Tuesday, 10 July 2012

The NHS is being Privatised? Ooh Goody!

Comment in moderation (unlikely to be published) at this post:

Ooh Goody. They’re privatising the NHS? Maybe I won’t die unnecessarily of Cancer, or wait four hours because no-one can be bothered to see me with a dislocated shoulder, until the target time runs out. Excellent. It will still be free at the point of delivery, so why, apart from vested producer interest and left-wing prejudice, would you oppose private, but state funded provision? 
I note with interest you got the usual left-wing digs at “corporations” like Vodafone. I’m glad you admit you’re against efficiency and don’t want skilled nurses to offer simple services, but would rather ensure that someone wait to see a doctor. I had a bike accident outside my GPs surgery. The Doctor refused to apply a steristrip, and demanded I go to A&E 10 miles away. (and wait 4 hours). 
This is an organisation run for bureaucratic convenience, not that of patients, infused top to bottom with the “more than my job’s worth” attitude of the public-sector The NHS is NOT the “envy of the world”. It’s a mediocre service 17th best despite the UK being 11th richest per capita. The NHS underperforms and is in desperate need of shaking up, if not breaking up. 
With any luck the NHS will be privatised. And I will enjoy watching the wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who have been wrong on absolutely everything else, and are wrong on this too.
Of course it's not just people not being patched up and sent on their way efficiently. It's an entire culture of bureaucracy. I've no doubt bits of the NHS are world-class. But the shop-window walk-in & A&E is grotesquely inefficient, and that's all I've seen first hand. And I can compare it against the similar systems in France, Germany, Canada and Norway, all of whom manage to achieve Triage without demanding everyone who isn't dying always waits 4 hours.



37 comments:

David McGowan said...

Went to a great poly-clinic in Penang, Malaysia last week for an ear infection.

Walked in, registered, saw doctor, was issued 4 different types of generic drugs and walked out. Total time taken 25-minutes.

Total cost 65 MYR (£13.22 GBP).

So why the fuck did I pay £32,680 in tax and NI last year to sit around in a GP's surgery or A&E for hours on end.

Sooner it is scrapped and I can just buy an insurance policy rather than get mugged for tax the better.

Umbongo said...

I notice that not one commenter on that thread actually engaged with you in discussion but, rather, retreated to ad hominem abuse and/or repetition about the NHS being the "envy of the world" and allegations concerning bodies of indigent dead lying outside private A&E facilities in Texas where treatment had been refused [OK slight - but only slight - exaggeration].

It's incredibly depressing and I admire you for putting your toe into extremely dirty water.

Trundlemaster said...

Re Umbongo's comment. If the NHS is the envy of the world why do only Cuba and North Korea have exactly the same system? Mind you not quite the same, I don't think an unemployed foreigner could rock up at a Cuban or North Korean hospital and demand IVF as happens in some London hospitals.

Personally I'd rather each citizen was issued with a personal health budget for them to spend with whom they want and on what they want. You could probably give every citizen a personal £1M health budget and it would still be cheaper and more efficient than the NHS.

banned said...

I hurt my back, went to my GP after it failed to heal itself, he referred me to an NHS backpain/assesment clinic (self-employed, not malingering). The nurse saw me almost straight away plus a follow up session at 07.30AM(!) the following week.
She said I'd need to see The Consultant at The Orthpaedic but no, she could not refer me, only my Doctor could do that even though he was not skilled enough to make that assesment himself.

Her e-mail to my GP got lost in the post and I had to chase it up myself; the NHS rolled into action. I saw The Consultant and had the scan (meanwhile paying privately for pain relief sessions with a chiropractor but I didn't tell the NHS about that because they don't like you going to the opposition).

Meanwhile my back sorted itself out and, 18 months after the event, I declined their course of cortesone injections.

NHS = Rationed by waiting list. Bring on privatisation and next the BBC.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think an unemployed foreigner could rock up at a Cuban or North Korean hospital and demand IVF as happens in some London hospitals."

