Health-care Reform

[stubblejumper]

I just watched Tony Blair's speech to the Labour conference in Brighton. He seemed to propose a total reform in the UK. It sounded like he wanted fully private providers with the NHS as the single insurer. He also hinted at reforming education in the same manner.

Why has this model never entered the health-care debate ,here ?

It seems pragmatic.

[err]

I just watched Tony Blair's speech to the Labour conference in Brighton. He seemed to propose a total reform in the UK. It sounded like he wanted fully private  providers with the NHS as the single insurer. He also hinted at reforming education in the same manner.

Why has this model never entered the health-care debate ,here ?

It seems pragmatic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're joking, right ???

It will greatly increase the cost of whatever it is that you privatize.... Cost plus profit is more than cost.... always....

[stubblejumper]

Isn't it costing more,anyways ?

[tml12]

I just watched Tony Blair's speech to the Labour conference in Brighton. He seemed to propose a total reform in the UK. It sounded like he wanted fully private  providers with the NHS as the single insurer. He also hinted at reforming education in the same manner.

Why has this model never entered the health-care debate ,here ?

It seems pragmatic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it just me or can we assume Tony Blair's Labour Party (i.e. New Labour) at least centre-right? Shocking for anyone who has been following the Labour Party for the last 20 or so years.

[stubblejumper]

He spoke on that topic. Saying that if social democratic beliefs are to prevail, they must adapt to the current situation. That in the modern reality social values should stay the same but how they are inputted should be re thunk.

I wouldn't call him Centre-Right, He is still socially more collectivist then individualist and more on the side of equality of condition. Economically, he isn't and if anything the opposite but is that not the new reality. Should he let his country fall behind because people don't believe in want is actually happening.

I would call it Pragmatic Ideology.

[Argus]

Is it just me or can we assume Tony Blair's Labour Party (i.e. New Labour) at least centre-right? 

Yes, it's just you.

[Argus]

It will greatly increase the cost of whatever it is that you privatize.... Cost plus profit is more than cost....  always....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You got your formula wrong. It's cost, plus massive confusion, plus massive bureacracy and incompetence vs cost plus profit. So the privatized system is not necessarily more expensive. They just need to make enough improvement in efficiency to account for their profit. Generally there is such vast inefficiency in government that isn't difficult.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

You got your formula wrong. It's cost, plus massive confusion, plus massive bureacracy and incompetence vs cost plus profit. So the privatized system is not necessarily more expensive

So silly, but so true. Only the Gov't could open a 'Quickie-Mart' and boast they've created thousands of jobs...

[Pateris]

It will greatly increase the cost of whatever it is that you privatize.... Cost plus profit is more than cost....  always....

Not True! You have made a invalid assumption in this statement. You have assumed that public sector provision of the service is very efficient and that no monies are being wasted in the system. You assume that private providers facing competition could not find any opportunities to cut costs without degrading service. You have oversimplified the problem.

Therefore, your equation should be:

Cost(Public) => Cost(Private) + Profit

Which means it may be possible to privatize and save money.

[err]

Therefore, your equation should be:

Cost(Public) => Cost(Private) + Profit

I don't know if any of you guys are familiar with the fire sale of Ontario's power generation facilities. In the summer, the new owners can get 16.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity (hydro-electric) that we used to pay 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour.. all year round. Whether they run it more efficiently or not, we're still paying through the nose for this power.....

You guys are dreaming if you think you can sell the farm and buy the fruit cheaper from the new owners....

[tml12]

Is it just me or can we assume Tony Blair's Labour Party (i.e. New Labour) at least centre-right? 

Yes, it's just you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay I take "centre-right" back. But if you have been following his transformation of the Labour Party and visited UK-based politicalcompass.org, you should agree, as they do, that New Labour and the Conservatives aren't a whole lot different.

[Argus]

Therefore, your equation should be:

Cost(Public) => Cost(Private) + Profit

I don't know if any of you guys are familiar with the fire sale of Ontario's power generation facilities. In the summer, the new owners can get 16.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity (hydro-electric) that we used to pay 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour.. all year round. Whether they run it more efficiently or not, we're still paying through the nose for this power.....

