing of babies is good for the species.

Too bad you did not read the report or show how this report was based on RW thinking?

Where also does it say anything about privatization?

It does not, it proves that the NHS is not the envy of the world.

The point and excercize of this report was to see how good the NHS is

Now please continue down the path of your unhinged views, where you continue to make up gibberish, not based on a single piece of evidence

Laughing

by 'Wolfie Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:30 am

Keep it up Dodge...

The more backflips and ridiculous claims you make, the sillier you look..

Just keep on digging yourself in deeper.

NHS among worst in Western world at preventing avoidable deaths, study finds 2686688521

NHS among worst in Western world at preventing avoidable deaths, study finds 2686688521

by veya_victaous Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:56 am

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:And those figures are from the OP article
BUT as Usual you NEVER read the whole thing before posting

Read the Telegraph link, what does it say under the table, village idiot?

Now, it shows you have failed to read the latest report and even understand it.

Okay, so what does it say about Breast cancer in the latest report

Is the UK good or poor at preventing deaths?

We all have enjoyed how you think that the left is fascist

good compared to most nations

YES the UK is not up to Australian standards but WHY would you expect that?
You have underfunded it for decades
the only one that even suggests it's the envy of the world is Brits and Americans that don't know better. Rolling Eyes

that doesn't mean it's bad though, still almost as good as NZ and NZ health care is enviable to most of the world tongue

by Original Quill Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:02 pm

Didge wrote:I love how you bring Trump to just about every thread

Soz, but the parallels between you and Trump are so abundant and precise that I can't avoid noticing. I must have mentioned this a dozen or so times.

Your narcissism. Your elevation of winning over truth. Your repetitiveness, despite refutation. The false equivalencies. Your use of cover words. Use of enforcer words. Invented a prioris. Propensity for 'easy language' twists. Demonizing interlocutors. That unique attempt to win by bullying. The overblown sense of grievance and victimhood. That approach of blaming, instead of analyzing. So many common tactics between you and Trump.

I mean...I could go on and on, but the point is made. Trump is a character study, and a new tactical element in politics. You reflect those same, precise tactics. You must have studied beside him.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:11 pm

Didge wrote:Where also does it say anything about privatization?

Well, that's the overarching alternative, that makes studies such as this relevant. Why are we asking comparative questions about quality, if not for comparative purposes?

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:54 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Didge wrote:

Read the Telegraph link, what does it say under the table, village idiot?

Now, it shows you have failed to read the latest report and even understand it.

Okay, so what does it say about Breast cancer in the latest report

Is the UK good or poor at preventing deaths?

We all have enjoyed how you think that the left is fascist

good compared to most nations

YES the UK is not up to Australian standards but WHY would you expect that?
You have underfunded it for decades
the only one that even suggests it's the envy of the world is Brits and Americans that don't know better.

that doesn't mean it's bad though, still almost as good as NZ and NZ health care is enviable to most of the world

You stil have not read the report and yet again failed to answer my question did you

I never claimed it was up to Australian standards either

Talk about misdirection

So my point on Breast cancer?

by Guest Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Where also does it say anything about privatization?

Well, that's the overarching alternative, that makes studies such as this relevant. Why are we asking comparative questions about quality, if not for comparative purposes?

So in other words, yet another example, of you saying bullshit. Just inventing things, to fit your warped paranoia

I never asked them, the BBC did, who are as left wing as they get

Maybe you should read the links I posted to see why they requested this

So again, post up your evidence that this is about privatization?

Still waiting and assumptions based on your paranoia do not count

by Original Quill Fri Jun 29, 2018 12:30 am

Didge wrote:So in other words, yet another example, of you saying bullshit. Just inventing things, to fit your warped paranoia

Actually, veya brought it up. But it's right in line with the message. 'Socialism is inefficient = let's go back to capitalism.'

The article doesn't offer anything remedial...I know, I looked. Perhaps you haven't you read your own post?

