On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:58:12 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

The Americans regard it with bitter envy.

They don't you know.

They do, I'm afraid.

Must be the people that you meet........


I have a broad range of friends and
contacts of every socio-economic group and political persuasion.

Well, me too. I visit the USA at least 3 times a year. You and I must
meet very different people

Seemingly........ :-)


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:55:37 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community
because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although

Although you see no need to pay for the health care of the less wealthy
members of society,

I haven't said that at all. Why don't you read what I actually said
rather than what you thought I said.


how long before your voucher scheme gets reduced to a
bare minimum and only those on basic (keep you alive) benefit are the ones
to receive them ?...

I said that *everybody* gets them regardless of means and that they
are adequate to pay for at least the same level of treatment available
in the NHS today.

The difference is about choice - i.e. that the voucher can be taken
and spent outside the state system (if it were to remain) and can be
supplemented with other funds such as private insurance or simply by
paying.



frankly, the levels should be reduced in general by making the
mechanisms of the state smaller. The benefits of so-doing are
obvious in countries that operate lower tax environments and a smaller
state.

But they have just as big mechanisms and the costs can't be controlled - as
you say, market forces will prevail, and as a cartel end user costs will
rise.

If there is competition for the funding mechanisms and the delivery
mechanisms efficiency and quality improves.




My objection is paying for outmoded, bureaucratic machinery in terms
of healthcare which I can't use because the standards are so poor and
access is not available when required. Education has much the same
issue - declining standards and 30+ kids to a class - unusable .

That is an argument for increasing taxation then, just as much as it is for
lowering it and making people pay. Trouble is, some will be able to but many
won't, just as it was pre WW2...

There's never an argument for increasing taxation. You obviously
haven't understood what I have said or have chosen not to.

In summary:

- People pay taxes as today and according to earnings or consumption.

- The government provides vouchers for healthcare and where relevant,
education. Everybody has the same entitlement to these.

- People can spend their vouchers where they like and receive services
identical to or better than today without having to supplement.

- Those who wish to supplement can do so, spending their vouchers plus
other funds or insurances if they choose.


This does not result in a loss of services for those who simply want
to proceed as today, and gives those who wish to do so the freedom to
choose alternatives without financial penalty.




snip

"I'm alright, f*ck those who aren't" seems to be your ideal model for
society. :~(

That is what you think that I am saying because you have not
understood or have chosen not to understand what I actually have said.
At no point have I suggested anything that would have the potential to
make anybody worse off, and would improve choice and quality
considerably.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:04:40 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I did cover that. The point is that if the local loop was installed
with state money (in effect), then there is an argument that BT should
provide access to other operators through LLU.

No, there isn't, right or wrong BT was sold to private investors, why should
any private company be forced to allow their competitors to use their
networks (that they have modernised since privatisation) - no one would
dream of making Ford allow Rover Group to use their R&D departments or the
production lines for little or no payment if at all.

I think that perhaps you don't understand the technologies and
investments.

Local Loop Unbundling refers to the copper under the ground from the
end used to the exchange and terminating there. It does not involve
the use of any of the active exchange equipment.

BT inherited the copper under the ground and in effect it now belongs
to their shareholders. However, the major investment has been in
active exchange equipment which is not part and parcel of LLU.





The copper in the ground is only a part of the story. Investment in
exchange equipment, as it stands today is all post privatisation.


Exactly, which is why competitors shouldn't have access to those exchanges
and modernised cable networks.

BT are not being asked to provide either for nothing.

LLU doesn't involve "modernised cable networks" - it s purely copper
local loop, much of which is decades old.

Most BT exchange buildings have large amounts of empty space because
they were built originally for mechanical switches. Modern equipment
is much smaller. Parts of some exchanges have been used for
office space, but there is still a lot of free space.





Consider the situation with the cable companies. They'll only dig up
roads and install new infrastructure when there is clearly a profit to
be made. That leaves swathes of the country without the service in
question.

Which service though? The cable operators are not providing
anything that can't be provided by other means even in densely
populated areas. TV can be obtained from satellite, internet
connectivity is not implemented well on cable modem infrastructure and
they have only brought fibre a bit closer to the end user than BT has.


So why do they want to use the BT networks then...

Because there is reasonable amount of cable under the ground in most
areas from end users to the exchange. LLU simply involves using
this section, not the active parts of the BT network such as switches
and so forth.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:37:20 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:00:12 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

It's perfectly simple. There is competition in the electricity and
gas supply industries which is achieved perfectly well without the
need for additional cable and pipework infrastucture.

The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the answer for
Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment.

TOTAL ROLLOX !
You know less about the rail system and it's history than you do about
why
the NHS has problems !

I know precisely why both have problems.

With respect you don't, you have made that quite clear - why do you think
you have had very little support (other than this thread boring the arse off
most people that is...) ?