Fascist, right-wing, racist idiot. Nice, coming from some dude who fled the UK for tax reasons - in case he was asked to pay for NHS care in the UK.

Once you leave, owing taxes, you lose the right to complain and moan about things you stole the funding for and especially about foreigners - since that's who YOU are.

Seems this blog is a thinly veiled racist hate site. It was there all along, just never thought you'd come out and admit it quite so boldly. For that, you gained a tiny bit of respect at least - even if it's respect for admitting that you're a cunt.

But it's good value for people who want to see the real face of modern conservatism. Same as BNP, same intolerance, same mindless blame-someone-else culture... but with a higher salary and something to lose. The higher the salary and the more you have to lose, the gentler it sounds: but don't be fooled, it's the same thing.

Anonymous said...

@ David. If that's what you paid in tax, I'm afraid you didn't make it - not in the same league as the sons-of-riches peddling their hate on this blog. So you don't get to scrap the NHS and then buy your own way out of trouble; you may rely on the NHS one day. You need to be up there with the big boys before you can fuck around with the NHS and still sleep at night.

Simon Jester said...

More ad-homs from the mindless left.

Are both anons the same person, or do they simply share the same single brain cell?

jas88 said...

@Anonymous: Can you justify the NHS providing IVF in the first place? Surely, in a system rationing cancer treatment on cost grounds, funding for such completely unnecessary procedures (unlike cancer or other genuine medical treatment, nobody will die without IVF) should be zero?

Anonymous said...

Anon at 1.37am, I assume that you are of the political left as your eloquent debating style is typical of that type of politics, I should know as I used to be a Lefty but grew up a bit when I saw that Left ideas just don't work and sometimes make situations worse.

I noticed that you don't take apart my argument in a reasonable way, or challenge the opinion you just resort to screaming 'fascist', 'racist' and calling me a 'cunt'. For your information I am a British Citizen, not a tax exile (in fact I'm only just getting by - you may be referring to another poster) and have always supported a society that judges people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin.

FYI Although I do not comment much on this site I do read it on a regular basis and although there has been comments and articles about the problems caused by immigration there is no way on earth that this site could be classified as a 'race hate site'.

Any why pray should those who haven't paid into a system gain benefit from it. Would you happy to have a guest in your house who ate you out of house and home and didn't contribute? Probably not but that is the situation we are facing with the welfare state and the NHS.

I believe that health care should be funded from general taxation I just don't believe the state should be the monopoly provider of healthcare.

Anonymous said...

jas88. Yes I can justify IVF. For various reasons (including having to work longer to establish oneself in a career in order to afford a family therefore people start families later in life) there is a lot of sub fertility and this should be dealt with in the same way as any other medical problem. The provision of IVF is not the same as 'lifestyle' elective treatments such as boob jobs, gender reassignments, tattoo removal etc. IVF is only helping a natural process not providing for peoples 'wants'.

Maybe if there wasn't so much waste and inefficiency in the NHS both quality cancer treatments and quality IVF could be afforded.

A personal health budget would allow people to make healthcare decisions based on their own circumstances not on the priorities and prejudices of bureaucrats.

Luke said...

Not really relevant, but Jackart, if you've been injured in that many countries ( as well as a few trips to A & E here), you want to take more care - maybe re-think your holiday activities. I thought I was clumsy with three broken bones...

jas88 said...

Anonymous: Do you have a justification for it, though? You say it should be treated as if it's a medical problem, that it is somehow different from tattoo removal or breast augmentation because it's "helping a natural process" - but no less so than breast augmentation. If the NHS did have money available to pay for IVF, better to take the money away and use it to reduce the overall deficit, rather than waste it on something completely unnecessary!

B.K. said...

In the US, you still have to wait 4 hours at A&E. And you have to pay for it in one way or another. I don't feel sorry for you right now, dude.

lost_nurse said...

