Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Ken Livingstone opposes the "privatisation" of the NHS but is happy to use private healthcare himself

33 replies

longfingernails · 21/04/2012 14:14

www.cityam.com/latest-news/ken-admits-he-uses-private-healthcare

I have absolutely no problem with him using private healthcare. Once again, it is the sheer hypocrisy which is so nauseating.

It's the same with the £260 taxpayer-funded shoes on expenses, the homophobic dog-whistling, supporting supporters of FGM, and the tax-avoiding via Silveta Ltd.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Ryoko · 22/04/2012 16:59

Thats the most stupid bit of none news I've ever read in my life. and it didn't even come from the Daily Fail, they must be kicking themselves over that.

In other news, Hard working family man in "the benefit system is a good idea actually" shocker!.

EdlessAllenPoe · 22/04/2012 09:57

labour actually brought in many measures that increased the use of private facilities within the NHS (some very costly and ineffective eg paying for operations in advance, then only getting a 25% take up...essentially handing cash to the private sector for nothing)

irrelevant though...

red ken is free to go private if he chooses. if he criticises anyone else for doing so (and he might) then he deserves criticism.

ravenAK · 22/04/2012 01:47

That's a figure you'd need to verify before I accepted it, & it's certainly not the point.

I think the NHS improved massively under Labour - but I'm prepared to argue the point - I don't think there's much doubt that it's being seriously damaged by the Tories, but again, it's open to debate.

You haven't answered the question though, so I'll repeat it.

'I'm curious to know just how 'basic' a service you're advocating.'

What sort of healthcare would you like to see being provided to all of us, free at the point of delivery?

Original poster
longfingernails · 22/04/2012 00:23

Well, under Labour NHS spending increased about 3 fold - more if you include PFI - and the outcomes certainly didn't increase by a factor of 3.

OP posts:
youngermother1 · 22/04/2012 00:20

Sorry - I do not see what is wrong with non-government organisations providing healthcare that is paid for by the state - why does the state owning things make such a difference.
Was surprised by the recent programme on the 70's that Lunn Poly and Thomas Cook were the only travel agents in the country in 1970 and owned by the government - was that the best thing?

ravenAK · 22/04/2012 00:12

Of course we will - there'll always be a balance between what we want for ourselves & our families & how much taxation we're willing to accept to pay for it.

I'm curious to know just how 'basic' a service you're advocating.

Original poster
longfingernails · 22/04/2012 00:07

ravenAK It is "basic" right now, in the sense that the NICE refuses to pay for many cancer drugs and other cutting-edge treatment. We will always have NHS rationing.

OP posts:
ravenAK · 22/04/2012 00:04

When you say 'basic', how basic?

I don't think you know what you think about healthcare.

& Ken can have private healthcare if he likes afaic; totally compatible with opposing the privatisation of the NHS.

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/04/2012 23:51

rational should be rationing

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 21/04/2012 23:51

On the contrary. I believe in free basic healthcare for all. NICE currently rations healthcare by fiat; I would make NHS rational more of a democratic process. I also don't believe that the government needs to provide healthcare - it merely needs to provide the funding for it where necessary. No other country has copied the NHS model - and for very good reason.

I genuinely believe that a small state will serve to make life better for the poor as well as the rich. A small state means a bigger private sector - more companies, more entrepreneurs, more jobs, more money, better quality of life.

OP posts:
minimathsmouse · 21/04/2012 23:13

I don't think LFN cares whether people go without health care, as long as he/she gets a small state and gets to pay less tax.

Tranquilidade · 21/04/2012 23:08

We have private health cover with DHs job and have used it yet I work for the NHS and oppose its privatisation. I don't see that as hypocritical at all.

There is a difference between choosing to use private care and being forced to use it whether you can afford it or not.

EdlessAllenPoe · 21/04/2012 23:05

yes, legal...but hypocrisy.

EdlessAllenPoe · 21/04/2012 23:04

Red Ken is a hypocrite in so many ways - why pick this particular one?

which colleague of his did he criticise as a tx avoider (for paying via a company) - the man published his accounts as paid as a private individual with earnings of circa £400k an tax paid of circa £210k

Red Ken was paying as a LTD company and only paid £35k ....

minimathsmouse · 21/04/2012 23:02

pretends to be Eurosceptic & It boils down to this: the state is far too large

Likely result of pulling out of europe is the ceation of a much larger welfare state. So how's that work?

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/04/2012 20:31

I think taxes should be low enough that it isn't an issue. I never judge anybody for making rational choices - I do, however, take a very dim view of hypocrisy. This is why I find Cameron nauseous when he wrings his hands about the ECHR and pretends to be Eurosceptic, but then does nothing about it.

It boils down to this: the state is far too large. I think the public sector should be no more than 25% of GDP.

OP posts:
ttosca · 21/04/2012 18:56

lnf-

Do you think tax avoidance, then, is OK so long as you're not hypocritical about it?

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/04/2012 15:31

And it's quite funny - John Edwards now gets $13 haircuts
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131179/John-Edwards-spotted-getting-12-95-haircut-SuperCuts.html

Though that might just be PR for the fact that he is about to go on trial for allegedly making secret payments to donors to try to hide his secret child (actually John Edwards sounds like a typical left-winger).

OP posts:
Original poster
longfingernails · 21/04/2012 15:26

He avoided tax legally by funnelling money through Silveta Ltd. Again, it's not the action itself, it's the hypocrisy.

Though the £260 shoes on expenses are just unconscionable. Frankly I'm surprised that it hasn't been a bigger election issue.

John Edwards had to step down as a Democratic nominee for President essentially because he had a $400 haircut - and he paid for that himself!

OP posts:
ttosca · 21/04/2012 15:21

Um, didn't really follow the story with Ken's tax affairs, since the London mayoral position has little impact on wider national policies towards health, education, etc.

If Ken evaded tax illegally, then he should be prosecuted. If he avoided tax legally, then if those tax loopholes are substantial and reducing revenue to the public purse, then we should consider closing them.

ttosca · 21/04/2012 15:19

There is a huge difference between using private healthcare and trying to abolish public healthcare, i.e. the NHS, entirely.

Anyone who wants to use private healthcare is free to do so. I couldn't care less. What I care about is whether there is free public healthcare for all those who need it.

BIWIWhoMustBeObeyed · 21/04/2012 14:52

Why are you naming MNetters who aren't even on this thread?

And do you realise just how unpleasant the tone of your posts are?

Original poster
longfingernails · 21/04/2012 14:45

Redbindy Even the leftiest of lefties like ttosca couldn't bring themselves to defend Ken Livingstone's tax affairs. Anyway Politics is more fun than AIBU.

OP posts:
YouBrokeMySmoulder · 21/04/2012 14:37

Its like the threads we had at the election all over again [sigh]

Redbindy · 21/04/2012 14:36

Why don't you just start a thread saying "AIBU in thinking KL is a twunt". You'll get lots of support. Poorly though out arguments just make you look ridiculous.