From: Keith W on

"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154928271.633744.172010(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>

>>
>> But there are wage controls: the amount a physician receives for
>> providing the service is a form of wage control. There are also
>> price controls on what the NHS pays manufacturers for the likes
>> of pharmaceuticals, etc. If the controls take the form of a
>> budget, it still constitutes a form of wage and price control.
>
> And it's also price control. The end receive may not be paying for it
> directly, but the NHS is paying the provide. If the NHS is dictating
> the price and the market is not allowed to operate, that's price
> control. By definition.
>
>

Reality check

Life expectancy in the USA 77.5 years
Infant mortality USA 7 per 1,000 live births
US Medical costs as % GDP 15.3
% of US medical costs spent on admin 25-30%


Life expectancy in the UK 78.27 years
Infant mortality UK 5.5 per 1,000 live births
UK Medical costs as % GDP 7.7
% of UK medical costs spent on admin 5.7 %

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Tchiowa on

Keith W wrote:
> "Hatunen" <hatunen(a)cox.net> wrote in message
> news:21ddd2h1i3aoampcrahikv34uthdhie0k4(a)4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:52:33 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > <keithnospam(a)kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>There are no price controls as there is no price. Treatment
> >>is free at the point of use.
> >
> > But there are wage controls: the amount a physician receives for
> > providing the service is a form of wage control.
>
> That is the same for any employee of an HMO or hospital.

The difference being that the market is allowing that and that the
patient has choices as compared with the government controlling prices
and wages.

Huge difference.

> > There are also
> > price controls on what the NHS pays manufacturers for the likes
> > of pharmaceuticals, etc.
>
> Nope. They have to buy drugs on the market in the same manner
> as any other health provider. Naturally they use their bargaining
> position to get the best deal they can but ultimately they cant
> force the drug companies to sell at a price they dont like

They do in fact force the drug companies. Not only are they they
largest purchaser but they control the market. In effect they are a
monopoly for health care. So they use their monopoly power to force low
prices from the drugs companies against the threat that their drugs
won't be allowed into the market.

From: Jordi on

Tchiowa wrote:
> Jordi wrote:
> > I thought you said
> > earlier experience doesn't count to a new employer.
>
> I don't recall saying that.

Something along those lines, you were justifying why people don't have
to keep their holiday allowance when changing to a new job.

>
> > > Excessive unearned vacation hurts the economy. Just that simple.
> > >
> > > You think you're getting a free lunch, but you're not.
> >
> > Things are not that simple. You have to take into account that more
> > free time also increases expenditures, and that benefits the local
> > economy plus, rested and motivated employees are more productive than
> > exhausted ones.
>
> How does more free time increase expenditures if the people with free
> time don't have any more to spend?

Ever been to Europe? There are cars, and TV sets and cellphones just
like in the US, you know.

> > Actually it increases by both
> >
> > Not necessarily.
>
> But usually.
>

Reviewing your earlier statement now?


> > Of which there are several, but pay still is the main force behind
> > working. Still don't you think getting paid more is the best way to
> > reward efforts?
>
> So then why do you want to reduce pay in order to inflate vacation? The
> vacations are costing the employer and he's going to offset it with
> proportionally reduced salaries.

Told it to you before: rested and happy people make better employees.


J.

From: Dave Frightens Me on
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:32:01 +0100, "Keith W"
<keithspam(a)kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1154928271.633744.172010(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>>>
>>> But there are wage controls: the amount a physician receives for
>>> providing the service is a form of wage control. There are also
>>> price controls on what the NHS pays manufacturers for the likes
>>> of pharmaceuticals, etc. If the controls take the form of a
>>> budget, it still constitutes a form of wage and price control.
>>
>> And it's also price control. The end receive may not be paying for it
>> directly, but the NHS is paying the provide. If the NHS is dictating
>> the price and the market is not allowed to operate, that's price
>> control. By definition.
>>
>>
>
>Reality check
>
>Life expectancy in the USA 77.5 years
>Infant mortality USA 7 per 1,000 live births
>US Medical costs as % GDP 15.3
>% of US medical costs spent on admin 25-30%
>
>
>Life expectancy in the UK 78.27 years
>Infant mortality UK 5.5 per 1,000 live births
>UK Medical costs as % GDP 7.7
>% of UK medical costs spent on admin 5.7 %

That kinda belies everything that Tchiowa says about the UK system
failing. As anyone knows, it's the USA system which is a mess,
regardless of it operation in a free sense.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
From: barney2 on
In article <itscd2dqtc4tashf9g31gcet5ohh3s6t8n(a)4ax.com>,
mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote:

> *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
> *Date:* Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:57:29 +0200
>
> barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>
> > The quality of work performed by its graduates, inter alia.
>
> But I thought credentials were more important than performance. This
> is a bit of a circular argument.

You can interpret credentials as a shorthand for a near-guarantee of
performance. (I don't think anybody said they were MORE important, by the
way.)