It's all very well waxing lyrical about how competing providers will be setting out their stalls for your various injuries (were these largely skiing accidents, btw? IIRC, you smashed your face by cycling into a car - did the GP want to exclude a head injury?) but it doesn't reflect what is actually happening on the ground... which is shaping up to be a dumbass yardsale.

Under the ConDem reforms, "privatisation" of the NHS simply means handing it over to Serco and Beardy Branson, with the likes of Circle, Care Uk etc cherrypicking profitable elective stuff - in other words, profiting from NHS critical/acute care capacity, workforce training and infrastructure. It's a fcuking joke! I doubt you think that giving military recruitment to Serco is a good idea - so why should they be trusted with primary healthcare?

None of this will alleviate pressure on the frontline. Indeed, it is likely to get worse - as services become increasingly fragmented and myriad "partnered" interests palm-off complex patients to the nearest A+E.

If you want northern european healthcare, it will require greater investment. And - god forbid! - sensible policymaking, as opposed to Lansley n' Letwin's back-of-a-fag-packet clusterfcuk.

Anonymous said...

"A VERY British dude" implies a taxonomy of Britishness; Anglo-Saxon as opposed to black- or brown-faced. Let's face it, Saxon means "from Germany" and so does Anglo. We're all immigrants if you go back far enough.

"Travelgall is a 30-something trader exiled from God's county for the sin of Capitalism." Does this mean that he is a first gen immigrant somewhere himself? No longer paying tax into the UK and getting medical treatment elsewhere when needed? Or does he nip home for free treatment when he breaks something playing rugger with his chums? Pot: Kettle?

The foreigners you talk of who qualify for IVF either pay for it or they are in fact British... just not the colour of Brit that attend your special rallies; "British foreigners" (sic.), who choose not to represent themselves with a Union Jack painted skinhead. Or is that just an unfortunate oversight? How would keeping government funding but privatizing the treatment make a difference in either case?

All this talk of making equity available to the public, and freeing you from regulation to do so, is disingenuous. As traders you trade solely for your own benefit, with your own capital. That's what "trader" means. A dealer or broker performs the more altruistic (sic.) role you describe in your blog. The regulation you're fighting would certify these professionals such that if they were caught gaming the system illegally they could be struck off. Is that not a good thing?

The NHS isn't perfect, far from it. That doesn't even begin to justify letting corporations step in and take over and fleece it for profit. The US system has two arms, private insurance and private provision. Both are so bad that healthcare is largely unavailable. Not just a couple of hours in a waiting room having to sit with peasants and brown people whom you feel should doff their caps and let you skip ahead, really unavailable. Both arms make huge profits for the corporations that run them and for the traders that gamble with their equity. A piece of the American system that is like the UK is Medicare and Medicaid, which is seen as an enormous government cash cow to the private providers who carefully cherry pick the services they offer and to whom they will offer them, in order to bleed as much money as possible while providing the least care. The NHS, if flawed, is utopian by comparison.

Government control across the whole system is the only chance of getting reasonable services for a reasonable price. Prevent corporations from making political contributions and recuse politicians from voting on anything in which they have a vested interest and then we can reform the NHS fairly.

Anything ad hominem here is meant to bear witness to the true character of people who spin privatization to try to make it appealing to ordinary folk. It's meant to expose that spin and show what real motivations traders might have for wanting more corporate control and deregulation.

That deregulating banking and trading would somehow benefit the masses, is an egregious lie. These are arguments posited by people who stand to make a personal profit but need unthinking people to help them achieve it at the ballot box. The current government isn't your enemy; they really don't want to regulate an industry that has bankrolled them for years and they've resisted it. The people are your enemy; our votes are important enough to force the government's hands to regulate you, to prevent further theft. It sounds better to say that you're anti-government, pro-diversity and pro-healthcare but it's difficult to sell to anyone who reads your blog and who sees the exact opposite between the lines.

Anonymous said...

