The Politics Thread v2

[Raineh Daze]

In some ways, the stuff with the Conservatives makes me look at US politics and wonder what the fuck everyone's getting so upset about. There's the lack of what's basically a giant class divide in parties and I'm not really sure what the fuck the difference is--that one's lighter on gun control and somewhat less socially conservative is it from over here*. Meanwhile... well, now that the anomaly Blair created seems to have mostly resolved itself...we're back to socialism vs neoliberalism. Again. And the party in power, barely, seems to be rushing as many attempts as it can make to enrich the private sector at the expense of everyone else.

Selling off most of a bank for a stupid loss, privatising the universal mail service for no reason (at an effective loss), privatising a rail service taken into public ownership due to a default when it was making a profit, focusing on a budget surplus to the exclusion of all else (ignoring that this means removing money from the economy... with a sovereign currency), forcing the NHS to take private contracts that are the opposite of cost-effective as opposed to just getting it done via the public sector. And with an ongoing scheme to sell off council-owned housing, the above bill's probably going to come into force, which is insane as local authority housing isn't a safety net against homelessness: it was introduced for the sake of having stable, affordable (to low-paid workers) housing in the wake of WWII. But since Thatcher (who at least refused to privatise the railways or post office, which subsequent tory governments have done... to monumental failure), it's been neoliberalism to hell at the expense of absolutely everyone.

Hell, I might loathe many things about the US's current political situation, but it's probably less corrupt. Lucrative advisory posts and links to industries aside (the current health secretary has written a book on how the NHS should be privatised. Seriously): 30% of current MP's rent out accommodation. You can bet that most of said MP's are on the Conservative benches, just because of demographics. Now look at the above link.

*And Trump's insane and we want him to never come here again, it seems.

[MrWolfe]

There's a problem with that though.  Trump is currently in the lead in the primary.  So while I support a reduction of Trump stuff, you can't eliminate it.  Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

Well actually, if more people ignored him the problem would go away. With out all the media attention and support (which he wouldn't have if it weren't for the media attention), he'd be just another loony with batshit "political" views.

I could link more British stuff? :T

By all means. British politicians at least have the decency to be entertaining with their insane, cartoonish villainy. Particularly Mr. Pig F&#*er.

In some ways, the stuff with the Conservatives makes me look at US politics and wonder what the fuck everyone's getting so upset about. There's the lack of what's basically a giant class divide in parties and I'm not really sure what the fuck the difference is--that one's lighter on gun control and somewhat less socially conservative is it from over here*. Meanwhile... well, now that the anomaly Blair created seems to have mostly resolved itself...we're back to socialism vs neoliberalism. Again. And the party in power, barely, seems to be rushing as many attempts as it can make to enrich the private sector at the expense of everyone else.

Selling off most of a bank for a stupid loss, privatising the universal mail service for no reason (at an effective loss), privatising a rail service taken into public ownership due to a default when it was making a profit, focusing on a budget surplus to the exclusion of all else (ignoring that this means removing money from the economy... with a sovereign currency), forcing the NHS to take private contracts that are the opposite of cost-effective as opposed to just getting it done via the public sector. And with an ongoing scheme to sell off council-owned housing, the above bill's probably going to come into force, which is insane as local authority housing isn't a safety net against homelessness: it was introduced for the sake of having stable, affordable (to low-paid workers) housing in the wake of WWII. But since Thatcher (who at least refused to privatise the railways or post office, which subsequent tory governments have done... to monumental failure), it's been neoliberalism to hell at the expense of absolutely everyone.

Hell, I might loathe many things about the US's current political situation, but it's probably less corrupt. Lucrative advisory posts and links to industries aside (the current health secretary has written a book on how the NHS should be privatised. Seriously): 30% of current MP's rent out accommodation. You can bet that most of said MP's are on the Conservative benches, just because of demographics. Now look at the above link.

*And Trump's insane and we want him to never come here again, it seems.

Well, you're definitely right about there being very little difference between the two main parties over here. That's sort of the point: If you keep the voters invested in arguing over whether they'd prefer red hot pokers up the ass or continuous electric shocks to the balls, it doesn't occur to them to ask to be let go and not horribly sodomized by their government.

I'm not so sure about the "less corrupt" part though. Admittedly I'm not that familiar with the situation over there--mainly because the media in the U.S. is a giant echo chamber that does it's best not to talk about anything outside it's borders unless they're trying to drum up fear and paranoia--but corruption is practically an institution here. If you tend not to hear about it as much, well, that's because it's working.