You guys are dreaming if you think you can sell the farm and buy the fruit cheaper from the new owners....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The government run Ontario Hydro was massively incompetent and wasteful. It ran up a huge debt. That's a big part of the reason we're paying more now - to pay down that debt. Not to mention the government refused to invest in necessary infrastructure, like new power plants. And let the existing ones run down. Whoever was running OH now we would be paying far more, either through rate hikes or taxes.

[Argus]

Is it just me or can we assume Tony Blair's Labour Party (i.e. New Labour) at least centre-right? 

Yes, it's just you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay I take "centre-right" back. But if you have been following his transformation of the Labour Party and visited UK-based politicalcompass.org, you should agree, as they do, that New Labour and the Conservatives aren't a whole lot different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What political views, aside from the war in Iraq, do the Blair Labourites hold that are not to the left of, for example, the Canadian federal liberals?

[tml12]

In 1994, the Labour Party adopted a strategy known as "New Labour" and, under New Labour, the Party adopted many neo-liberal reforms. They put these reforms in place once elected in 1997:

1) Giving the Bank of England its own ability to regulate interest rates.

2) Not spend more than the previous Conservative government.

3) Not raise income taxes.

4) Cut benefits to single parents.

5) Championed small government and PPP's (public-private partnerships).

6) Been generally supportive of the business community, abandoning most attempts at privatization and taken a more firm position with the unions.

It sounds a lot more like the Charest Liberal government here in Quebec and less like the federal Liberals. However, keep in mind that the Labour Party was never considered the UK's equivalent of our federal Liberals...they were the NDP of the UK.

[Pateris]

I don't know if any of you guys are familiar with the fire sale of Ontario's power generation facilities.  In the summer, the new owners can get 16.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity (hydro-electric) that we used to pay 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour.. all year round.  Whether they run it more efficiently or not, we're still paying through the nose for this power.....

Paying 0.50 cents per kWh was ridiculously low. Especially considering the capital costs of those nuclear plants. Oh wait - the publicly run utility NEVER tried to recover capital cost because the politicians didn't want to charge people real costs for electricity.

The fantasy is that the public sector could provide anything at all without running the system into the ground.

Right now in Alberta, the spot market price for electricity is about 2 cents per kWh and new facilities CANNOT be justified economically at this price - because we have enough capacity now. And this winter it will be beneficial to me to partially heat my house with electricity because it's cheaper than natural gas.

The Musings of the Technical Bard

[err]

I don't know if any of you guys are familiar with the fire sale of Ontario's power generation facilities.  In the summer, the new owners can get 16.5 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity (hydro-electric) that we used to pay 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour.. all year round.  Whether they run it more efficiently or not, we're still paying through the nose for this power.....

Paying 0.50 cents per kWh was ridiculously low. Especially considering the capital costs of those nuclear plants. Oh wait - the publicly run utility NEVER tried to recover capital cost because the politicians didn't want to charge people real costs for electricity.

The fantasy is that the public sector could provide anything at all without running the system into the ground.

Right now in Alberta, the spot market price for electricity is about 2 cents per kWh and new facilities CANNOT be justified economically at this price - because we have enough capacity now. And this winter it will be beneficial to me to partially heat my house with electricity because it's cheaper than natural gas.

When Ontario owned the electricity generating capabilities, it generated hydro-electric electricity for 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour, coal powered generation for 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour, and nuclear for 7 cents per kilowatt hour. They used to add up the costs for generation and arrive at a sale price of about 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

They never sold electricity for 0.5 cents per kWh... only a dummy would do that, or even imagine that the province would have done that....

Now that they sold of the hydro-electric generating stations, the new owners can sell the electricity to the province for 16.5 cents per kWh....

One example of smart conservative financing was the sale of the three (3) Massasagi generating stations (near Thunder Bay) to Brascon (a division of Great Lakes Energy) for $340 million. Brascon paid for the stations out of their profits in 6 months.... that means that Ontario taxpayers are paying over $600 million more than they used to for the same amount of electricity from these stations... from now on....