If I were thinking of blogging stuff designed to try to influence people in the middle ground over to my right wing p.o.v., I'd definitely lose the face image that looks like a National Front poster from 1982. Maybe lose the Johnny Foreigner posts too. Oh, and all the misogyny. Not to mention wanting to strip down NHS services and privatize what's left. People might get the wrong idea and think that you're just a couple of stuck-up city boys complaining about paying your share and not being allowed to break a few banking rules to make a fast buck a little faster. You're only trying to put food on the table like the rest of us, and the rest of us don't even have all those staff to feed.

Just because you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, that doesn't mean the ambrosia comes for free. And we all need some essential healthcare, in case we go off piste after a heavy lunch in St. Moritz and get into a jolly scrape. You can probably live without IVF - fuck it, scrap it.

In the words of a real Englishman: Methinks thou dost protest too much about being accused of racism and right wing views. You can't convince people in the middle ground if they see you for what you are so you'd better try to hide it. If it smells like racism, looks like a conservative and talks like a spoiled posh brat beware, they might be looking to form a coalition with you. When the middle ground all look like lefties, there's a big clue right there.

You stand for money is power, Murdoch's little cohorts. Money/Corporations controlling national services and deciding who gets what, bankers free to steal and cheat, off shore tax havens and fuck all for the poor whose school budgets you would happily plunder if it saved you coughing up your fair share (disguised as balancing the budget of course). If daddy paid for your school, why doesn't everyone's father just do the right thing? You're not for improving anything except your own wealth and the large fence around your shitty little empire, filled with wealth-porn. You are to healthcare what Thatcher was to job creation, spin and a hatchet.

You can't begin to understand what the NHS means to millions of people if you've always had the option to go private. The worst that could happen to you is that mumsy would pay or you'd have to flog an antique to cover the bill; millions would lose their house. It's happening right now in the US private system. The trouble with pretending that you're "just getting by" is that you've already tried to show off that you're very well heeled bank traders, into antiques and foreign holidays and in need of tax avoidance schemes, and then you expect reasonable people to believe you have their interests at heart. You can't throw your golden rattle out of your pram and then claim you're the people's fucking poet. You're posh boys trying to gain more influence with a blog because you didn't get into politics, as was your birthright had you only passed some more exams.

Let them eat cake indeed. How's about you eating less than you need, resigning from the golf club and actually looking at how social welfare works. Truth is you don't actually want it and privatization is just the first step toward the cliff.

Jackart said...

At no point have I advocated an end to taxpayer-funding of free at the point of delivery. I just think that this would be better delivered by a mixed, decentralised system, as is common on the continent.

Commenters saying "what about the U.S.?" Simply argue against what they wish I'd said.

As for the union jack, I am trying to reclaim it from the racists. for the record, I regard borders as an affront to human dignity. immigration is a measure of success. I would deny benefits to recent immigrants, but otherwise welcome all-comers.


Back on topic, no other country has copied the NHS. Why? because it doesn't work very well. Like the Porsche 911, huge effort needs to be applied to correct a fundamental design flaw, but it still spins off the road occasionally.

This thread is developing into a sensible discussion. Stop that, and get back to the ad hominem abuse.

Jackart said...

At no point have I advocated an end to taxpayer-funding of free at the point of delivery. I just think that this would be better delivered by a mixed, decentralised system, as is common on the continent.

Commenters saying "what about the U.S.?" Simply argue against what they wish I'd said.

As for the union jack, I am trying to reclaim it from the racists. for the record, I regard borders as an affront to human dignity. immigration is a measure of success. I would deny benefits to recent immigrants, but otherwise welcome all-comers.


Back on topic, no other country has copied the NHS. Why? because it doesn't work very well. Like the Porsche 911, huge effort needs to be applied to correct a fundamental design flaw, but it still spins off the road occasionally.

This thread is developing into a sensible discussion. Stop that, and get back to the ad hominem abuse.

Simon Jester said...

