Is true socialism possible?

[teamsaint]

Good idea. Would you like to go first? Maybe we could cut and paste the relevant bits from this thread to get it started ?

definitely. (Maybe later on though, as I am busy de stressing and drinking herbal tea in order to take potential strain off my local NHS services.) Its a discussion well worth having.

[Resurrection Man]

Quite. But there is absolutely no correlation between hard work and wealth or income under neoconservatism either. The bloke who started with nothing, worked hard, and became a millionaire doesn't prove any theory. He is as random an example as any other!

But surely the point is that in a "neoconservatism" state/society/whatever, he can do that. Under a more left-leaning one, he would find it much much more difficult if not impossible.

[scottycelt]

So the current reforms aren't moving control (and budgets) away from government, and into the hands of private healthcare companies?

I don't recall this in the general election debates.

Yes, the current reforms aren't moving control (and budgets) away from government and into the hands of private healthcare companies.

The government still controls and decides what happens within the NHS. The real political debate is about 'contracting out' some services to the private sector to save costs. That may be a good or bad thing but it is not the same as ceding control. Ultimate control and decision-making on such matters still remains entirely with the state.

[teamsaint]

Yes, the current reforms aren't moving control (and budgets) away from government and into the hands of private healthcare companies.

The government still controls and decides what happens within the NHS. The real political debate is about 'contracting out' some services to the private sector to save costs. That may be a good or bad thing but it is not the same as ceding control. Ultimate control and decision-making on such matters still remains entirely with the state.

it won't save costs.
Its backdoor privatisation.

Edit, we should move this to a new NHS funding thread.

[amateur51]

Yes, the current reforms aren't moving control (and budgets) away from government and into the hands of private healthcare companies.

The government still controls and decides what happens within the NHS. The real political debate is about 'contracting out' some services to the private sector to save costs. That may be a good or bad thing but it is not the same as ceding control. Ultimate control and decision-making on such matters still remains entirely with the state.

So Westminster City Council's plan to withdraw benefits from obese people who decline to take part in exercise programmes prescribed by their GPs is part of government plans to fund private gyms through the NHS - or not scotty?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681

Confused of NW2

[Lateralthinking1]

But surely the point is that in a "neoconservatism" state/society/whatever, he can do that. Under a more left-leaning one, he would find it much much more difficult if not impossible.

I am not really in favour of individuals becoming millionaires. I hope no one will suggest that this view is very left wing.

On amateur51's point, I used to believe in the old Liberal idea of more local democracy. Personal experience, and stories like that one, tell me that there are more Little Hitlers in local authories than in Central Government. Some are dangerous and difficult to hold to account. Local people having more of a say is a fantasy. There is an additional concern that major policy will increasingly be decided locally when turnout for local elections is low. I don't see that as a good thing at all. Any link between taxes paid by residents, benefits, and gym membership looks like us all having to pay into big business again. Cue further scope for corruption.

In the wider context, the stereotype of the unemployed as inactive is being reinforced. Society only manages with scapegoats and everyone else is now protected from a kicking by legislation. I listen to some telephone discussions on the radio. The attitude to those on benefits tends to be very condemning. When on occasions you hear about unemployed people who are not on benefits, they are never praised to the rafters for surviving without taxpayers' support. There is simply a neutral ok and they are cut off very quickly. I know the reason. It is that we are an inconvenient truth. Our very existence shows that the stereotype is twisted.

If I were ever on benefits, I would not be pleased with having the nature of any exercise I do dictated to, particularly as I do 10 mile walks and much prefer those. Presumably they would be seen as irrelevant. I hear that the gym requirement will apply to anyone without a job for more than two years. That no doubt means I would be required to join a gym immediately. I should be thanked for not drawing on the state earlier, a state which wanted many of us to be unemployed. Finally, anyone would think that people on no income don't pay Council Tax. We do. Politicians are now a bad joke. They just keep taking and give nothing back.

[scottycelt]

So Westminster City Council's plan to withdraw benefits from obese people who decline to take part in exercise programmes prescribed by their GPs is part of government plans to fund private gyms through the NHS - or not scotty?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681

Confused of NW2

Dont worry, amsey, it's only a proposal by the loco council ... and a pretty daft one at that!

I'm all for docs advising exercise and diet regimes instead of prescribing pills and warning people of the dangers of consuming more than 3/4 pint of beer a day. Some years ago, I myself managed to reduce my blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol levels significantly by less calorie intake and exercising more. The lady doc was very impressed. Sadly, that was the relatively easy part ... the really difficult bit, I discovered, was to keep it going!