The biggest modernisation of the railways was carried
whilst under national control (1955 - 1968),

So poor investment and modernisation after that?

Err, cutting edge research (which is still in use today by the worlds
railways), introduction of the highly successful HST trains on both the ER
and WR regions in the mid to late '70's, extension to the west coast
electrification from Crew to Glasgow, extension of the electrified services
on the SW section of the old Southern region, electrification of part of the
East Coast main line, electrification of part of the Midland main line,
complete re-signalling of the Brighton main line, introduction of new
locomotives designs etc. etc. etc. ...

As I said, you know nothing about the rail system and the whys and
wherefores of it's recent history and are thus rather clueless to try and
discuss it !


not only that but you need to
understand that government money is still being spent to modernise the
system.

.. as it should have been before being privatised.


Then there would have been no reason to privatise, it was done by the Tories
in the mistaken belief that private money would be used to pay for the
modernisation that needed to be carried out.


One cannot blame private ownership and operation with
such a poor legacy.


Yes we can, they knew what needed to be done, they have not done it. Now
HMG
has had to give money to private companies so that modernisation is
done -
something that could have been done under state ownership.

It should have been done under state ownership before privatisation
and wasn't. That is the actual issue.


See above.


By all means let
private companies run their own service, many companies were doing so
before
privatisation, but they were not using public money to make a private
profit...

So they were doing it for love?

If they are receiving public money then yes they should, at most all they
are doing is acting as a project manager and only need to be paid a salary.



Public transport is an essential service

It's not *essential* at all. There are plenty of ways to get from A
to B, assuming it's necessary to do so at all.

Just, sit in a traffic jam with others you mean...


and should be under central
control, even more so if people are to be got out of their cars - the
idea
should be to move people, not make a profit.

Why is there the notion of "getting people out of their cars"? This
is the nonsense spouted by Llivingstone, Prescott and the others who
get the press to film them on the Tube and then implement silly
schemes like congestion charges which do nothing.

You are totally clueless, have you ever driven in the rush-hour in most big
towns or cities, not to mention on main trunk roads and motorways ?


Public transport such as trains and buses are to a significant extent,
flawed - there are too many obvious shortcomings:
snip more clap-trap

You mean that they don't go door to door when selfish w*nkers like you want
to go...

Step out of your Utopia and find a clue.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The Americans regard it with bitter envy.

They don't you know.

They do. Clinton was going to introduce an NHS, and it was in his
manifesto, one of the reasons he was voted in. He never delivered as the
profiteering health scum companies stood in his way at every opportunity,
that it would have taken an eon to introduce. Unless it can be up and
running in a few years, and seen to work come the next election, most US
governments will not touch anything that costs.

US health care is fine if you well heeled otherwise it is the pits.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Badger
writes

The buy in needs to be something BIG, but in this tin pot country I
can't see it happening.

If you think the UK is a "tin pot"
country, feel free to exercise your
right of choice as a consumer and
move elsewhere. Bet you won't.

Why should he leave? Because he is astute enough to recognise we are
a
tin-pot country, I say more a banana republic, dorks like you who
can't
see
you are being ripped off, say leave. The reason Southern Ireland
stayed
backwards for so long, not the case now because the EU forced various
laws
on them, was that people left instead of staying and getting the place
right. Irish people abroad have been very successful, yet in Ireland
they
would not have been because of the laws and attitudes they had.


IMM has again missed the point to which he is replying to... :~(

You have to read the post. Duh!


Yes, and the previous one too, unlike some it seems !

Duh indeed, IMM, you could use it as you sig line...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:37:29 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

[railways]

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment.

Now consider the amount of money thrown at consulting fees and lawyers
to carry out the privatisation; the enormous amount of state subsidy
that the private companies _still_ get, despite making record profits,

Completely reasonable since they should have been provided with
something of decent quality in the first place.

Talk about ROFLOWPOS !!!!!!!

What an ****ing stupid moronic thing to say, if they didn't like what they
bought they shouldn't have bought it, no one forced them. They knew exactly
what they where buying, what needed to be done and what they should have
done - and as they haven't the whole bloody shambles should be taken back
into state control, with no compensation as the TOC's have failed in their
contracts...



the patchy record of maintenance companies like Jarvis,

That is true, but IIRC British Rail used private contractors before.

Under their direct control, and mainly on 'big' projects, day to day
maintenance was in house.


the disasters
directly attributable to privatisation (Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar,
Hatfield.)

That's an extrapolation


Not at all, the latter two were due to poor maintenance, the former was due
to cost saving, in BR days (and certainly pre Thatcher's union bash) no
trains would have used the Platform controlled by such a poorly sighted
signal, nor would a new driver been allowed to drive with so little
training.



Do you not think all that money and time and effort would have been
better spent on improving the basic infrastructure, rather than
fattening the wallets of consultants, shareholders, lawyers, and Richard
frigging Beardie?