Ignoring the anonymous trolling (anons, if you want to be regarded as something more than a troll, try picking a pseudonym), what has happened to Travelgall? Has he gone back to (presumably) Yorkshire?

jas88 said...

"You can probably live without IVF - fuck it, scrap it."

Correct. EVERYONE can live perfectly well without IVF. I want the NHS to prioritise according to medical need: if you will die without some treatment, it gets funded. If you can't see/walk/whatever, that gets funded next. Cosmetic things - grey area, probably fund some but not all. You want something, but there's absolutely no medical need for it? Pay for it yourself. Unfortunately, politics interferes, so things people want get pushed ahead of things other people actually need.

I've never been to St Moritz, I don't have private healthcare - though I was once told, by the NHS, I'd have to pay for a diagnostic procedure (a CT scan) or wait multiple years for it. Shouldn't that have been funded ahead of IVF?

Anonymous said...

IVF?

If I had to pay for my own healthcare insurance I would choose a package that would cover for such needs as IVF.

Seeing as the NHS takes a buttload of money of me, more than I would pay for my own insurance, why the fuck shouldn't I be using it for IVF, just as I would if I had private insurance.

Oh sorry I forgot, I pay all this money so other people can be treated, and I should go fuck myself?

And fuck it, we only exist to breed the next generation, I would say IVF is more important than making a few old wrinkly people live another few months (Yea, I am an arsehole).

Anonymous said...

js88

Part of my justification for covering IVF on the NHS is that the reason why so many couples are leaving child bearing so long that they become sub fertile is that it normally takes a couple until they are in mid their 30s to establish themselves in careers. These careers are vital if they are to be in a position where they can raise and support a child.

Maybe if the state took less out of peoples pockets in the first place then couples may be able to have children in their 20's when they are most fertile.

If on the other hand you are a benefit claimant then you can have your children at 18/28 which is the optimum age. This option is not available for many working people. This is yet another way in which those who work are discriminated against compared to those who refuse to work.

Talking of work I'd better get back to it. Anyone want to buy some radios, good quality, good price?

jas88 said...

Anonymous: I'd be happy to see the state take less, and agree it's a flaw that welfare dependents are better placed to have children easily than more productive members of society - I just don't see that as a reason for the NHS to divert funding to IVF rather than medical treatment. Surely your mid-30s successful couple could afford to pay the IVF easily enough, if they're able to pay for a child the rest of the way through life? Next to two decades of 5 figure bills, the IVF should be trivial.

Luke said...

Travel gall exiled from god's own country? You think he's a tax exile? No, it means he's Auatralian, exile from there, probably in the hope of making more money here. Your rage is clouding your judgment.

Not sure if I agree with the post or not, but a lot of the health service is subcontracted out to private suppliers already - GPs. I'm not convinced rhey're a great advert.

Simon Jester said...

@Luke: "God's county", not country (and therefore presumably Yorkshire, not Oz).

Sean said...

The NHS is a religion for the left. There is not much you can do to change the minds of the beleivers.

Anonymous said...

@ Jackart Wanting to keep tax funding but with private delivery in healthcare IS the US Medicare and Medicaid system. It creates a government pile of cash for greedy corps to raid at will. Add in corporate "contributions" to political parties and you lose all control of costs, quality and the "care" part of healthcare... not to mention corrupting supposedly democratically elected bodies.

Most potential mothers don't play rugby, should they therefore not contribute for your "self-harming" care needs? Or maybe it all balances out.

Reclaiming NF imagery is going to be tricky, since its subtle use over the years to attract a certain target audience without explicitly saying anything has already been done. What next, a nazi salute by way of illustrating that stroking ponies lowers your blood pressure?

Referring to foreigners stealing your taxes for healthcare, when the only "foreigners" that can do so are, in fact, non-white Brits; kind of gives you away.

Anonymous or pseudonym: what's the difference? With one, you don't have to provide your email address to the authors of a right wing hate site.

Simon Jester said...

"Anonymous or pseudonym: what's the difference? With one, you don't have to provide your email address to the authors of a right wing hate site."