Have you got anything intelligent to say, or are you just going to stand there and bleed?

by Guest Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:16 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:So in other words, yet another example, of you saying bullshit. Just inventing things, to fit your warped paranoia

Actually, veya brought it up. But it's right in line with the message. 'Socialism is inefficient = let's go back to capitalism.'

The article doesn't offer anything remedial...I know, I looked. Perhaps you haven't you read your own post?

Have you got anything intelligent to say, or are you just going to stand there and bleed?

Again, where is your evidence?

Third time asking

Considering you have not even read the report and making spurious claims, there is very little to discuss with you

by Original Quill Fri Jun 29, 2018 4:26 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Actually, veya brought it up. But it's right in line with the message. 'Socialism is inefficient = let's go back to capitalism.'

The article doesn't offer anything remedial...I know, I looked. Perhaps you haven't you read your own post?

Have you got anything intelligent to say, or are you just going to stand there and bleed?

Again, where is your evidence?

Third time asking

Considering you have not even read the report and making spurious claims, there is very little to discuss with you

I don't think it's an evidentiary point, didge. I think it comes from understanding the logic of the question.

Interesting that you have fixated on a need for substantiation. Only descriptive statements require empirical support. If one makes a logical point--say, 2 + 2 = 4--there is no need for evidence, it's logical. You can find evidence, but it is not necessary. One site describes this:

Livescience wrote:...deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, people confuse deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning, and vice versa. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can be identified. https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

The argument form is really a deductive one. If a problem has only two answers, then (as long as that premise holds) that suggests an argument against one alternative, is an argument in favor of the other alternative. If your argument is against socialism, you are going for a non-socialist solution.

You have fixated on one and only one kind of question...descriptive argument, requiring evidence. It can be arrived at deductively, as well. Comme d'habitude, you are a collector (curator), not a processor, and you haven't had much experience with deductive reasoning. So, you think everything must fit in the only mold you understand...description, requiring evidence.

Too bad...history is a collector's science, and only tangentially a processor's field. It lacks training in theory. Your orientation works against you.

by Guest Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Again, where is your evidence?

Third time asking

Considering you have not even read the report and making spurious claims, there is very little to discuss with you

I don't think it's an evidentiary point, didge. I think it comes from understanding the logic of the question.

Interesting that you have fixated on a need for substantiation. Only descriptive statements require empirical support. If one makes a logical point--say, 2 + 2 = 4--there is no need for evidence, it's logical. You can find evidence, but it is not necessary. One site describes this:

Livescience wrote:...deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, people confuse deductive reasoning with inductive reasoning, and vice versa. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can be identified. https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

The argument form is really a deductive one. If a problem has only two answers, then (as long as that premise holds) that suggests an argument against one alternative, is an argument in favor of the other alternative. If your argument is against socialism, you are going for a non-socialist solution.

You have fixated on one and only one kind of question...descriptive argument, requiring evidence. It can be arrived at deductively, as well. Comme d'habitude, you are a collector (curator), not a processor, and you haven't had much experience with deductive reasoning. So, you think everything must fit in the only mold you understand...description, requiring evidence.

Too bad...history is a collector's science, and only tangentially a processor's field. It lacks training in theory. Your orientation works against you.

So zero evidence

All I am seeing is you yet again invent something to fit your paranoia

Show me examples from the study, that shows your claim on privatization

Not your assumptions

Too bad you are an idiot, is what is the problem here, with huge paranoia

This was put together in the main by health charities

So there is no deduction, when you fail to offer a single shred of evidence

Waffling on about what you think, is nothing but sheer crap

Period

Last chance to back your warped paranoia with evidence

by Original Quill Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:49 pm

You wouldn't understand. I tried to explain it to you, even gave you a link, and still it eludes you.

Some people were not cut out for abstract thought.

by Guest Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:You wouldn't understand. I tried to explain it to you, even gave you a link, and still it eludes you.

