Socialised medicine without borders -how?

[Carlos-Marcos]

Is this possible, an NHS type system without borders, nation state?

I don't think it can really work, look at UK, NHS there close to breaking point due to mass immigration - how about Cuba, could it's health service cope with an extra 3 million migrants using it for free?

[#FF0000]

Is this possible, an NHS type system without borders, nation state?

Probably much better, since the Health Service wouldn't be reliant on the resources from people living on one tiny sliver of the planet.


I don't think it can really work, look at UK, NHS there close to breaking point due to mass immigration

Is it because of immigration, or the cuts?


how about Cuba, could it's health service cope with an extra 3 million migrants using it for free?

Considering it sends doctors all over the globe for want of something to do with them all, I'd say yes.

[Armchair Partisan]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service

Come on, you blame everything on the International Mass Immigration Conspiracy. Why did you start paying lip service to Marxism to begin with?

[#FF0000]

Why did you start paying lip service to Marxism to begin with?

Well, I don't think he eever did. Pretty sure he's just here to ask questions.

[Armchair Partisan]

Well, I don't think he eever did. Pretty sure he's just here to ask questions.

Well, he did pay lip service to Lenin in that other thread, in fact, going so far as to call him "the Master" in some weird and creepy quasi-religious way.

[ChangeAndChance]

I posted a short rant about his love for the NHS in the other thread; now I think it would have been better over here. :glare:

[Tim Cornelis]

Next thread by carlos-marcos: how can there be civil peace when there's multiple cultures in a society due to mass immigration? fek off already

[Carlos-Marcos]

Armchair Partisan:

Your Guardian link is interesting but not what I'm talking about - recruiting staff from abroad to work in the NHS is one thing, ie; skilled work to keep the socialised medicine system going - however mass immigration for people using the service is another, as it's clearly not meant to be ' a health system for the whole world' - can't you see the difference?


Is it because of immigration, or the cuts?

a number of factors are detrimental to the NHS, the main one being simple overuse

[Carlos-Marcos]

Well, he did pay lip service to Lenin in that other thread, in fact, going so far as to call him "the Master" in some weird and creepy quasi-religious way.

some posters on that thread said they thought Lenin wasn't a Marxist or that they hadn't read any of his writings - so, I merely pointed out to them that Lenin is in fact, the Master of real Socialism , the first person to properly put Marx's theories into effect.

[Left Voice]

Your entire understanding of how socialised medicine should work is based on social democratic principles. I'm not sure I see what relevance it has to a post-revolution communist society.

[Rudolf]

I don't think it can really work, look at UK, NHS there close to breaking point due to mass immigration


Flat out nonsense. Ignoring the actions of UK governments over the past several decades with regards to the NHS even ignoring the fact the conditions for the existence of the NHS in the first place no longer exists (large labour movement, fear of massive unrest post-WWII etc) the fact is the UK has an aging population and a lower birthrate than new arrivals have. Forget about staffing hospitals without immigrants there is a reducing tax base to fucking fund the damn thing. The UK has a fertility rate of less than 2 children born per woman below the replacement rate with on average a quarter of births in a given year being to women born outside the UK. Without them we have a much more rapidly aging population.



You're just parroting reactionary shite.

[Alet]

some posters on that thread said they thought Lenin wasn't a Marxist or that they hadn't read any of his writings - so, I merely pointed out to them that Lenin is in fact, the Master of real Socialism , the first person to properly put Marx's theories into effect.

I said that you are clearly not a Marxist, plus you reminded me of many self-proclaimed Marxist(-Leninist)s talking about communism like it's some nebulous, utopian dream we are probably not going to realize, but can choose a nationalist dictatorship instead of capitalism.



a number of factors are detrimental to the NHS, the main one being simple overuse

And even if it was true, why is that relevant? On the other thread we tried to explain you that migration is a capitalist problem. Thus there is no correlation between borders and health care, simply because borders don't give a shit about healthiness.

[Rafiq]

After Thatcherism people have the audacity to say that the problem in British healthcare is related to overuse.

[Tim Cornelis]

What method and methodology did Marx pioneer again? He pointed out, correctly, that historians had shared the illusions of an epoch, that if the people involved in a period styled that period as a religious or political conflict then historians assumed that this was the true character of the conflict and not just the form concealing the true content of that period. Carlos-Marcos, like many liberal scholars and Stalinists alike, is doing the same. He's axiomatically assuming that people Lenin, Stalin, Chavez, and Castro styled themselves and their rule socialist and/or Marxist, that indeed this is the true character of their rule. It requires no investigation of the actual social relationships that existed in the USSR (which reveal the evident non-socialist nature of the USSR), instead, all it requires is faith, unshakable faith, in the Soviet (etc.) leadership. This faith is also the reason why Carlos-Marcos, in quasi-religious tone as pointed out, refers to Lenin as a Master and whatnot. Carlos-Marcos has confidently demonstrated himself to be a non-Marxist bourgeois ideologue and opponent of communist. Idealistic faith in the Stalinist ideology drives his backward version of "communism", not Marxism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The NHS was established in 1948, in the middle of the biggest mass migration to Britain seen until then. It did just fine because it was funded properly and workers were more productive because they had a more secure job environment/conditions.

Today we have no more immigration, relatively speaking, than the 50s and 60s, yet the NHS in some areas struggles. Why? Not because of any factors on the demand side, but because of issues with supply - hospitals are poorly and inefficiently run, private companies deliver low quality, shitty services, and above all we are not training enough doctors who go on to become GPs.