If you select the Name/URL option, you don't have to supply your e-mail address - you can simply choose a suitable pseudonym.

Posting anonymously is usually a pretty good sign that the poster is a troll - smearing with unjustified slurs pretty much supports that.

Still, you have provoked a response - so troll rating: 6/10.

Anonymous said...

@anon
Reclaiming NF imagery is going to be tricky

It's not NF imagery, it's British. And what is the alternative? Abandoning it? There is some proverb about what is necessary for evil to triumph...


the only "foreigners" that can do so are, in fact, non-white

I assure you HMRC does not differentiate on grounds of colour.


Anonymous or pseudonym: what's the difference?

Just makes it easier. I don't link my email here, because I don't want to be professionally connected to my non-professional opinions by a mechanism I do not fully understand. I never write anything I'd be ashamed of, but its something I could do without all the same. But I still sign my real name for your convienience and as a nod of appreciation to the author.

Patrick

Anonymous said...

@ Patrick
"I assure you HMRC does not differentiate on grounds of colour."

That's good to know. Not so sure about you guys when you claim that foreigners are stealing your services. Since foreigners can't do this, I think you're confusing brown people with foreigners. At least, you're hoping to create that confusion and playing to a very specific audience. If they're getting services, it's because they're British - end of - that's how the system works. That's why you don't see queues of uninsured Americans in line in the UK - because they'd get fuck all.

If you're trying to "reclaim" the imagery, then you must be aware that it is indeed strongly associated with racism. Otherwise, from whom are you reclaiming it? You openly admit to using racist imagery on the front page of your blog, with no explanation.

I'm afraid the mask has slipped. It's too late to pretend. The flag is British; stick it on a kid's cheek at a football match and it's patriotic; paint it on a skinhead and it's a poster for the NF; stick it on a blogger's face who rants about foreigners - meaning non-white British people - stealing his taxes and decide for yourself how it looks.

Nick Griffin has the same approach: Tries to sound like Mr Reasonable in front of the cameras but just can't hide the hate long enough to convince reasonable people to follow him. He's left with a bunch of fascists and neo-nazis bleeting slogans they don't really understand out of anger and a need to blame someone else. But you're not one of those followers, you're too eloquent and well read. You're trying to lead the way. I'm trying to help people see the man behind the mask and encourage people to read through your entire blog with a better awareness.

You're so quick to write off nurses and women who want to choose when to start a family, but would happily hand over essential services to corporations and bankers. That, my friend, is what makes you far right. Those are the trademarks. The personal benefit of myself and my close circle at the expense of, and hatred for, the rest of society.

Jackart said...

So, anon, when have I suggested "foreigners are stealing" our services?

When have I ranted about foreigners? Find a racist post. Go on. Look. I'm not a racist, I'm not even anti-immigration.

And I wouldn't hand anything over to a corporation either. The state and big business are two cheeks of the same oppressive arse. Big business needs state regulation to protect it from the insurgent little guy.

But that's too subtle for the kind of moron who sees a union jack and assumes racism.

Anonymous said...

@anon
you claim that foreigners are stealing your services

I have never done this.


foreigners can't do this

Oh yes they can, although I wouldn't call it theft. Taking something that's offered ain't theft, and anyway it happens all the time - cross-border planning in Northern Ireland is an excellent example. http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2004/2004%20NICA%2010/j_j_NICC4104.htm


you're confusing brown people with foreigners

Not that it makes any difference to the valiity of my opinions, I would remind you that you do not know what colour I am or what/which passport(s) I hold.


openly admit to using racist imagery on the front page of your blog

No I don't, and no it isn't.


You're so quick to write off nurses and women who want to choose when to start a family, but would happily hand over essential services to corporations and bankers. That, my friend, is what makes you far right

I never made any such comment, and I would remind you that you don't know anything about my political opinions except that I think the Union Jack is a British flag and that it is polite to acknowledge people. I believe that Stalin himself probably held those opinions too.