The infrastructure should have been delivered in a good quality
condition at privatisation rather than as a pup.

snip the rest of his bollox

No it should not, if it had been modernised there would not have been any
real need to privatise - other than to allow quick buck, like was done with
BT and BG for example... Your true colours are now showing and all that....

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:37:47 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:55:37 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community
because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although

Although you see no need to pay for the health care of the less wealthy
members of society,

I haven't said that at all. Why don't you read what I actually said
rather than what you thought I said.

One little thing you haven't mentioned, Andy, is the fact that
virtually all training of medical staff is paid for by the public
purse.

--
Frank Erskine

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:37:47 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:55:37 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community
because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although

Although you see no need to pay for the health care of the less wealthy
members of society,

I haven't said that at all. Why don't you read what I actually said
rather than what you thought I said.

One little thing you haven't mentioned, Andy, is the fact that
virtually all training of medical staff is paid for by the public
purse.

Yes. The private sector say they are more efficient and professional and
that anyone in the public sector is incompetent. They all come from the
same training schools, paid for by our taxpayers.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote
| The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the
| answer for Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

Yes, they're so much better. Cleaner, more frequent, trains, new stations
and lines being opened,

Sorry, but would you care to name a 'new station' or line, apart from those
involved with the CTRL's...

Time tables are either the same or have been cut back, other than on lines
that have had recent (state) investment. A fact of the signalling systems,
you can't increase line capacity if the signalling system won't allow it -
that is why lines are re-signalled, and why the WCML is having to be
re-signalled to allow the new high speed Virgin trains to run at their
maximum speed.

and staff with some understanding that keeping their
job depends on them doing it.

But incompetence at higher levels are even worse, in BR times trains were
held so that connections were kept, now a train could run empty because
otherwise someone is fined - what's the point of running an empty train on
time and leaving 'customers' stranded ? Yes it's the extreme end of the
argument but so is yours.


| Some services are best run by the state.

I can't think of many. Even private prisons run by Group 4 got better
reports from the Prisons Inspectorate than Prison Service-run ones.

Scottish customers pay more for their water and sewerage from the
nationalised Scottish Water than customers of the private sector down
south.

Just because it's still in state ownership or because the service costs more
to run ?

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:04:40 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I did cover that. The point is that if the local loop was installed
with state money (in effect), then there is an argument that BT should
provide access to other operators through LLU.

No, there isn't, right or wrong BT was sold to private investors, why
should
any private company be forced to allow their competitors to use their
networks (that they have modernised since privatisation) - no one would
dream of making Ford allow Rover Group to use their R&D departments or
the
production lines for little or no payment if at all.

I think that perhaps you don't understand the technologies and
investments.

It's you who doesn't understand.

snip your clap-trap

BT are not being asked to provide either for nothing.

In effect they are.


LLU doesn't involve "modernised cable networks" - it s purely copper
local loop, much of which is decades old.

But sold with BT and then maintained by the private BT.


Most BT exchange buildings have large amounts of empty space because
they were built originally for mechanical switches. Modern equipment
is much smaller. Parts of some exchanges have been used for
office space, but there is still a lot of free space.


And what has that got to do with the price of fish !

snip more clap

So why do they want to use the BT networks then...

Because there is reasonable amount of cable under the ground in most
areas from end users to the exchange. LLU simply involves using
this section, not the active parts of the BT network such as switches
and so forth.


But they are BT cables that BT might wish to use, what they do with THEIR
property is their frecking business. It's like someone say that because you
have a spare bedroom in your house you should let some squatter use it, just
because you don't have a use for it ATM - once in you won't be able to get
them out...

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:17:20 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:23:54 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


You have to understand how the system operates in the U.S.

Assuming there is health insurance, and if not the patient qualify for
Medicare...


????

There are many who can't afford medical insurance (for what ever reason) but
don't qualify for Medicare.


There are some. From all that I have read and heard, not "many".





snip

The insurers, health maintenance organisations and others are well
able to negotiate deals with the vendors. It doesn't require the
largest bureaucracy in Europe to do it.


Sorry but the private medical system in the US is a bureaucracy (although
a
private one) and a cartel on top.

Apart from the HMOs, it doesn't operate as a "system" and that is the
point. Customers have a choice both of financing organisation and
delivery organisation.

True, but they have no choice in the cost, one company put the cost up and
the rest will follow [1] - human nature being what it is. I would love to
live in the same utopia that you inhabit but most of us live in the real
world !

Unfortunately I don't live in utopia and the world is very real
indeed. It could certainly be improved by not having socialised
medicine.



[1] you only have to look as far as the UK motor insurance system to se
this.

??? There is quite a spread in prices for equivalent cover, IME.



Here, most people have choice of neither and that is fundamentally
wrong as well as being inefficient.


If they can't afford private medical care they have the full NHS service to
fall back on, those in the USA don't have such a service.

