:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Taxation runs on a range of reasonable to outrageous.

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, how long before your voucher scheme gets reduced to a

You seem to be putting words into his mouth....

Out of curiosity however, what would be your objection (if any) to a
system where if you could "opt out" of primary NHS care (i.e. purchased
your own comprehensive cover for all things from GP services to drugs or
hospitalisation, excluding perhaps trauma/casualty care). As a result
you received a tax discount to partially offset the cost - note that I
said partially offset, not totally. The result would be you are still
paying toward the NHS for the general welfare of society, however you
personally would no longer be placing any burden on it.

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

You are reading what you want to read, not what is being written.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:50:10 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"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.

I would ask you to provide the quote where I have said or even
implied that I am all knowing on either subject; but it would be a
waste of time because you won't find it.

I simply offered some reasoned opinions to which for a reason that I
can only assume is bigotry, you don't like.

And your real life knowledge of the NHS
seems equally lacking too.

I've seen quite enough of the way it operates (or rather doesn't) to
last a lifetime, thanks. Wherever possible, I shop elsewhere.


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...

The basic history is not complicated and I did not suggest that the
railways had *no* investment in them until privatisation - simply that
it was inadequate and incompetent, which was obvious enough from the
service delivered.

What actually matters is what the user gets. For the most part,
what I get today when I use a train is a great deal better than it was
prior to privatisation although frankly it still has a long way to go
and would get there faster if the state simply provided the funding
that was committed and reneged upon.




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 don't have a need to impress anybody or to prove any points.



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.

I haven't said that or implied it for one moment. The boot is on
the other foot. You seem to think that the only way to operate the
so called "public services" is under state control. You even
suggested renationalisation of the railways without compensation.
That is an extreme view and would amount to state sponsored theft.



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.

Sigh.......



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:01:39 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

Wrong I'm afraid. Witness the added congestion when there are
train/tube strikes. Considering a lot of people stay at home or use
buses, the long term absence of public transport would be a lot worse.

OK it may possible for you to drive, and it may be possible for you to
schedule travel outside the rush hour, but that does not apply for
everyone else.

This demonstrates it is not essential for *you*, but is essential for
society as a whole, on which you rely.

then implement silly
schemes like congestion charges which do nothing.

Please, post some research or references to back up your unfounded
assumptions, excluding your own personal experience.

cheers,
Pete.

Andy Hall wrote:

State operations use as much, if not more consultant time as
equivalent private enterprises. THe reason is the same either way
and is generally a backside protection exercise.

Anyone have a figure for the amount of extra money this current
government has spent / is spending on consultants and quangos of all
sorts? I know it runs into the billions, and that is before you get into
the increased costs of central government itself.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Taxation runs on a range of reasonable to outrageous.

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, how long before your voucher scheme gets reduced to
a

You seem to be putting words into his mouth....

No, what I'm doing is trying to look into the future, or at least what
*might* happen.


Out of curiosity however, what would be your objection (if any) to a
system where if you could "opt out" of primary NHS care (i.e. purchased
your own comprehensive cover for all things from GP services to drugs or
hospitalisation, excluding perhaps trauma/casualty care).

I don't see how that is any benefit to anyone but those who could, the
result is that there is going to be less money over all in the NHS pot and
more staff are going to enticed into the private sector. If the private
sector paid for the training then it's not such a problem but, on the whole,
they don't as such they are obtaining trained staff at the expense of the
NHS.

As a result
you received a tax discount to partially offset the cost - note that I
said partially offset, not totally. The result would be you are still
paying toward the NHS for the general welfare of society, however you
personally would no longer be placing any burden on it.

But what happens if you need scrapping of a road some place, society (and
the NHS) isn't going to just pass by, I can see yet another layer of
management being introduced to recover NHS costs from private medical
insurance, although it could probably be incorporated into the present
system of treatment cost claims after RTA's etc.


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

You are reading what you want to read, not what is being written.


No, as I said, I was reading what might happen in the future where vouchers
are concerned, remember that dental and eye care was free at one time but
that changed to save costs (aka taxation income).

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

"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.