Some people were not cut out for abstract thought.

So again no evidence

You made a big claim on the study

You posted zero from the actual study to back your point

You made very poor and quite frankly paranoid assumtions

You had your chance and as seen, I made you look very simple

Shame really

by Original Quill Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:00 pm

Didge wrote:You made a big claim on the study

What was that claim? Be precise. Maybe, if we backtrack, we can pick up where you went astray.

by Guest Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:04 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Too bad RW'ers can't think. I'd like to hear them justify their thesis that privatizing increasing efficiency.

Then I'd like to hear them tell us why random killing of babies is good for the species.

Too bad you did not read the report or show how this report was based on RW thinking?

Where also does it say anything about privatization?

It does not, it proves that the NHS is not the envy of the world.

The point and excercize of this report was to see how good the NHS is

Now please continue down the path of your unhinged views, where you continue to make up gibberish, not based on a single piece of evidence

by Original Quill Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:18 pm

There's a method to my madness. The question I ask goes way beyond the report. Strange that you didn't notice. Have you read your own report?

Furthermore, I would like to hear you phrase the answer ("how privatizing increases efficiency" if it can) in your own words. I think the thesis is a huge myth that people, by habit, don't question. I am questioning it here and now.

I have my doubts, both as to the thesis, and as to you, and even if you understand the subject. Stop the diversion and get to some answers...of your own!!

by Guest Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:There's a method to my madness. The question I ask goes way beyond the report. Strange that you didn't notice. Have you read your own report?

Furthermore, I would like to hear you phrase the answer ("how privatizing increases efficiency" if it can) in your own words. I think the thesis is a huge myth that people, by habit, don't question. I am questioning it here and now.

I have my doubts, both as to the thesis, and as to you, and even if you understand the subject. Stop the diversion and get to some answers...of your own!!

Is there a method to yout madness?

No, you are just paranoid, as the report was not even political and only served views left wing

So the only thing that is strange again is why you constantly see the negative in everything

This was not even political and yet you wanted it to be so

The report was not the issue here

You were the problem

Again, where is your evidence?

by Original Quill Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:12 pm

Didge wrote:The report was not the issue here

Well, you've got that right. We've moved on. I'm pleased you've noticed.

Now, can we get on with the discussion about privatization and efficiency?

The core argument heard every time the issue of privatization comes up, is a non-governmental entity will lead to more efficiency. How, exactly?

A private entity will require capital, and capital will require capitalists. Capitalists will demand profit. Profit is another mouth to feed in the process of production.

Heretofore, capital was provided by government (if we are talking about governmental socialism), and thus there was no need for capitalists. Without capitalists, there is no need for profit. If there is leftover value, formerly known as profit, then it can be used to bring greater efficiencies to the production process. This would suggest that socialism, not capitalism, is the engine of efficiency.

Privatization, in fact, pulls value, and thus resources, away from production, and diminishes efficiency in that way. If the only difference between social ownership and private ownership is profit, privatization leaves us with a diminished capacity to grow efficiency.

Therefore, so far from promoting efficiency, privatization reduces efficiency. Loose cash--any loose cash--will first go into the pockets of the capitalists to build their mansions. We've learned this with the trickle-down effect of tax cuts.

Now, once again, if anyone out there can tell me how privatization yields increased efficiency, I'd sure like to hear it. The standard blather we hear is that competition (generated by capitalism, or many producers) leads to increased efficiency, but all I see is competition leads to antitrust conduct to eliminate competition. Private enterprise seeks monopoly, not co-existence or co-competitive efficiency. Efficiency is out of the loop.

I'm listening for suggestions ... but I'm not hearing much.

by Guest Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:07 pm

Original Quill wrote:The report was not the issue here

Well, you've got that right. We've moved on. I'm pleased you've noticed.

Now, can we get on with the discussion about privatization and efficiency?

I'm listening for suggestions ... but I'm not hearing much.