There is Medicaid and Medicare. Remember also that they are not
shelling out tax into a socialised medical service either.

With having discretionary income comes responsibility. If people
spend their money on other things and don't allocate some for
healthcare then that's unfortunate. This is why I suggested a
voucher system where money is collected according to ability to pay
and given out to be spent only on healthcare.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:20:46 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
writes

snip

I have a broad range of friends and
contacts of every socio-economic group and political persuasion.

Well, me too. I visit the USA at least 3 times a year. You and I must
meet very different people


And I bet neither of you meet those who are just above 'scraping the barrel'
classes....

Actually, yes I do - economically disadvantaged, disabled and elderly
people.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Huge" wrote in message
...
snip

I've never met an American who was envious of the NHS. They all regard
socialised medicine with horror.


And how many Americans have you met ?...

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:53:53 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

The Americans regard it with bitter envy.

They don't you know.

They do. Clinton was going to introduce an NHS, and it was in his
manifesto, one of the reasons he was voted in.

Rubbish. Even Democrats didn't want an NHS equivalent.


He never delivered as the
profiteering health scum companies stood in his way at every opportunity,
that it would have taken an eon to introduce.

He didn't do it because it was not what people wanted (and possibly
because he was too busy with cigars).


Unless it can be up and
running in a few years, and seen to work come the next election, most US
governments will not touch anything that costs.

Quite right too. The less government involvement that there is in a
society, the better it works and the happier people are.


US health care is fine if you well heeled otherwise it is the pits.


Not the observation of anybody that I have ever met there, and that is
a range of socio-economic backgrounds and ages.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:35:44 +0000 (UTC), Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:37:47 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:55:37 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community
because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although

Although you see no need to pay for the health care of the less wealthy
members of society,

I haven't said that at all. Why don't you read what I actually said
rather than what you thought I said.

One little thing you haven't mentioned, Andy, is the fact that
virtually all training of medical staff is paid for by the public
purse.

That's entirely reasonable. Other education is paid for from the
public purse in full or in part and does not mean that people have to
work for the government - thank goodness.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:54:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:37:47 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:55:37 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community
because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although

Although you see no need to pay for the health care of the less wealthy
members of society,

I haven't said that at all. Why don't you read what I actually said
rather than what you thought I said.

One little thing you haven't mentioned, Andy, is the fact that
virtually all training of medical staff is paid for by the public
purse.

Yes. The private sector say they are more efficient and professional and
that anyone in the public sector is incompetent. They all come from the
same training schools, paid for by our taxpayers.

So what do you think goes wrong in the public sector that causes
people to feel this?

I've met some very good individuals working in the public sector, but
they tend to be lighthouses in a sea of grey - ultimately moving to
the private sector.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:17:20 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:
snip

True, but they have no choice in the cost, one company put the cost up
and
the rest will follow [1] - human nature being what it is. I would love to
live in the same utopia that you inhabit but most of us live in the real
world !

Unfortunately I don't live in utopia and the world is very real
indeed. It could certainly be improved by not having socialised
medicine.


I don't live in Utopia either, but the world could certainly be improved by
not having selfish people like you ranting your extreme righ-wing poison in
public...



[1] you only have to look as far as the UK motor insurance system to se
this.

??? There is quite a spread in prices for equivalent cover, IME.


Well their service is not the same, quite the opposite in fact, but the
average car owner is to blind to notice when they are being taken up the
garden path...



Here, most people have choice of neither and that is fundamentally
wrong as well as being inefficient.


If they can't afford private medical care they have the full NHS service
to
fall back on, those in the USA don't have such a service.

There is Medicaid and Medicare. Remember also that they are not
shelling out tax into a socialised medical service either.

So, it still doesn't help if they fail between the being able to afford
private care and qualifying for free care.


With having discretionary income comes responsibility. If people
spend their money on other things and don't allocate some for
healthcare then that's unfortunate. This is why I suggested a
voucher system where money is collected according to ability to pay
and given out to be spent only on healthcare.


You really are without a clue, many people just about afford the cost of
raising their family never mind all the extras, but if they bring in more
than the (arbitrary) maximum income to qualify for the vouchers [1] then
they are without health care.

[1] and a cut off income will be introduced, remember that when the NHS was
formed dental and eye care were free to all, but to cut (tax payers) costs
they were removed - the same will happen with any voucher system in time.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
snip

Quite right too. The less government involvement that there is in a
society, the better it works and the happier people are.


Dear Mrs Thatcher will be so please you took her speech about there being no
such thing as society so sincerely....

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:54:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:37:47 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:55:37 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community
because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although

Although you see no need to pay for the health care of the less
wealthy
members of society,

I haven't said that at all. Why don't you read what I actually said
rather than what you thought I said.

One little thing you haven't mentioned, Andy, is the fact that
virtually all training of medical staff is paid for by the public
purse.