Our electricity prices are far higher than they ever were... because of the efficient free market...

[err]

The government run Ontario Hydro was massively incompetent and wasteful. It ran up a huge debt. That's a big part of the reason we're paying more now - to pay down that debt. Not to mention the government refused to invest in necessary infrastructure, like new power plants. And let the existing ones run down. Whoever was running OH now we would be paying far more, either through rate hikes or taxes.

You obviously don't know anything about electicity generation in Ontario...

The problem was more that we had an evil spirited government (of the Conservative variety) who didn't care about the public welfare as much as their own private agenda. They (Mike Harris et al.) reduced taxes to the point of extreme deficit in their first term. In order to hide the deficit when running for their re-election, they fire-sold all kinds of public assets ---- the 407, electric power generating station, etc... all so they could stay in power.... It wasn't for any other reason than to save their own skin, to get re-elected.... There was no public benefit intended in their actions... and none realized.....

[Canuck E Stan]

Ontario Hydro was in debt to the tune of $38 Billion dollars, Ontario taxpayers were subsidized,subsidized,and subsidized for decades. All the provincial governments of Ontario over the last 30 years knew it was a money pit, Liberal,NDP and the Conservative governments but all kept subsidizing Ontario Hydro.Who was going to pay $38 Billion dollars of Hydro debt? The damn generators were just retrofitted to last for a few more years to the tune of $Billions,then what? Even if The province owned it, who's going to pay? My friend either way the answer is you and the good old days of cheap are gone forever.

[stubblejumper]

Ok way off topic lads ! Hydro sheesh

Now back on...

tml12- According to New Labour the current neo-liberal economic regime is unstoppable on a global scale, so either get run over or adapt.

I somewhat agree with this assessment but think that global labour laws are needed, that would be the best way to improve worldwide living standards and fight poverty at home and abroad. As New Labour likes to put it "A decrease in the rate of inequality of condition."

[err]

I'm sorry for the distraction, Stubblejumper, but this is a relavent, parallel case.

Ontario Hydro was in debt to the tune of $38 Billion dollars, Ontario taxpayers were subsidized,subsidized,and subsidized for decades. All the provincial governments of Ontario over the last  30 years knew it was a money pit, Liberal,NDP and the Conservative governments but all kept subsidizing Ontario Hydro.Who was going to pay $38 Billion dollars of Hydro debt? The damn generators were just retrofitted to last for a few more years to the tune of $Billions,then what? Even if The province owned it, who's going to pay? My friend either way the answer is you and the good old days of cheap are gone forever.

Did you know that Ontario law stated that citizens couldn't be charged for the construction of nuclear reactors until they went into commission. Darlington went into service the week Bob Rae's NDP government took power. This ridiculous law was one of the major reasons for the accumulation of debt.

You can choose to ignore the fact that the new owners of our hydro-electric generating stations are gouging us now. When the public owned the hydro-electric generators, it amounted to a huge subsidy in the cost of our hydro.

Now, Stubblejumper, back to how this applies to health care. If the "provider" gets to charge a profit, it will cost more than if we owned the system, by more than just the "profit" that is taken by the shareholders. We also have to consider that the government can build the facilities and purchase the equipment cheaper than can private industry. This is so because the government can borrow at lower rates than private industry. Thus, the private provider's costs will be elevated by the increased finance costs.

One can then argue, as Canuck already has, that any public system is rife with inefficiency and bureaucracy. Private industry that wants to capitalize on the sale of public assets has a great interest in exposing any inefficiencies, and then tries to pretend that they will provide the same service "more efficiently", and hence require less remuneration.... Which all might sound wonderful to a fool... who doesn't realize that business is trying to get our tax dollars....

[stubblejumper]

I undertsand all that err but regardless of yours or my, adversion to profits and large corporations acting like gov't. Maybe this should be studied,maybe this is the modern reality. If that be the case then choice shouldn't be the advamtage of the wealthy.