The report is the issue to disuss your mental health issues

There was zero evidence for your claim

So you clearly invented crap to back your paranoia

So lets talk about why you are so paranoid, when there is zero evidence to your claim?

by Original Quill Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:37 pm

Didge wrote:The report was not the issue here

To repeat: Well, you've got that right. We've moved on. I'm pleased you've noticed.

Now, can we get on with the discussion about privatization and efficiency?

The core argument heard every time the issue of privatization comes up, is a non-governmental entity will lead to more efficiency. How, exactly?

A private entity will require capital, and capital will require capitalists. Capitalists will demand profit. Profit is another mouth to feed in the process of production.

Heretofore, capital was provided by government (if we are talking about governmental socialism), and thus there was no need for capitalists. Without capitalists, there is no need for profit. If there is leftover value, formerly known as profit, then it can be used to bring greater efficiencies to the production process. This would suggest that socialism, not capitalism, is the engine of efficiency.

Privatization, in fact, pulls value, and thus resources, away from production, and diminishes efficiency in that way. If the only difference between social ownership and private ownership is profit, privatization leaves us with a diminished capacity to grow efficiency.

Therefore, so far from promoting efficiency, privatization reduces efficiency. Loose cash--any loose cash--will first go into the pockets of the capitalists to build their mansions. We've learned this with the trickle-down effect of tax cuts.

Now, once again, if anyone out there can tell me how privatization yields increased efficiency, I'd sure like to hear it. The standard blather we hear is that competition (generated by capitalism, or many producers) leads to increased efficiency, but all I see is competition leads to antitrust conduct to eliminate competition. Private enterprise seeks monopoly, not co-existence or co-competitive efficiency. Efficiency is out of the loop.

I'm listening for suggestions ... but I'm not hearing much.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:45 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:The report was not the issue here

Well, you've got that right. We've moved on. I'm pleased you've noticed.

Now, can we get on with the discussion about privatization and efficiency?

I'm listening for suggestions ... but I'm not hearing much.

The report is the issue to disuss your mental health issues

You just said the report is not the issue. Make up your mind.

Didsg wrote:There was zero evidence for your claim

What claim? It's not a claim, but an argument.

Didge wrote:So you clearly invented crap to back your paranoia

So lets talk about why you are so paranoid, when there is zero evidence to your claim?

Paranoia? What on earth are you talking about? The article is not about paranoia. It's about medical economics:

The findings show the NHS also has fewer doctors, nurses, hospital beds and CT and MRI scanners than other countries and spends a slightly below average proportion of national income on healthcare.

by eddie Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:I love how you bring Trump to just about every thread

Soz, but the parallels between you and Trump are so abundant and precise that I can't avoid noticing. I must have mentioned this a dozen or so times.

Your narcissism. Your elevation of winning over truth. Your repetitiveness, despite refutation. The false equivalencies. Your use of cover words. Use of enforcer words. Invented a prioris. Propensity for 'easy language' twists. Demonizing interlocutors. That unique attempt to win by bullying. The overblown sense of grievance and victimhood. That approach of blaming, instead of analyzing. So many common tactics between you and Trump.

I mean...I could go on and on, but the point is made. Trump is a character study, and a new tactical element in politics. You reflect those same, precise tactics. You must have studied beside him.

Quill said: Your narcissism. Your elevation of winning over truth. Your repetitiveness, despite refutation. The false equivalencies. Your use of cover words. Use of enforcer words. Invented a prioris. Propensity for 'easy language' twists. Demonizing interlocutors. That unique attempt to win by bullying. The overblown sense of grievance and victimhood. That approach of blaming, instead of analysing.

That, sounds like a couple of other posters on here, too, to be fair.

by Original Quill Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:51 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Soz, but the parallels between you and Trump are so abundant and precise that I can't avoid noticing. I must have mentioned this a dozen or so times.