Yes. The private sector say they are more efficient and professional and
that anyone in the public sector is incompetent. They all come from the
same training schools, paid for by our taxpayers.

So what do you think goes wrong in the public sector that causes
people to feel this?

I've met some very good individuals working in the public sector, but
they tend to be lighthouses in a sea of grey - ultimately moving to
the private sector.


Wage rates, charge more and you can pay more, cut the amount coming in (in
this case tax) and you have to pay less. If the NHS had the funding it
needed, by cutting top and middle management waste and a modest increase in
tax rates, the front line staff could both have decent wages and a decent
budget to use caring for the patients - Oops, sorry, 'customers' as they now
have to be called.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:47:28 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:



With respect you don't, you have made that quite clear

In your opinion. As we have already determined, that is clouded by
your preconceived ideas.

- why do you think
you have had very little support (other than this thread boring the arse off
most people that is...) ?

Well actually, I thought that th thread had finished until reopened
today - not by me.....





The biggest modernisation of the railways was carried
whilst under national control (1955 - 1968),

So poor investment and modernisation after that?

Err, cutting edge research (which is still in use today by the worlds
railways),

What "cutting edge research"?

introduction of the highly successful HST trains on both the ER
and WR regions in the mid to late '70's

Now badly outdated.


, extension to the west coast
electrification from Crew to Glasgow, extension of the electrified services
on the SW section of the old Southern region,

As an occasional user of Southern region, I know that prior to
privatisation it was appalling with some trains dating back to the
thirties. At least now the trains have been replaced.

electrification of part of the
East Coast main line, electrification of part of the Midland main line,
complete re-signalling of the Brighton main line, introduction of new
locomotives designs etc. etc. etc. ...


As I said, you know nothing about the rail system and the whys and
wherefores of it's recent history and are thus rather clueless to try and
discuss it !

I am sufficiently aware of what has happened to know the difference
between what is good and what is rubbish. Without both public and
private funding it would probably not be running at all.
The best solution is for government funding of infrastructure with
management of that and of train operations in private control.



not only that but you need to
understand that government money is still being spent to modernise the
system.

.. as it should have been before being privatised.


Then there would have been no reason to privatise, it was done by the Tories
in the mistaken belief that private money would be used to pay for the
modernisation that needed to be carried out.

It was done to attract private investment as well as state funding.
THe problems are largely due to continued government meddling.



By all means let
private companies run their own service, many companies were doing so
before
privatisation, but they were not using public money to make a private
profit...

So they were doing it for love?

If they are receiving public money then yes they should, at most all they
are doing is acting as a project manager and only need to be paid a salary.

The whole point of having entrepreneurial involvement is to attract
the highly skilled from the private sector who wouldn't otherwise
dream of going near a state run operation. Without profit, there is
no return for shareholders, no investment and no attraction of the
best managers.





Public transport is an essential service

It's not *essential* at all. There are plenty of ways to get from A
to B, assuming it's necessary to do so at all.

Just, sit in a traffic jam with others you mean...

.... or go at a different time or don't go at all.




and should be under central
control, even more so if people are to be got out of their cars - the
idea
should be to move people, not make a profit.

Why is there the notion of "getting people out of their cars"? This
is the nonsense spouted by Llivingstone, Prescott and the others who
get the press to film them on the Tube and then implement silly
schemes like congestion charges which do nothing.

You are totally clueless,

Actually no, just rather well organised.

have you ever driven in the rush-hour in most big
towns or cities, not to mention on main trunk roads and motorways ?

Of course. The obvious thing to do is to stagger working hours,
meetings and routes and encourage home working. There's no need to
have a rush hour. Cramming people into inconvenient, smelly and
dirty buses and trains is not the answer

Almost the only times that I tend to use public transport is the train
for meetings in central London. I can easily avoid congestion issues
by arranging times and routes and methods of travel to avoid them.






Public transport such as trains and buses are to a significant extent,
flawed - there are too many obvious shortcomings:
snip more clap-trap

You mean that they don't go door to door when selfish w*nkers like you want
to go...

Step out of your Utopia and find a clue.

I think that you are thinking about utopia.

What possible benefit does a public transport arrangement have when it
takes an hour each way to cover a journey that can be driven in 10-15
minutes?

You might have two hours a day to waste on this ideology, but I'm
afraid that I don't. Apart from services into and out of major
cities where it is faster to use a train, why would anybody expect
that people would want to waste their time if they can go when they
want to go, get there far more quickly and cheaply, carry goods and
travel in comfort and privacy.?

People vote with their feet. Why do you think that bus services are
being reduced and removed? They are wanted less and less.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:08:06 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:17:20 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:
snip

True, but they have no choice in the cost, one company put the cost up
and
the rest will follow [1] - human nature being what it is. I would love to
live in the same utopia that you inhabit but most of us live in the real
world !

Unfortunately I don't live in utopia and the world is very real
indeed. It could certainly be improved by not having socialised
medicine.


