I came across this 5 min video and wondered what you'd all think about this unpopular opinion.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTm6nLteFrQ[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTm6nLteFrQ[/ame]
The NHS is killing you
- Thread starter simon12
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
IainM
Landlord.
I don't buy it. It's the classic small-state free market argument for the invisible hand of capitalism to miraculously come to the rescue. Sure, leaving it to the market can have benefits for those that can afford it, but business has one purpose and that is to make money. It would be naive to assume the benevolence of the dividend-reaping class as he does. Even with the regulations in the US the insurance companies use every tactic they can to extract as much money as possible and pay out as little as possible, from denying affordable healthcare to the elderly and those with medical conditions to refusing to pay for treatment due to small print. Plus, he ignores the economies of scale of having centralised purchasing, where bulk orders of everything from sterile gloves to sophisticated medical devices drive down the end cost. No surprise that in the US the cost per capita is double what it is here and mortality rates are higher. Plus, there can still be competition and innovation within a socialised healthcare system, which he ignores. Here we have the Medical Research Council, who fund highly competitive calls for research. The USA may be the #1 producer of biomedical innovations, but the UK is #2, followed by Germany, China and France. Two of the top 5 have privatised healthcare, but three have socialised healthcare. Yaron Brook's position certainly isn't based on facts but it seems to me on the religious adherence to the ideology that unfettered capitalism is always the answer. It's a non-thinkers ideology because you can ignore the intricacies of each sector of the economy and not bother with coming up with tailored policies for them. Just tear down regulation and assume that the industry will self-regulate in a way that benefits us all.
Load of ****! 
I like to take a look at The Messenger after thinking about The Message and here's the result:
The Lecture was titled "Capitalism Without Guns" so why would the lecturer get on to slagging off the NHS? Let's take a look at The Messenger.
He was Dr Yaron Brook who (according to the screen at the back of him) is "Executive Director - Ayn Rand Institute". This is a quasi-religious organisation that follows the philosophies of Ayn Rand an American Novelist/Philosopher who died in 1962. This is a quote from the lady herself:
ââ¬ÅMy philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.ââ¬Â
The fact that we care for others is anathema to this philosophy which is why a follower would attack the NHS with such ferocity.
Dr Brook is also "Founder and Chairman - BH Equity Research" which, according to their profile:
ââ¬ÅHave made investment recommendations spanning the private equity market and are actively pursuing new fund relationships.ââ¬Â
In other words, Dr Brook is a salesman who is out to sell a philosophy and a product. However, he is not a very good salesman because he shoots himself in the foot once he gets down to specifics.
As part of his argument about government legislation (or "interference" if you adopt his attitude) Dr Brook states that the State of California insists that people take out "Maternity Insurance". He then uses the age of himself and his wife as "proof" that it is unnecessary for them to have "maternity insurance"; apparently forgetting that a comedian by the name of Charlie Chaplin, a resident in the State of California, was fathering children well into his seventies!
I rest my case! :lol:
References:
https://www.aynrand.org
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bh-equity-research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplin_family
I like to take a look at The Messenger after thinking about The Message and here's the result:
The Lecture was titled "Capitalism Without Guns" so why would the lecturer get on to slagging off the NHS? Let's take a look at The Messenger.
He was Dr Yaron Brook who (according to the screen at the back of him) is "Executive Director - Ayn Rand Institute". This is a quasi-religious organisation that follows the philosophies of Ayn Rand an American Novelist/Philosopher who died in 1962. This is a quote from the lady herself:
ââ¬ÅMy philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.ââ¬Â
The fact that we care for others is anathema to this philosophy which is why a follower would attack the NHS with such ferocity.
Dr Brook is also "Founder and Chairman - BH Equity Research" which, according to their profile:
ââ¬ÅHave made investment recommendations spanning the private equity market and are actively pursuing new fund relationships.ââ¬Â
In other words, Dr Brook is a salesman who is out to sell a philosophy and a product. However, he is not a very good salesman because he shoots himself in the foot once he gets down to specifics.
As part of his argument about government legislation (or "interference" if you adopt his attitude) Dr Brook states that the State of California insists that people take out "Maternity Insurance". He then uses the age of himself and his wife as "proof" that it is unnecessary for them to have "maternity insurance"; apparently forgetting that a comedian by the name of Charlie Chaplin, a resident in the State of California, was fathering children well into his seventies!
I rest my case! :lol:
References:
https://www.aynrand.org
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bh-equity-research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplin_family
I liked the stat about mobiles and how 95% of people in the USA have them so should be able to afford health insurance...
only leaves 16 million people without health insurance...
The idea that profit is the only successful driver for progress and improvement also just doesn't stack up. Profit inspires those with money to invest with the desire to take out more than they put in
only leaves 16 million people without health insurance...
The idea that profit is the only successful driver for progress and improvement also just doesn't stack up. Profit inspires those with money to invest with the desire to take out more than they put in
Thank you for the well reasoned responses I agree with you all but for totally different reasons. Ian I think you are miswsing his main point that in every other industry were there is little regulation and competition services get better and cheaper. Dutto I agree with you but saying hes wrong because of his overall ideology doesn't make sense, anyone could have a good way to run a health service regardless of the political or religious views. Dexter the other 5% the government could pay there phone bill equivalent without regulating the industry. Maybe not the only succesful driver of progress and improvement but its a big one. The main reason I disagree with him is its not ever going to be a free market as whoever owns a hospital will have a monopoly on it and there too big an investment to have enough to compete with each other so the government would likely have to regulate even more, so I think it all falls down on the fact a free market is not even possible in the UK.
Bit like how Rail franchises effectively have a monopoly as I can't choose to use a different service when there is only one provider for my route to London.
Yes thats a perfect example of what I mean.
IainM
Landlord.
No, I understood it, my point was that even though it might work for most sectors of the economy it isn't a miraculous black box that can be applied thoughtlessly.
Add on the fact that they are subsidised more now than British Rail ever was and you start to really get me going ...
... then mention the privatised water industry to really get me going! :lol: :lol:
My own provider (Anglian Water) is owned by Canadian and Australian Pension Funds and a London based Investment Company. They aren't subsidised as such because they have a total monopoly of supply and rack up their prices to ensure a hefty profit ...
... which is immediately sent overseas to satisfy the foreign investors.