Your narcissism. Your elevation of winning over truth. Your repetitiveness, despite refutation. The false equivalencies. Your use of cover words. Use of enforcer words. Invented a prioris. Propensity for 'easy language' twists. Demonizing interlocutors. That unique attempt to win by bullying. The overblown sense of grievance and victimhood. That approach of blaming, instead of analyzing. So many common tactics between you and Trump.

I mean...I could go on and on, but the point is made. Trump is a character study, and a new tactical element in politics. You reflect those same, precise tactics. You must have studied beside him.

Quill said: Your narcissism. Your elevation of winning over truth. Your repetitiveness, despite refutation. The false equivalencies. Your use of cover words. Use of enforcer words. Invented a prioris. Propensity for 'easy language' twists. Demonizing interlocutors. That unique attempt to win by bullying. The overblown sense of grievance and victimhood. That approach of blaming, instead of analysing.

That, sounds like a couple of other posters on here, too, to be fair.

Yes, several posters have mentioned it.

by Guest Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:52 pm

[quote="Original Quill"]

Didge wrote:

The report is the issue to disuss your mental health issues

You just said the report is not the issue. Make up your mind.

Didsg wrote:There was zero evidence for your claim

What claim? It's not a claim, but an argument.

Didge wrote:The claim you invented around privatization

Paranoia? What on earth are you talking about? The article is not about paranoia. It's about medical economics:

Its not about economics, but areas where the NHS is failing to prevents deaths within certain conditions, compared to many other western natuons

Now come on your irrational loon, you made warped claims and now cannot back them up

Show me anywhere in the report, where its making a political argument on privatization?

Tenth time asking?

by Guest Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:54 pm

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Soz, but the parallels between you and Trump are so abundant and precise that I can't avoid noticing. I must have mentioned this a dozen or so times.

Your narcissism. Your elevation of winning over truth. Your repetitiveness, despite refutation. The false equivalencies. Your use of cover words. Use of enforcer words. Invented a prioris. Propensity for 'easy language' twists. Demonizing interlocutors. That unique attempt to win by bullying. The overblown sense of grievance and victimhood. That approach of blaming, instead of analyzing. So many common tactics between you and Trump.

I mean...I could go on and on, but the point is made. Trump is a character study, and a new tactical element in politics. You reflect those same, precise tactics. You must have studied beside him.

Quill said: Your narcissism. Your elevation of winning over truth. Your repetitiveness, despite refutation. The false equivalencies. Your use of cover words. Use of enforcer words. Invented a prioris. Propensity for 'easy language' twists. Demonizing interlocutors. That unique attempt to win by bullying. The overblown sense of grievance and victimhood. That approach of blaming, instead of analysing.

That, sounds like a couple of other posters on here, too, to be fair.

I am still waiting for Quill to actually address the actual study?

Maybe you nhave missed this also with his own paranoia

What other posters are you talking about here Eddfie?

Wow, you sure have a low opinion of some people

by eddie Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:52 am

I don’t have a low opinion of anyone actually. I’m fact, I treat everyone the same. I was merely informing Quill that if he thinks that of you, he should also realise that there are others like that.

by Guest Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:14 am

eddie wrote:I don’t have a low opinion of anyone actually. I’m fact, I treat everyone the same. I was merely informing Quill that if he thinks that of you, he should also realise that there are others like that.

How are you treating people the same Eddie?

Quill just classed me as a narcissist and you said it sounds like a couple of other posters here.

Which must mean you agree with his views on me and others

That is having a low opinion of others

That is not a problem, your dishonesty to say who you think they are is.

by eddie Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:35 am

Didge wrote:
eddie wrote:I don’t have a low opinion of anyone actually. I’m fact, I treat everyone the same. I was merely informing Quill that if he thinks that of you, he should also realise that there are others like that.

How are you treating people the same Eddie?

Quill just classed me as a narcissist and you said it sounds like a couple of other posters here.