I don't live in Utopia either, but the world could certainly be improved by
not having selfish people like you ranting your extreme righ-wing poison in
public...


That's your perception. If you had actually bothered to read what I
said, which was that I thought that it was the right thing to do to
*fund* healthcare to the current level out of taxation, but remove the
socialised *delivery*; then it is obvious that this is a middle ground
position between what currently happens here and what happens in
countries with less public provision. There is nothing selfish or
right wing in it.

As soon as people start using words like "extreme" and "poison", it
indicates to me that they are of an extreme opposite position and are
insecure.





[1] you only have to look as far as the UK motor insurance system to se
this.

??? There is quite a spread in prices for equivalent cover, IME.


Well their service is not the same, quite the opposite in fact, but the
average car owner is to blind to notice when they are being taken up the
garden path...

Caveat emptor. THere are enough insurance brokers both bricks and
mortar and on line that if people are overpaying it is nobody's fault
bu their own.,






Here, most people have choice of neither and that is fundamentally
wrong as well as being inefficient.


If they can't afford private medical care they have the full NHS service
to
fall back on, those in the USA don't have such a service.

There is Medicaid and Medicare. Remember also that they are not
shelling out tax into a socialised medical service either.

So, it still doesn't help if they fail between the being able to afford
private care and qualifying for free care.

There are always minority corner cases in any system. There are
here as well.




With having discretionary income comes responsibility. If people
spend their money on other things and don't allocate some for
healthcare then that's unfortunate. This is why I suggested a
voucher system where money is collected according to ability to pay
and given out to be spent only on healthcare.


You really are without a clue, many people just about afford the cost of
raising their family never mind all the extras, but if they bring in more
than the (arbitrary) maximum income to qualify for the vouchers [1] then
they are without health care.

Are you completely dim? I have specifically said that the vouchers
would NOT be related to income. Everybody would get them.


[1] and a cut off income will be introduced, remember that when the NHS was
formed dental and eye care were free to all, but to cut (tax payers) costs
they were removed - the same will happen with any voucher system in time.

I disagree. The current system provides a basic level of
inefficient care. My point has been about the *delivery* not the
funding.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:11:18 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
snip

Quite right too. The less government involvement that there is in a
society, the better it works and the happier people are.


Dear Mrs Thatcher will be so please you took her speech about there being no
such thing as society so sincerely....



There is but not of the form that you imagine.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:33:15 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:37:29 +0000, Mike Tomlinson
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
writes

[railways]

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because
of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of
investment.

Now consider the amount of money thrown at consulting fees and lawyers
to carry out the privatisation; the enormous amount of state subsidy
that the private companies _still_ get, despite making record profits,

Completely reasonable since they should have been provided with
something of decent quality in the first place.

Talk about ROFLOWPOS !!!!!!!

What an ****ing stupid moronic thing to say, if they didn't like what they
bought they shouldn't have bought it, no one forced them.
They knew exactly
what they where buying, what needed to be done and what they should have
done -

They also believed that the government would not renege on its
financial commitments to the industry. This was a major factor in
any business plan.


and as they haven't the whole bloody shambles should be taken back
into state control, with no compensation as the TOC's have failed in their
contracts...


This is extreme left wing jingoistic nonsense.

You conveniently forget that the government reneged on the funcding
deal it had for Railtrack, forcing it into liquidation. Most of the
issues stem from agreed funding not happening and infrastructure
becoming inadequate.


the disasters
directly attributable to privatisation (Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar,
Hatfield.)

That's an extrapolation


Not at all, the latter two were due to poor maintenance, the former was due
to cost saving, in BR days (and certainly pre Thatcher's union bash) no
trains would have used the Platform controlled by such a poorly sighted
signal, nor would a new driver been allowed to drive with so little
training.

.... and of course there were never any accidents.........




No it should not, if it had been modernised there would not have been any
real need to privatise - other than to allow quick buck, like was done with
BT and BG for example... Your true colours are now showing and all that....


The true situation is that it isn't economically practical to run
these large infrastructures under state control without massive
taxation increases to cover the incompetence and wastage. This is
simply unacceptable.

By operating them on a private commercial basis, people can choose to
invest or not and receive a return. I would far rather have that
situation and some measure of control, however small, than continue to
throw tax money into a bottomless pit without accountability.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:28:41 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I think that perhaps you don't understand the technologies and
investments.

It's you who doesn't understand.

snip your clap-trap

You're starting to behave like IMM.............




BT are not being asked to provide either for nothing.

In effect they are.


Are they being asked to give LLU access to their competitors for no
charge? No - didn't think so.



LLU doesn't involve "modernised cable networks" - it s purely copper
local loop, much of which is decades old.

But sold with BT and then maintained by the private BT.

They will be paid for doing this by whoever uses is it.

This leaves the discussion as being what is the price for that.