The more a society is left to money grabbing *******s the worse it becomes.
Thatcher wuith mass poverty, the 1930s under the Tories, Vistoriana.

Henry George saw that when a society gets richer a strata of people become
relatively poorer.

A very brief introduction to Georgism
http://www.progress.org/cgo/cwho.html

Further discussion of the property / justice issues What is
Geolibertarianism?
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geolib.htm

A scenario illustrating of the parallels between the effects of land
ownership and slavery
http://www.earthsharing.org.au/slavery.html

raden wrote:

Just love the ones that pop up saying 'this site is best viewed on IE
whatever' Would RS Components be best pleased if their site had a pop up
saying 'you'd be better off buying from CPS'?

Or CPC even ...

That could be why that CPS computer system is in such a state....
instead of concentrating on extracting money with manaces from absent
fathers, they keep getting people phone up for 100 assorted resistors
and some heat shrink!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
snip

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.
snip

That's OK for something like the actually spec's, but what if you were faced
with;

Well you voucher allows you to have a very basic eye examination but if you
care to pay X quid more you can have the full test.

Ok if you have the extra money but not so good if you don't.

Optional extras are one thing, full treatment and care is another.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

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...

Curtailing freedom of speach... is that A socialist ideal?

Ranting? There are others doing far more.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Capitol" 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.

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,

What tripe. The airways are vast. railways need well, er, er, rail lines.
That all interconnect. A monopoly. Best kept that way and run properly

"IMM" wrote in message
...

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

"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.

The more a society is left
snip

[ no flame intended ]
IMM, please, try and get your attributions correct, or better still reply to
the correct message in the first place !

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
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.

Neither have I. When I say to them people in the UK have not died on the
steps on hospitals with snake bites because they couldn't prove they could
pay, they see the point.

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_ :-)

When they react to me, I tell them you pay more than us in your cable TV
fees.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

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...

Curtailing freedom of speach... is that A socialist ideal?

Ranting? There are others doing far more.

They certainly are. And they need professional attention.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:25:38 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:01:39 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

Wrong I'm afraid. Witness the added congestion when there are
train/tube strikes. Considering a lot of people stay at home or use
buses, the long term absence of public transport would be a lot worse.

You have to look at the bigger picture than the assumption that public
transport is needed.

Unfortunately, the basic assumption of the anti-car pro public
transport lobby is the assumption that mass movement of people is
required. This is only because businesses base themselves in large
city centres and pull in the supporting cast of service industries as
well.

That notion is flawed, because there isn't a need for businesses to be
in city centres, for many there isn't a need to have fixed working
times and for many there isn't a need to congregate at a central
premises at all. There are increasing numbers of businesses that
have moved on from these ideas with employees working from home or
smaller regional locations.



OK it may possible for you to drive, and it may be possible for you to
schedule travel outside the rush hour, but that does not apply for
everyone else.

This demonstrates it is not essential for *you*, but is essential for
society as a whole, on which you rely.

THat's my question. Is it? The conventional approach is to assume
that businesses want to be in city centres and that therefore
transport provision on a grand scale must be made.

If it is made attractive for businesses to locate away from city
centres, then most of the mass transport need goes away.


then implement silly
schemes like congestion charges which do nothing.

Please, post some research or references to back up your unfounded
assumptions, excluding your own personal experience.

No assumptions. At one level, if you drive into central London
there is not a perceptible change. I have asked loads of taxi
drivers what they think and haven't found one yet who thinks that
there has been an improvement.

If you look at reports on the effects and the *complete* impact then
at best it's a mixed bag

www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/
transport/congestion_charging_app_jan04.rtf

Given some of the negative effects on users and businesses, saying
that the scheme does nothing (i.e. is neutral overall) is being
generous in my view.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:56:31 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



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!


Even if it does, that's a considerable improvement on 8 to 30.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"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.

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight
to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum
dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing
like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps
naturally, if this is what state absentation comes to, let us have some
State intervention. - Albert Jay Nock

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:37:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


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

"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.

The more a society is left to money grabbing *******s the worse it becomes.
Thatcher wuith mass poverty, the 1930s under the Tories, Vistoriana.

Henry George saw that when a society gets richer a strata of people become
relatively poorer.

