The Lisbon vote

[television]

It may send a message that there is some things within the european project that the irish are not going to put up with.

 

[z105]

I for one don't like to be threatened by anyone, especially Mr Bernard Kouchner ! But for my twopence worth I feel that if the treaty is rejected that it won't matter because, like Nice, it will just be put back to us in the same form, until we accept it.

 

[television]

If private healthcare disadvantages the poor that is the fault of the government for setting and/or enforcing the rules badly, it is not the fault of those who operate within the system which the government has established.

If you nievely believe that big business does not influence government into making rules that help big business at the expence of the poor? lLook around the world today at the thousands of examples where the poor are being exploited because of corruption and the power of buisness.

Firstly Lisbon does not promote the privatisation of health care.

It allows for the conditions to exist where private companies will be able to compete freely for public services like health care. Id say that amounts to promotion.

 

[rmelly]

This guy probably thinks he's a shoo-in for the EU Foreign Minister post given his current role as French Foreign Minister. Well, Mr Bernard Kouchner, you may be in for a surprise.

 

[michaelm]

So will voting NO to Lisbon will stop privitisation in healthcare ?

Not on its own. We'd then need to kick out Harney & FF. Ireland's deal under Nice (the treaty that was so good they asked twice), which was apparently required to make the EU more effective and efficient and to allow for ease of accession, is far better that what's on offer in Lisbon. The Referendum Commission states that, in the event of a NO, the EU will continue under present rules. Lisbon is a federal framework and a power grab by the big states. The groundless dire warnings from the Yes camp are despicable and shameful.

 

[television]

You suggest that the free market and social justice are mutually exclusive

I am not suggesting this at all. If you want to misquote me and then give an economics lesson fine.

What i am saying is that in key public services such as health and education blind unfettered free market economics does not work. It does not take into accound that these services are about the community supportting itself not because of a profit agenda but because of an overall public good. Health care cannot always be profitable. Peoples needs must come befor profit regardless of the cost.

 

[ubiquitous]

Western democracies, without exception, allow the free market to operate and then use taxation to redistribute wealth and provide social services. You suggest that the free market and social justice are mutually exclusive when in fact the wealth generated by a free market is essential for social justice. BTW, the free market is an artificial construct and can only exist when government is stronger than the market. That’s why America has anti-trust legislation and the EU can force Microsoft to change the way it sells its products.

One of the biggest problems with the EU is that it tends to undermine rather than support free markets. The Lisbon Treaty appears to accentuate this, for example in the lunatic plan to commit billions to "combat climate change", which will ultimately be paid for by higher taxes.

 

[television]

The fact is that America spends more per head on socialised healthcare that the EU

but the spread of this spending is uneven. Blacks hispanics and poors whites are severly disadvantaged when it comes to health care in american in terms of access and outcomes and that is a fact.

 

[television]

If they do wish they can impose a system which requires private hospitals to treat public patients

Just like the goverment imposed rules on the building industry to put affordable housing in schemes in affluent areas. neatly got around that thought did nt they.

 

[ashambles]

It allows for the conditions to exist where private companies will be able to compete freely for public services like health care

Private companies being allowed to compete for business for public services in the health services, tut-tut, whatever next.

And what about those those private sector pharma companies, from now all health research should be done by public servants only - and only Irish ones at that. No to foreign drugs.

And those expensive scanners developed and built by private sector companies, surely the Irish hospital craftworkers could put together better ones themselves.

Close down those private clinics, as well while we're at it. Providing better care than the public hospitals - disgraceful and elitist.

And bring GPs and dentists completely into the public system, let's ensure each GP is surrounded by several bureaucrats to ensure better "Take a ticket" queuing systems in waiting rooms.

Let's make it a 100% pure public sector health system, it'll be wonderful.

 

[Purple]

What i am saying is that in key public services such as health and education blind unfettered free market economics does not work.

I'm not sure what you mean here but if you are suggesting that "unfettered" free market economics exists anywhere in the Western world you are mistaken. Business is restricted by labour and environmental laws as well as laws on competition and criminal law.

It does not take into accound that these services are about the community supportting itself not because of a profit agenda but because of an overall public good. Health care cannot always be profitable. Peoples needs must come befor profit regardless of the cost.