Most BT exchange buildings have large amounts of empty space because
they were built originally for mechanical switches. Modern equipment
is much smaller. Parts of some exchanges have been used for
office space, but there is still a lot of free space.


And what has that got to do with the price of fish !

Quite a bit. The space is available and an income could be derived
from housing other equipment in it.




Because there is reasonable amount of cable under the ground in most
areas from end users to the exchange. LLU simply involves using
this section, not the active parts of the BT network such as switches
and so forth.


But they are BT cables that BT might wish to use, what they do with THEIR
property is their frecking business. It's like someone say that because you
have a spare bedroom in your house you should let some squatter use it, just
because you don't have a use for it ATM - once in you won't be able to get
them out...


No it isn't at all. They are in a market dominant position and
that means that in order for their to be competition to the benefit of
the customer, other companies should be allowed to compete.

I suspect that it will end up with the regulator carving it up as was
done with AT&T.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:22:07 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:




Wage rates, charge more and you can pay more, cut the amount coming in (in
this case tax) and you have to pay less. If the NHS had the funding it
needed, by cutting top and middle management waste and a modest increase in
tax rates, the front line staff could both have decent wages and a decent
budget to use caring for the patients - Oops, sorry, 'customers' as they now
have to be called.


The easiest way to cut top and middle management waste would be to
reduce the size of this organism. The waste is largely because of
the size.

There is no need or justification of any increase in taxation, let
alone for this. Successive governments have thrown increasing amounts
of money at the NHS and the result is very little improvement.

Governments shouldn't be in the health delivery business.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip ignorant clap-trap

Troll, IMO you are nothing but a troll, you haven't a clue about the NHS or
the railway system but try to be the all knowing person, sorry but if you're
not a troll then you are nothing but a wet ****.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:02:42 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip ignorant clap-trap

Troll, IMO you are nothing but a troll, you haven't a clue about the NHS or
the railway system but try to be the all knowing person, sorry but if you're
not a troll then you are nothing but a wet ****.

I haven't claimed to be all knowing at all, but simply ventured some
reasoned opinions. I am sorry if you don't understand some of the
subtleties. It seems that that is the case, since you have suggested
that I have said things that I have not, or taken positions that I do
not hold. Making inaccurate accusations of extreme views and resorting
to personal insults rather confirms the point.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

And I bet neither of you meet those who are just above 'scraping the barrel'
classes....


But I do as a result of spending some months in the US each year. The
US healthcare system doesn't work for probably 50% of the population.
The cost of prescription drugs is wildly inflated and the cost of
actually having a baby, even with health insurance can be quite
unbelievable --- IRO $5000. Thats without the cost of the prenatal
visits, tests etc. The old are now losing their drug insurance coverage
as the pension schemes cannot stand the costs. Medicare etc works within
limits, but if you are 42yrs say and sick, either pay or die!! The
medical liability insurance for doctors is now coming under control, but
only because the doctor won't treat you unless you agree not to sue
him!! The hospital costs are rising, partly as a result of massive
spending on facilities, which have to be used (bill inflation) to
satisfy the accountants. The hospitals also have so many bad debts, that
the bills are automatically inflated for the people who are actually
paying. The US system has at least as many medical cockups as the UK in
any year. I agree with the earlier poster in that the cost of over the
counter drugs is frequently much higher than in the UK and IIRC you also
pay tax on the purchase. The US politicians are not brave enough to
introduce an NHS system, as the massive tax increases necessary.would
not be acceptable to the electors.

The NHS is the only reason I can think of for remaining in the UK! (Oh
sorry, of course, I forgot IMM!) The NHS however needs a drastic prune
at the organisational level and IMO will collapse without it.

Regards
Capitol

Huge wrote:

I've never met an American who was envious of the NHS. They all regard
socialised medicine with horror.


Partly true, I'd say. The people with good healthcare insurance systems
know that socialised medicine will be inferior in service and routine
ailment treatment quality, to that which they are used to. However, the
American poor would love to have any form of healthcare at a reasonable
cost, socialised or not! The American small businesses would love to
have an NHS system, as they face astronomical on costs for each
employee, if they provide health cover.

For those old enough, consider buying a subscription to AARP, which
routinely looks at healthcare for the over 50's. www.aarp.org

Regards
Capitol

Andy Hall wrote:

Customers have a choice both of financing organisation and
delivery organisation.

Not true if your employer is underwriting the scheme. He selects the
insurer and the insurer selects the doctor, roughly speaking!

Regards
Capitol

In article , Huge
writes

My parents live in America, and have done for 27 years.

Funnily enough, so do mine.

I've never met an American who was envious of the NHS. They all regard
socialised medicine with horror.

Strange, it's not the reaction I have had. Mind you, it's a huge
country; attitudes will vary wildly. I get a kick out of telling
Americans that we right-pondians have to have a licence to watch TV.
They react with horror to _that_ :-)

--
..sigmonster on vacation

In article , Andy Hall
writes

Rubbish. Even Democrats didn't want an NHS equivalent.