A very brief introduction to Georgism
http://www.progress.org/cgo/cwho.html

Further discussion of the property / justice issues What is
Geolibertarianism?
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geolib.htm

A scenario illustrating of the parallels between the effects of land
ownership and slavery
http://www.earthsharing.org.au/slavery.html


Gosh. You haven't dragged old Henry out for ages.

How is his armchair and pipe these days?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:56:31 +0000, Capitol
wrote:



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!



Even if it does, that's a considerable improvement on 8 to 30.

and mixed sex as well....


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:34:32 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

ppen.


Out of curiosity however, what would be your objection (if any) to a
system where if you could "opt out" of primary NHS care (i.e. purchased
your own comprehensive cover for all things from GP services to drugs or
hospitalisation, excluding perhaps trauma/casualty care).

I don't see how that is any benefit to anyone but those who could, the
result is that there is going to be less money over all in the NHS pot and
more staff are going to enticed into the private sector. If the private
sector paid for the training then it's not such a problem but, on the whole,
they don't as such they are obtaining trained staff at the expense of the
NHS.


That's illogical.

If staff are enticed into the private sector it will be because of
better pay and working conditions.

Education leading to careers in other sectors is funded by or partly
by the state but there is no requirement to work for the state for a
period of time afterwards except in certain special sponsorship cases.

Why should healthcare delivery be treated differently?

This is one of the main points. If an organisation is so broken that
it's necessary to protect it by limiting its competition in various
ways then something is very wrong.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

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

You are obviously ignorant of life in general and all therein. You need to
read this on-line book right now. It is for your own good.

Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets4.html

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:37:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


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

"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.

The more a society is left to money grabbing *******s the worse it
becomes.
Thatcher wuith mass poverty, the 1930s under the Tories, Vistoriana.

Henry George saw that when a society gets richer a strata of people
become
relatively poorer.

A very brief introduction to Georgism
http://www.progress.org/cgo/cwho.html

Further discussion of the property / justice issues What is
Geolibertarianism?
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geolib.htm

A scenario illustrating of the parallels between the effects of land
ownership and slavery
http://www.earthsharing.org.au/slavery.html


Gosh. You haven't dragged old Henry out for ages.

You need to look at the links and read fully. This is for your own good.

IMM wrote:

Neither have I. When I say to them people in the UK have not died on the
steps on hospitals with snake bites because they couldn't prove they could
pay, they see the point.

Good one IMM....

Given the size of the population of poisonous snakes indigenous in this
country, that should ram home the point with the characteristic thrust
of most of your arguments.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Neither have I. When I say to them people in the UK have not died on the
steps on hospitals with snake bites because they couldn't prove they
could
pay, they see the point.

Good one IMM....

I know. Thank you.

Given the size of the population of poisonous snakes indigenous in this
country, that should ram home the point with the characteristic thrust
of most of your arguments.

It did sink home.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:50:10 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"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.

I would ask you to provide the quote where I have said or even
implied that I am all knowing on either subject; but it would be a
waste of time because you won't find it.

I simply offered some reasoned opinions to which for a reason that I
can only assume is bigotry, you don't like.

I don't like them because they are based on fails facts, something that you
aptly demonstrated and then argued when you where put right.


And your real life knowledge of the NHS
seems equally lacking too.

I've seen quite enough of the way it operates (or rather doesn't) to
last a lifetime, thanks. Wherever possible, I shop elsewhere.


Well we will have to agree to disagree, seeing that your only contact with
the NHS has been through the front door IIRC.


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...

The basic history is not complicated and I did not suggest that the

But you seem to have failed to even grasp that, but think you know how the
railways are best funded and run !

railways had *no* investment in them until privatisation - simply that
it was inadequate and incompetent, which was obvious enough from the
service delivered.

If you are going to argue the toss get your facts correct, the investment
that was carried out in the 1955 -1960 period was the largest single
investment since the railways were built (coupled to the Beaching
rationalisation of the system in the same period), every standard gauge
steam locomotive was scrapped and either diesel or electric locomotives were
built (both by BR and private engineering) to replace them, the WCML was
rebuilt between London and Crew (it would have been to Glasgow but the new
Tory administration bulked), a completely new way of handling freight was
designed and introduced (which is still in world wide use, and not just on
the railways - the ISO container) etc. etc.