It might be true that London is a fairly crowded place, but let's not play this 'mass migration' game because most of Britain is rural villages and spacious towns that can't possibly blame all their ills on migration.

[Carlos-Marcos]

After Thatcherism people have the audacity to say that the problem in British healthcare is related to overuse.
Older people certainly use the NHS far more often that they need to, simply because it is 'free' - and Cons love to use it, with the logic of 'I paid my taxes, so I'll damn well gets me money back' - that kind of thing.

and of course, without borders, what's to stop the whole world using it for free?

[The Disillusionist]

This guy should really be restricted... His posts tend to be very nationalist, to a dangerous degree.

[Carlos-Marcos]

oh, great - thanks a lot! and to think, I just gave you a 'thanks' lol:o

dangerous? have a laugh, I just want to protect the NHS

[The Disillusionist]

oh, great - thanks a lot! and to think, I just gave you a 'thanks' lol:o

dangerous? have a laugh, I just want to protect the NHS

Sorry, opposition to immigration and talk about "protecting" the rights or resources of various nations from those immigrants are big red flags for me. A lot of the worst, most oppressive laws are made in the name of "protecting" nations from some perceived threat associated with another group of people. Anti-immigration can very easily turn into fascism.

[Armchair Partisan]

Older people certainly use the NHS far more often that they need to, simply because it is 'free' - and Cons love to use it, with the logic of 'I paid my taxes, so I'll damn well gets me money back' - that kind of thing.

and of course, without borders, what's to stop the whole world using it for free?

So how does that work? People don't just go to a hospital and take up valuable resources because they feel like it. Going to a hospital is not all that fun, you know. Older people use the NHS more because they get sick more often - and even if one doesn't, that's called hypochondria, which is itself a disorder, and not a sign of malicious intent. I'm also confused. Is it old people or immigrants that you have a problem with here? Or do you think that old immigrants are more likely to intentionally sabotage the system? Because if so, there's a term for that: 'racism'.

Without borders, there's absolutely nothing stopping the whole world using it from free. Then again, there will also be proportionally more healthcare workers. D'oh! The biggest problem relating to mass immigration is that immigrants are often not given the opportunity for advancement and are relegated to the periphery of society - thus they have a lot harder time becoming doctors, for example. Otherwise, what would even be a problem? More patients, more doctors, everything stays the same.

Here I had already resigned myself to you being a troll, but I'm starting to think that I was wrong and it's even worse - that you really don't know any better.

[Carlos-Marcos]

Without borders, there's absolutely nothing stopping the whole world using it from free. Then again, there will also be proportionally more healthcare workers.
Skilled medical professionals, doctors, surgeons etc.. are most likely already in a developed nation anyway, but where is the funding going to come from?

Who will fund the NHS for anyone in the World to use for free?

You know, some of the comments on this site are verging on the childish - Socialism requires practical reasoning and technocratic management in order to advance - even the Bolsheviks allowed for private property when conditions required it - going on about 'the endgame' and la la land utopian , border free paradise, then calling anyone who advocates that there is very long process to obtain that, a 'reactionary, running dog, reformist fascist etc etc..' just doesn't work in the real world.

'Ideals are important, but reality is even more important' Mao-Tse Tung - One of the all time classic quotes from one of the greats - and always worth remembering

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Carlos-Marcos;2834539]Skilled medical professionals, doctors, surgeons etc.. are most likely already in a developed nation anyway, but where is the funding going to come from?

Who will fund the NHS for anyone in the World to use for free?

Think about what you've just asked. In a moneyless, stateless society, you're asking how we are going to fund a free service. What would need funding? Workers would no longer sell their labour power. That would go for health workers, service workers, construction workers, admin workers. They would, in theory, not be 'workers' any more. There would be no 'funding'. This circular flow of money would not be necessary any more.


You know, some of the comments on this site are verging on the childish -

Masking your lack of imagination by calling ambitious ideas 'childish' is exactly how the conservatives win.


Socialism requires practical reasoning and technocratic management in order to advance - even the Bolsheviks allowed for private property when conditions required it - going on about 'the endgame' and la la land utopian , border free paradise, then calling anyone who advocates that there is very long process to obtain that, a 'reactionary, running dog, reformist fascist etc etc..' just doesn't work in the real world.

Do you think that we don't live in the real world, though? I don't want to become hostile, so let's try to do this in an amicable way. The real world is where we are shat on day by day, where every injustice perpetuated by the capitalists and politicians is checked off as 'that's life', or 'this is the real world'. Again, because we have never known any different, we are conditioned to think that the way we currently live our lives and the way society is currently organised is the only way there has ever been, can ever be and will ever be.

Breaking out of this psychological ball and chain is the first step to being able to craft genuinely radical ideas that are not stifled by this 'real world' nonsense, as if people with imagination somehow live on cloud cuckoo land. That's how the conservatives and the reactionaries and the moderates win - scare tactics.

[Comrade Jacob]

Is this possible, an NHS type system without borders, nation state?

I don't think it can really work, look at UK, NHS there close to breaking point due to mass immigration - how about Cuba, could it's health service cope with an extra 3 million migrants using it for free?

Cuban doctors abroad treat at least 3 million extra people, they will be fine. The NHS is a social-democratic system, not a socialist one.

I'm sick of this guy.