Which must mean you agree with his views on me and others

That is having a low opinion of others

That is not a problem, your dishonesty to say who you think they are is.

Well, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that about you personally to be honest. I took his words and offered up the fact that if he says that to you then he should look about a bit and see that others also act like that on occasion.
No big deal. It was an observation.

by Guest Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:42 am

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

How are you treating people the same Eddie?

Quill just classed me as a narcissist and you said it sounds like a couple of other posters here.

Which must mean you agree with his views on me and others

That is having a low opinion of others

That is not a problem, your dishonesty to say who you think they are is.

Well, I certainly didn’t mean to imply that about you personally to be honest. I took his words and offered up the fact that if he says that to you then he should look about a bit and see that others also act like that on occasion.
No big deal. It was an observation.

I dont think anyone is a narcissist, not even Tommy

Why do you even play into observations, to where Quill made a poor claim onto a study?

Seriously

As doing so you provide and offer value to his claim

I asked him to offer evidence and he did what you hate

He made the post personal and tried to make this his point. Where he had no evidence for his claim

He made comparrisons to Trump to me... I mean seriously. Its not debate, but desperation and yet you said other posters were like this

Who?

I dont think anyone poster here is like Trump, but by your reply, you gave credability to such nonsense

I mean if i compared Quill to Hitler, would you claim that it sounds like a couple of other posters here?

The reality is this. Quill when left wanting misdirects

He has here and attacks posters, which I reply in kind at times

There is no validity to his claim and yet you actually validated it

by eddie Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:45 am

Oh whatever. Can’t be arsed to explain myself.

by Guest Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:52 am

eddie wrote:Oh whatever. Can’t be arsed to explain myself.

Oh really and there was you saying you are honest

Bollocks

Who are these other posters Eddie?

Are you really honest or full of shit?

by eddie Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:13 am

Oh, burger. NHS among worst in Western world at preventing avoidable deaths, study finds 704729541

by Guest Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:16 am

eddie wrote:Oh, burger.

One word

Actually two

Dishonest

Coward

by Original Quill Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:59 pm

Whatever...back to the topic:

Socialism was one answer to industrialism, and the need for tools for the industrial age. The industrial age brought assembly lines and specialization, necessitating machines and tools with greater capacity and precision. The chisel on the artisan's bench became the electric lathe and then the metal press, and beyond. Individuals, former artisans, became extrusion operators, pull-out founders, and cutting operators in an assembly line process. The worker became the cog, and the artisan was the machine, or perhaps the engineers who designed the machines. In any case, the tool subordinated the individual.

Two problems arose. The artisan could no longer afford his tools (machines, etc.). And control of production could no longer be by single hands. Both problems meant control was shifted to collectives (ie, collectives of resources and/or collectives of workers). Such collectives either came in the form of capitalists (emphasis on resources), or in the form of some form of syndicates of workers (emphasis on workers).

Yes, capitalists are collectives. Capitalists formed corporations, with shareholders; syndicates became councils or were overtaken by governments. The latter either were called socialists (the term ‘socialism’ means a collective of producers, not necessarily a government), and became guilds and trade unions. It is ironic that both capitalists and socialists are, on one level, the same thing; at a minimum, they are competing emphases on the same problem. Both are a response to the artisan being subornated to the production process—ie, industraialism.

So, these collectives arose over: 1) the need for capital to afford bigger tools; and 2) the single artisan’s inability to do so. There were three essential options or answers: A) the artisans join hands and create collectives; B) wealthy people join together and create corporations; or governments do what wealthy people would do, and take over everything.

Although all three are social, in essence, only the third option (government) became known as ‘socialism’. The second option became known as ‘capitalism’. The artisans accepted their status as cogs, and we speak of them today as ‘jobs’ or ‘unemployment figures’, or still collectively as ‘the workforce’.