What actually matters is what the user gets. For the most part,
what I get today when I use a train is a great deal better than it was
prior to privatisation although frankly it still has a long way to go
and would get there faster if the state simply provided the funding
that was committed and reneged upon.


Why should public money be given to private business but not to a state one,
hypocrisy to say the least...




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 don't have a need to impress anybody or to prove any points.

Well, you couldn't, even if you wanted to !




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.

I haven't said that or implied it for one moment. The boot is on
the other foot. You seem to think that the only way to operate the
so called "public services" is under state control. You even
suggested renationalisation of the railways without compensation.
That is an extreme view and would amount to state sponsored theft.


The UK has had 10 years of private TOC's and Railtrack, the railways are in
a worse state now than the last days of under funded BR, trains can't be
used [1], maintenance has been so lacking across the network that at least
two fatal derailments are directly attributable to it and has had to have
HMG intervene and one fatal crash due to penny pinching in signalling and
driver training.

[1] new trains that draw more power than could be supplied meaning HMG had
to fund the rebuilding of the power supply system.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:13 -0000, "IMM" 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.

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight
to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum
dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour -- nothing
like it had ever been seen in modern times....People began to say, perhaps
naturally, if this is what state absentation comes to, let us have some
State intervention. - Albert Jay Nock



You are quoting out of context.....




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

State operations use as much, if not more consultant time as
equivalent private enterprises. THe reason is the same either way
and is generally a backside protection exercise.

Anyone have a figure for the amount of extra money this current
government has spent / is spending on consultants and quangos of all
sorts? I know it runs into the billions, and that is before you get into
the increased costs of central government itself.


You 'know' but can't cite any figures and have to ask other to do so,
strange if you 'know'....

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
raden wrote:

Just love the ones that pop up saying 'this site is best viewed on IE
whatever' Would RS Components be best pleased if their site had a pop
up
saying 'you'd be better off buying from CPS'?

Or CPC even ...

That could be why that CPS computer system is in such a state....
instead of concentrating on extracting money with manaces from absent
fathers, they keep getting people phone up for 100 assorted resistors
and some heat shrink!


I hope the CPS don't waste there time doing that either, could be why there
are so many fathers in court though, I think you mean the CSA.....

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:13 -0000, "IMM" 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.

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention,
or laissez-faire, led straight
to a most hideous and dreadful economic
exploitation; starvation wages, slum
dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships,
child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been
seen in modern times....People began to
say, perhaps naturally, if this is what state
absentation comes to, let us have some
State intervention. - Albert Jay Nock

You are quoting out of context.....

The statement was correct, an astute observation. He goes on....

"But the State had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had
established one monopoly, -- the landlord's monopoly of economic rent, --
thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only
source of human subsistence, and driving them into the factories to work for
whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of
England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally
occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their
needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land
from competition with industry in the labour market, thus creating a huge,
constant and exigent labour-surplus."

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

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...

Curtailing freedom of speach... is that A socialist ideal?


No, that is mostly practised in countries of either far right-wing or
communist rule, you also seem to think that socialism = communism...

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:15:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

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

You are obviously ignorant of life in general and all therein. You need to
read this on-line book right now. It is for your own good.

Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets4.html



One would need to read carefully and not quote selectively as you did.

He almost has some good ideas until he becomes confused about
taxation.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Neither have I. When I say to them people in the UK have not died on the
steps on hospitals with snake bites because they couldn't prove they
could
pay, they see the point.

Good one IMM....

Given the size of the population of poisonous snakes indigenous in this
country, that should ram home the point with the characteristic thrust
of most of your arguments.


Replace snake with RTA....

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:17:29 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




A very brief introduction to Georgism
http://www.progress.org/cgo/cwho.html

Further discussion of the property / justice issues What is
Geolibertarianism?
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geolib.htm

A scenario illustrating of the parallels between the effects of land
ownership and slavery
http://www.earthsharing.org.au/slavery.html


Gosh. You haven't dragged old Henry out for ages.