As long as the government regulates properly the two are not mutually exclusive. I agree that healthcare cannot, and should not, always be profitable. As long as the state sets the rules on what services are required and how those services are delivered I see no problem with some of them being delivered by private operators. The argument that "big business" will prey on the weak and vulnerable in this scenario is a practical one based on the belief that the government and public health managers are incompetent and will be unable to enforce the rules they set. It is not a philosophical argument against private healthcare.

One of the biggest problems with the EU is that it tends to undermine rather than support free markets. The Lisbon Treaty appears to accentuate this, for example in the lunatic plan to commit billions to "combat climate change", which will ultimately be paid for by higher taxes.

I agree. Which makes the extreme left's argument that the EU has a Neo-Con secret agenda even more ridiculous.

but the spread of this spending is uneven. Blacks hispanics and poors whites are severly disadvantaged when it comes to health care in american in terms of access and outcomes and that is a fact.

Their overall spend is uneven but their socialised spend favours the poor.

Just like the goverment imposed rules on the building industry to put affordable housing in schemes in affluent areas. neatly got around that thought did nt they.

This is an argument for reform, with increased accountability and sanction, of the public sector. Governmental incompetence is not a reason to adopt or drop a policy on private healthcare delivery or private delivery of public/social housing.

 

[Mpsox]

I'm voting yes on Thursday. The decision to me was a no-brainer. If Sinn Fein, the loony left such as Joe Higgins and weepy Patricia McKenna are against it, it must have something positive going for it.

 

[michaelm]

I'm voting yes on Thursday. The decision to me was a no-brainer. If Sinn Fein, the loony left such as Joe Higgins and weepy Patricia McKenna are against it, it must have something positive going for it.

I think you'll find that many people will use their brain when deciding and many will vote NO based on what's in the treaty, and despite eclectic mix on the NO side, rather than vote Yes simply because of who's for a NO.

 

[Purple]

I think you'll find that many people will use their brain when deciding and many will vote NO based on what's in the treaty, and despite eclectic mix on the NO side, rather than vote Yes simply because of who's for a NO.

I think you'll find that many people will vote no because they have swallowed the misinformation peddled by the loony left and the self appointed spokesmen for "Astroturf" grass-roots organisations with questionable agendas.

 

[television]

Governmental incompetence is not a reason to adopt or drop a policy on private healthcare delivery or private delivery of public/social housing.

By giving responciblility for health care to private industry you immidiatly put the focus on profit rather than health care. I have no problem with private indutry by the way. A governments only role is not or should not be just to act as a regulator of the free market. And it is not government Incompetence its goverment curruption. that is a very important distinction. Incompetence suggests goverment bundling along, curruption is where gouvernment activly sides with business at the expence or ordinary citizzens.

 

[television]

"unfettered" free market economics exists anywhere in the Western world you are mistaken

A key and central implication of this treaty is the idea there should be no distortion of the free market. that is one of the central messages of this treaty.

 

[television]

Which makes the extreme left's argument that the EU has a Neo-Con secret agenda even more ridiculous.

I am not extreme left or anything even close. However it is plainly not ridiculous that the extreme business right or the neo-liberal agenda is becoming more and more influential in Europe.


Its interesting that in the 50s in America it was a government ploy to tarnish descent by calling people "commies" I see similar overtones to the yes side tarnishing of people against the treaty. For "commies" read extreme left.

 

[michaelm]

I think you'll find that many people will vote no because they have swallowed the misinformation peddled by the loony left and the self appointed spokesmen for "Astroturf" grass-roots organisations with questionable agendas.

Maybe. Certainly that's how the Irish Times and FF will explain a NO, dismissing any possibility of rejection on merit.

 

[ubiquitous]

Its interesting that in the 50s in America it was a government ploy to tarnish descent by calling people "commies" I see similar overtones to the yes side tarnishing of people against the treaty. For "commies" read extreme left.

And yet, you seem happy to toss around labels like "extreme business right" & "the neo-liberal agenda".

 

[television]

This is an argument for reform, with increased accountability and sanction, of the public sector

Why?