Capitalsim and socialism have one thing in common: they each seek monopoly. The difference is that government does not need profit. Capitalist need profit as an inducement to bring in shareholders to amass capital. Government socialism is superior in that it needs no incentive to contribute; the nation (ie, the population) is the contributor.

The original theory of free market economy, developed by men like Adam Smith, was that competition in the free market would result in lowering the cost of goods, resulting in overall advantage to the consumer. In reality what happens is that competitors compete, not by lowering production costs, but by eliminating each other. When they control the given economy, they then raise prices astronomically…working against the consumer.

Governments have the advantage of not having to turn a profit. Therefore, they substitute for marketing, the planning of the economy. They don’t swim in risky waters…they own the warters. A government needs neither profit nor sales, but it needs to plan for proper resources to best serve the public.

Thus the capitalist strives to achieve what the government already has…a monopoly. Unfortunately, the capitalist swims in risky waters. It would be less risky if they had what the government already has: zero competition. So, capitalists strive for monopoly, where there will be no need for efficiency.

Would you rather have a government, which objectively strives for optimal efficiency. Or would you rather have a corporation, which is aided by the elimination of competition, and tosses efficiency out the window and seeks profit.

by Tommy Monk Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:53 pm

Sorry Quill... although I agree with most of the economic theory there and in your earlier post... it is not true to say socialism doesn't need any form of profit... as any govt (socialist or other) requires funding and the funding ultimately comes down to taking a large skim off the top of all workers & businesses... ie all of these need to make more money than they alone can survive off, they all need to make more than they need so as to give their 'profit' away to govt in taxation...

by Original Quill Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:20 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry Quill... although I agree with most of the economic theory there and in your earlier post... it is not true to say socialism doesn't need any form of profit... as any govt (socialist or other) requires funding and the funding ultimately comes down to taking a large skim off the top of all workers & businesses... ie all of these need to make more money than they alone can survive off, they all need to make more than they need so as to give their 'profit' away to govt in taxation...

Good point. Keep in mind we are talking theory here. In any arrangement there can be thieves, but unless the subject is actually theft, we are speaking of how the system is supposed to work. Skimming is not part of the system, but a diversion into extra-legal activity.

Profit

As any good manager knows, gross revenue covers operating expenses/cost-of-goods, and then some excess value. Excess value comes from excess of revenue over cost (goods and labor). But, the important point is where does it goes from there? To what use is excess value put? That excess value goes into either profit, or development/wages.

Profit is unique to capitalism. The excess value goes into the pockets of shareholders as profit, or return-on-investments. Socialism has no group equivalent to shareholders--the government provides capital, there is no need for capital investors and return to them. Hence, I say that privatization is an extra mouth to be fed. Socialism puts the excess value into development or wages. You don't have to spend money to accumulate capital...a much better system.

Profit detracts from efficiency

One aspect of development is efficiency. So, here we have capitalism eating up resources as return-on-investments--another way of saying "another mouth to feed"--while socialism, in fact, is free to put that money into expansion, technology, efficiency or even bonuses...whatever improvement is for the common good.

That is the point I was making. I don’t see privatization leading to efficiency, because it is, in fact, more costly. Capitalists must be fed.

The myth of privatization: competition leads not to efficiency, but elimination of competitors

The classical theory says that competition is so fierce that efficiency comes about naturally, as competition motivates producers to improve production (methods or sources) and drive down costs. But, in fact, the pressure derived from competition does not focus on efficiency; rather, the focus becomes the elimination of each other. Efficiency comes by chance; elimination of competition is a sure bet! The great, and single contribution of Marx to economic theory, was that classical theorists got the focus wrong. The drive is not to increase efficiency, but toward monopoly.

So, we live a myth when we believe that privatization yields efficiency. Socialism has all of the advantages. When you think about it, it’s just cooperation vs. warfare. Capitalism sets up contentiousness. The human animal has a difficult time moving from warfare to smooth cooperation. But, if we get the hang of it, it is a better way to live human existence.

by Sponsored content