You need to look at the links and read fully. This is for your own good.


Have you? There are some long words........ :-)



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

That's OK for something like the actually spec's, but what if you were faced
with;

Well you voucher allows you to have a very basic eye examination but if you
care to pay X quid more you can have the full test.

Ok if you have the extra money but not so good if you don't.

Agreed. Which is why safeguards would have the be in place to make sure
the level of care available remains (in real terms) as good or better.

Optional extras are one thing, full treatment and care is another.

The current setup often provides neither alas.

Take dentistry for example; if you need a filling, you can pay for the
whole job yourself and have it done properly, or you can have the NHS
pay for the job to be hacked quickly in 15 mins. There does not seem to
be the option of "I will have the 15 NHS mins, and buy/insure for the
other 25". This would make better dental care available to a host of
families who currently do not receive it from the NHS, and can't afford
to fully fund it themselves. It would also make taking on NHS work
financially viable for many more dental practices. A PFI if you like.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:31:16 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:13 -0000, "IMM" 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.

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention,
or laissez-faire, led straight
to a most hideous and dreadful economic
exploitation; starvation wages, slum
dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships,
child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been
seen in modern times....People began to
say, perhaps naturally, if this is what state
absentation comes to, let us have some
State intervention. - Albert Jay Nock

You are quoting out of context.....

The statement was correct, an astute observation. He goes on....


He certainly does. Do you think he inherited Henry's armchair and
slippers?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:34:32 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

ppen.


Out of curiosity however, what would be your objection (if any) to a
system where if you could "opt out" of primary NHS care (i.e. purchased
your own comprehensive cover for all things from GP services to drugs
or
hospitalisation, excluding perhaps trauma/casualty care).

I don't see how that is any benefit to anyone but those who could, the
result is that there is going to be less money over all in the NHS pot
and
more staff are going to enticed into the private sector. If the private
sector paid for the training then it's not such a problem but, on the
whole,
they don't as such they are obtaining trained staff at the expense of the
NHS.


That's illogical.

If staff are enticed into the private sector it will be because of
better pay and working conditions.

Yes, the state can't fund a living wage to the NHS staff, because people
like you object to paying into a far taxation system....


Education leading to careers in other sectors is funded by or partly
by the state but there is no requirement to work for the state for a
period of time afterwards except in certain special sponsorship cases.

We are talking about highly skilled staff, not OAP bum wipers, to put it
bluntly.


Why should healthcare delivery be treated differently?

Because peoples health is affected if we don't. But as long as you're OK you
don't seem to care about those less fortunate than your self....


This is one of the main points. If an organisation is so broken that
it's necessary to protect it by limiting its competition in various
ways then something is very wrong.


It's not broken, people are trying to break it for personal gain but it's
not broken at all, just under funded.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:15:18 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

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

You are obviously ignorant of life in general and all therein. You need
to
read this on-line book right now. It is for your own good.

Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets4.html



One would need to read carefully and not quote selectively as you did.

He almost has some good ideas until he becomes confused about
taxation.

You lack common logic. Sad but true.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:17:29 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




A very brief introduction to Georgism
http://www.progress.org/cgo/cwho.html

Further discussion of the property / justice issues What is
Geolibertarianism?
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geolib.htm

A scenario illustrating of the parallels between the effects of land
ownership and slavery
http://www.earthsharing.org.au/slavery.html


Gosh. You haven't dragged old Henry out for ages.

You need to look at the links and read fully. This is for your own good.


Have you? There are some long words........ :-)

I know I noticed Mississippi. Now that is long.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:31:16 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:05:13 -0000, "IMM" 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.

"This imperfect policy of non-intervention,
or laissez-faire, led straight
to a most hideous and dreadful economic
exploitation; starvation wages, slum
dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships,
child-labour -- nothing like it had ever been
seen in modern times....People began to
say, perhaps naturally, if this is what state
absentation comes to, let us have some
State intervention. - Albert Jay Nock

You are quoting out of context.....

The statement was correct, an astute observation. He goes on....


He certainly does. Do you think he inherited Henry's armchair and
slippers?

Why? are you after them too?