Sorry, this is wildly off-topic

[amateur51]

Dont worry, amsey, it's only a proposal by the loco council ... and a pretty daft one at that!

I'm all for docs advising exercise and diet regimes instead of prescribing pills and warning people of the dangers of consuming more than 3/4 pint of beer a day. Some years ago, I myself managed to reduce my blood pressure, sugar and cholesterol levels significantly by less calorie intake and exercising more. The lady doc was very impressed. Sadly, that was the relatively easy part ... the really difficult bit, I discovered, was to keep it going!

True of so much these days, scotty

Ok, what about the Westminster exercise initiative as a proposal then, scotty? Vis-à-vis the NHS privatisation proposal

[Resurrection Man]

.....

Ok, what about the Westminster exercise initiative as a proposal then, scotty? Vis-à-vis the NHS privatisation proposal

Well, it isn't. What is being privatised?

It is an interesting concept, though.

[MrGongGong]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Leftwingmonsters.asp

.

I'm no Socialist
BUT it's worth finding out about this source before believing it !
some rather nasty people indeed

But WHY are you SO obsessed with this subject ?
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY ..................

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Ok, what about the Westminster exercise initiative as a proposal then, scotty?

A good idea, distorted by the media who brought private muzak-infested gymnasiums into the equasion. Personally, I'd start with mobility scooters, banning them unless they were deemed necessary by GPs. Then we wouldn't those obese riders zooming dangerously along the pavement in Scarborough, Bridlington, Worthing, etc., complete with obese dogs sitting in their baskets.

[amateur51]

Well, it isn't. What is being privatised?

It is an interesting concept, though.

The GPs will prescribe an exercise regime that may include gym attendance. The NHS generally does not run gymnasia so the 'treatment' will need to be bought in from the private sctor. The gym will be expected to grass, I'm sorry, report back on the patient's attendance & progress to the GP. A sanction of non-attendance will be the removal of benefits by DWP presumably. I don't know currently of any information-sharing bewtween GPs and DWP.

What's an interesting concept?

[Lateralthinking1]

If they are going to bring it in, they shouldn't restrict it to benefits claimants. Anyone who is overweight or unhealthy should risk losing their personal tax allowance. It is as irresponsible to risk losing a job through ill health as it is not getting a job through ill health. Arguably parents should be especially targeted as their poor state of health can have a direct bearing on their children.

No. This is not about improving the health of people. It is about removing any excuse they might have that they aren't fit to work. And it largely depends on the majority of voters being set in old ways of thinking. The kind of thinking where Governments were urged time and again during times of low unemployment to deal with long term scroungers. They then did absolutely nothing. Now that they have high unemployment, few jobs, and no obvious answers, things are being done to obscure their incompetence.

There is no statistical support whatsoever for the argument that the unemployed are less healthy. As people queue for soup and bread, the propaganda machine depicts all in that category as obscenely rotund. As my father has regularly noted, you never see a banker or politician who looks anything but a little too well fed. It is time they all lost a bit of fat, preferably from their heads.

It would be far easier to look at the actual statistics. Find out how many years people have worked and how many years they have claimed benefits. Assess what the employment situation was when their benefits were drawn and also take into account any personal factors. In that way, the treatment would be fair with appropriate emphasis being placed on the lifelong workshy.

Presumably DWP won't do it either because it wants to demonise everyone who is out of work or its own workers who are about to go out on strike intend to be out for a very long time. Personally I don't blame them. Ironically but typically, the Head of that Department is the one who introduced the regime in mine to get rid of many loyal servants as quickly as possible on the cheap.

[Serial_Apologist]

I have known plenty of people who are overweight/obese through no fault of their own whatsoever, due to hormonal or thyroid conditions, or side-effects from antidepressant/antipsychotic drug regimes they are on. They sometimes eat very little, let alone excessive calories. Doing exercise, whether or not in a gym, would make no difference. And there must be many in-between cases, combinations including bad diet. Will any effort be made to distinguish or define lines? I rather think not. Which, whatever one thinks about bad diets, will render policies to make people attend their local gyms regularly, and that's assuming they have a local gym, impracticable and meaningless, and just an additional administrative cost on hard-strapped services.

Ironically, the one thing that probably kept weight down was smoking... definitely in my own case.

[eighthobstruction]

'They' should restrict the wages of anyone who thinks up inept schemes....