Patrick

jas88 said...

Anonymous, if you cared to learn before ranting about the racism you project on others, you'd know being British has no relevance at all to access to NHS services. You get free emergency, family planning and compulsory psychiatric services unconditionally, rather than approving the "best" or "most effective" treatment in every case. As you should be aware if paying attention, there have indeed been cases where they have denied treatment on cost grounds, recently including certain vision problems: the loss of an eye, for example, is something NICE regard as having a low value, so expensive treatments for it have been denied in the recent past.

jas88 said...

Oops, wrong comment thread for part of that - the NICE correction was aimed at "G Solent" who was trying to split hairs about "cost" being different from "expense" and seemed to think NICE always approve the most effective treatment regardless of cost.

As I said at the start of that post, the NHS delivers certain services free regardless, the rest are free based on *residence* - not nationality, skin colour or anything else. Live in the country, you get treatment; live overseas, you don't necessarily, whether your passport is British or Brazilian.

Being British does NOT entitle you to NHS care, nor does not being British exclude you, contrary to Anonymous's assertions. That uninsured American will indeed get free NHS care *if* resident here at the time (and emergency care even if just visiting); conversely, if I emigrate then return to seek treatment, I won't be entitled to it, British passport or not (though of course the NHS may well not bother checking in practice).

Anonymous said...

@ Jackart.

Re your colour and passport: You call yourself "very British" and post an image of yourself as a white man (albeit daubed in neo-Nazi face paint). Is QED too strong?

Re "foreigners stealing your services": Three lines further down you support this p.o.v..

Re racist imagery: You said you're trying to "reclaim it from the racists". What's to reclaim if it isn't well known racist imagery? To reclaim the "N word" you need to be black, to reclaim "queer" you need to be gay, to reclaim NF imagery you just need to change your name (BNP works well).

Re nurses and women: Read you own blog. They are "jobsworths" and "terrifying female drivers", incapable of your compassion and skill. And that's a pretty low bar given that you have no compassion and can't drive a hire car.

Re not knowing you or your politics: You have trolled the net for years with opinionated right wing crap. I think we know you well enough. You want a free health service that only deals with injuries that you are likely to sustain, where you get to jump the queue, delivered by fat cat corporations for profit - whose shares you can then manipulate.

Re supporting corporations: If you take healthcare and make it private, that means corporations take over and cherry pick who and what. While corporations are free to make political contributions, they will tip the scales to make profits not improvements.

Re regulation: It seems you only want to regulate everybody else but not your own field. You think bankers/traders are over-regulated, but everyone else is under-regulated. Regulate them but leave us free to cheat. Anything to let you get ahead, to make sure you get everything you need, at the expense of everyone else.

Trading produces nothing, nobody else ever gains from what you do, you manipulate food, resources and arms prices purely for financial gain and without regard for the human cost. For someone with A-level Maths, no empathy and the right school tie, trading is a perfect career... till some pesky "socialists" (this seems to include Tories) come along and stop you unwittingly manipulating the real economy with your selfish, Vegas-style games. To come from this profession with a well adjusted social conscience is unheard of; to come out with a string of lies, trying to win over the opinions of idiots so that they vote to let you keep ripping them off is... well, it's certainly ambitious - but no cigar - we're still not buying it.

Simon Jester said...

@Jackart, any idea what happened to my last comment (posted a couple of days ago)? I don't think it had any of the content that you normally delete (no bl word, no ferrous comparisons with our current PM, etc.)

bloke in spain said...

Probably a bit late for this post but just clear up a small matter. There seems to be some notion that Mr Jackart's icon is some sort of hate symbol. It's described as "a NF skinhead". It's worth doing an image search. The graphic is a generic usually titled boy_flag or somesuch. You can find it with the Irish tricolour, stars & stripes, the Dutch flag - basically any flag somebody's fancied planting on it. So the question is: Why do YOU have a problem with the flag of the UK?

Share it