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:22:43 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

I don't like them because they are based on fails facts, something that you
aptly demonstrated and then argued when you where put right.

Mmmm.......




And your real life knowledge of the NHS
seems equally lacking too.

I've seen quite enough of the way it operates (or rather doesn't) to
last a lifetime, thanks. Wherever possible, I shop elsewhere.


Well we will have to agree to disagree, seeing that your only contact with
the NHS has been through the front door IIRC.


Actually not, but that is the most important view together with that
of the clinical staff. Both are poor.






If you are going to argue the toss get your facts correct, the investment
that was carried out in the 1955 -1960 period was the largest single
investment since the railways were built (coupled to the Beaching
rationalisation of the system in the same period), every standard gauge
steam locomotive was scrapped and either diesel or electric locomotives were
built (both by BR and private engineering) to replace them, the WCML was
rebuilt between London and Crew (it would have been to Glasgow but the new
Tory administration bulked), a completely new way of handling freight was
designed and introduced (which is still in world wide use, and not just on
the railways - the ISO container) etc. etc.

This is largely irrelevant - it was fifty years ago. You seem to be
hankering after some golden age of state ownership - the NHS and
nationalised railways. Some of these things may have been
interesting in their early days but the world has moved on and these
concepts are outmoded apart from to the diehards.




What actually matters is what the user gets. For the most part,
what I get today when I use a train is a great deal better than it was
prior to privatisation although frankly it still has a long way to go
and would get there faster if the state simply provided the funding
that was committed and reneged upon.


Why should public money be given to private business but not to a state one,
hypocrisy to say the least...

Not at all. Why shouldn't it be? I see no hypocrisy at all, and
actually better management of my taxes.






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 don't have a need to impress anybody or to prove any points.

Well, you couldn't, even if you wanted to !

Sigh......





The UK has had 10 years of private TOC's and Railtrack, the railways are in
a worse state now than the last days of under funded BR, trains can't be
used [1], maintenance has been so lacking across the network that at least
two fatal derailments are directly attributable to it and has had to have
HMG intervene and one fatal crash due to penny pinching in signalling and
driver training.

One of the principal reasons that there has been inadequate
infrastructure investment is because the government reneged on the
agreed funding of Railtrack and forced it out of existence, only to
replace it with Notwork Rail.




[1] new trains that draw more power than could be supplied meaning HMG had
to fund the rebuilding of the power supply system.

Since the government has effectively assumed responsibility for the
infrastructure, that would seem reasonable.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:25:38 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:01:39 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

Wrong I'm afraid. Witness the added congestion when there are
train/tube strikes. Considering a lot of people stay at home or use
buses, the long term absence of public transport would be a lot worse.

You have to look at the bigger picture than the assumption that public
transport is needed.

Unfortunately, the basic assumption of the anti-car pro public
transport lobby is the assumption that mass movement of people is
required. This is only because businesses base themselves in large
city centres and pull in the supporting cast of service industries as
well.

I'm by no means anti car, I would have problem if I was (!), but that
doesn't stop me seeming the need for an integrated public transport system
and one that IMO could only be delivered by it being both publicly funded
and controlled.


That notion is flawed, because there isn't a need for businesses to be
in city centres, for many there isn't a need to have fixed working
times and for many there isn't a need to congregate at a central
premises at all. There are increasing numbers of businesses that
have moved on from these ideas with employees working from home or
smaller regional locations.


Working from home is a valid argument, but that is dependent on telecoms
etc. The issue of regional locations is less so, people would still need to
gat to the location, that means travelling, that means congestion - and
flexi-time (or what ever) doesn't work for all businesses.



OK it may possible for you to drive, and it may be possible for you to
schedule travel outside the rush hour, but that does not apply for
everyone else.

This demonstrates it is not essential for *you*, but is essential for
society as a whole, on which you rely.

THat's my question. Is it? The conventional approach is to assume
that businesses want to be in city centres and that therefore
transport provision on a grand scale must be made.

If it is made attractive for businesses to locate away from city
centres, then most of the mass transport need goes away.

Assuming that all can and wish to drive, again you need to step out of your
Utopia and view the real world.

snip