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton ran for office on a welfare reform
ticket which would have increased the level of state medical care, but
it was wildly unpopular (because of the tax increases it would need?)
and she quietly dropped the idea.

--
..sigmonster on vacation

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:02:42 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip ignorant clap-trap

Troll, IMO you are nothing but a troll, you haven't a clue about the NHS
or
the railway system but try to be the all knowing person, sorry but if
you're
not a troll then you are nothing but a wet ****.

I haven't claimed to be all knowing at all,

Yes you have, most recently about the railways system but you knowledge is
so lacking that it's laughable. And your real life knowledge of the NHS
seems equally lacking too.

but simply ventured some
reasoned opinions.

But you can't reason if you don't even know the basic facts of railway
history ! Suggesting that the railways hadn't had any investment in them
until they were privatised of all things, as I said, basic railway
history...

You're typical of today's 8th floor industry know-all's, as long as you can
babble some financial techno-speak' you think you can impress and prove your
flawed point.

I am sorry if you don't understand some of the
subtleties.

I do, what I don't understand is how you think that your way is the only way
and anything else is nothing short of communism.

It seems that that is the case, since you have suggested
that I have said things that I have not, or taken positions that I do
not hold. Making inaccurate accusations of extreme views and resorting
to personal insults rather confirms the point.


Oh, like you calling me all but a communist, you don't like it when the
tables are turned by the looks of things, typical school yard bully boy.

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the answer for
Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.


IMO they were right. However, they did not have the courage to do the
job properly. The railways should be treated as any other transport
business. I don't hear too many moans about Easyjet and Ryanair, or the
frequently unsubsidised bus companies. Railfares need to rise to an
economic level, which provides a real return on capital, or shut the
system down. AIUI, we spent more capital on railways last year, than on
roads. As roads are say 95% of our transport system, this is clearly
stupidity. I cannot see why millions of people travel to work in the
centre of major cities, if the businesses had to pay the wages to cover
the real cost of rail travel, then the work would soon move to where the
people are. This problem was recognised in the middle of the last
century, but as is usual for politicians, they have forgotten the plot
again.

Regards
Capitol

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:39:03 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



Andy Hall wrote:

Customers have a choice both of financing organisation and
delivery organisation.

Not true if your employer is underwriting the scheme. He selects the
insurer and the insurer selects the doctor, roughly speaking!


That depends on the employer and the insurer, IME.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:


In the 21st century they still have shared wards in hospitals rather
than individual rooms

The USA uses two beds to a room frequently!

Regards
Capitol

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
In article , Andy Hall
writes

Rubbish. Even Democrats didn't want an NHS equivalent.

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton ran for office on a welfare reform
ticket which would have increased the level of state medical care, but
it was wildly unpopular (because of the tax increases it would need?)
and she quietly dropped the idea.


That's what it comes down to, "I'm aright, sod you"....

Andy Hall wrote:

All that I have suggested is that users of healthcare and education
should receive a voucher or equivalent arrangement adequate to pay for
what they get today. Those who wish to spend it outside the state
offering should be able to do so and should be able to supplement it.
I haven't suggested reducing what people get.

I experienced an interesting of example of this recently...

Our first sprog needed glasses recently, and I like many of my age,
remember NHS glasses and all the patient choice you got with those (i.e.
you can have brown, or black and that's it, if they don't fit your face,
or rip your ears off, then tough!). Hence I was expecting something of
the same. The NHS provided the consultation free of charge, however they
apparently no longer get involved with the production or supply of the
specs.

Instead you get a voucher which you take to any private sector optician,
choose from a wide variety of frames, and hand over the voucher. The
value of it depends on the prescription - more complex ones attracting
more value in the voucher. Any shortfall between what the voucher is
worth and what glasses you choose, you pay yourself.

The result was a little girl with a set of specs that she likes, and is
happy to wear, and me 22 quid lighter. (I believe there is still a way
to get a fully funded set should your financial needs dictate). Also
they were delivered in 4 working days during a busy time of the year
(and that included custom made lenses to keep the edge thickness of them
down since they were going in such a small frame).

While not a perfect system, this seemed like a far more sensible way of
dealing with the whole procedure since it got the NHS out of the
delivery side altogether. I can see a number of services where a
variation on the same system could improve patient care and choice, and
at the same time unburden the NHS of jobs it has no need to do.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Mike Tomlinson wrote:

Consider the situation with the cable companies. They'll only dig up
roads and install new infrastructure when there is clearly a profit to
be made.

Not quite true, I don't think any cable company in the UK has ever yet
made a profit. I await correction.

(That was also true of the railways, which were privately financed,
AIUI, not one railway company ever made a profit for it's shareholders
before nationalisation, most lost their money.)

Regards
Capitol