[Raineh Daze]

In some ways, the stuff with the Conservatives makes me look at US politics and wonder what the fuck everyone's getting so upset about. There's the lack of what's basically a giant class divide in parties and I'm not really sure what the fuck the difference is--that one's lighter on gun control and somewhat less socially conservative is it from over here*. Meanwhile... well, now that the anomaly Blair created seems to have mostly resolved itself...we're back to socialism vs neoliberalism. Again. And the party in power, barely, seems to be rushing as many attempts as it can make to enrich the private sector at the expense of everyone else.

Selling off most of a bank for a stupid loss, privatising the universal mail service for no reason (at an effective loss), privatising a rail service taken into public ownership due to a default when it was making a profit, focusing on a budget surplus to the exclusion of all else (ignoring that this means removing money from the economy... with a sovereign currency), forcing the NHS to take private contracts that are the opposite of cost-effective as opposed to just getting it done via the public sector. And with an ongoing scheme to sell off council-owned housing, the above bill's probably going to come into force, which is insane as local authority housing isn't a safety net against homelessness: it was introduced for the sake of having stable, affordable (to low-paid workers) housing in the wake of WWII. But since Thatcher (who at least refused to privatise the railways or post office, which subsequent tory governments have done... to monumental failure), it's been neoliberalism to hell at the expense of absolutely everyone.

Hell, I might loathe many things about the US's current political situation, but it's probably less corrupt. Lucrative advisory posts and links to industries aside (the current health secretary has written a book on how the NHS should be privatised. Seriously): 30% of current MP's rent out accommodation. You can bet that most of said MP's are on the Conservative benches, just because of demographics. Now look at the above link.

*And Trump's insane and we want him to never come here again, it seems.

Well, you're definitely right about there being very little difference between the two main parties over here. That's sort of the point: If you keep the voters invested in arguing over whether they'd prefer red hot pokers up the ass or continuous electric shocks to the balls, it doesn't occur to them to ask to be let go and not horribly sodomized by their government.

I'm not so sure about the "less corrupt" part though. Admittedly I'm not that familiar with the situation over there--mainly because the media in the U.S. is a giant echo chamber that does it's best not to talk about anything outside it's borders unless they're trying to drum up fear and paranoia--but corruption is practically an institution here. If you tend not to hear about it as much, well, that's because it's working.

I'm pretty sure the US does not have people stuck in charge of whole areas of public spending when they have immense personal stake in the success of private ventures at the expense of public spending. Again, the health secretary has large amounts of stock in a private health company. The health secretary that has been trying to force a contract that doctors are refusing to take.

That is, we literally have a minister that's willing to let people die to force financial terms. Given responsibility for the whole fucking health service. Since US health provision is a mess...: you've got one person who owns a health service. If they refuse to negotiate, they promptly cause staff shortages and indirect deaths across the entire country, because they think they know better than the whole medical profession.

And this is one fucking person in the current government.

[dman11235]

That doesn't sound that different from here.  However, your election season is not two years long yet.  I'm in Indiana, and here, much like how your health secretary wrote that book, our school superintendent was paid by a charter school to promote charter schools and ignore public schools.  So our public schools have been getting steadily worse, and as a result funding is being cut, because "how dare you fail to fund yourselves, stupid public schools!  No more money until you improve!  I don't care if you can't afford to improve anything, maybe you should have thought about that before being a public school I'm in charge of funding!"  Oh, and he told the accreditation people that they formed to evaluate schools to grade a charter school that paid him higher than they deserved.  He is still considered a top mind for education on the right.  The NRA holds sway over too many politicians, and they essentially run elections in a number of states.  And I do mean run.  If you don't have an A+ rating from them you will lose the race to your opponent.  Then there's the whole Citizens United decision, which essentially means corporations and such are election players now, so it's not just people, it's people and corporations.....which ave a lot more speech than regular people because they have no limit to money.

Damn, I did not want to turn this into a "who's got the more corrupt government" measuring contest.

@Wolfe: But....he's number one....and yet...that makes him more powerful....so it's a feedback loop of pain and awful.....gah....

(in other words, yeah, I know.  But because he's number one in the polls he does deserve a bigger share than others, but it's important to balance it with the others and give everyone their fair share.  He's really, really good at making sure his volume of crazy is higher than anyone else's to the point where he drowns people out)

EDIT:  HAHAHA oh man, yeah the US has government people in charge of places they benefit from.  From above, the education thing.  Then of course there's the entire supplement industry, literally owning both Nevada senators.  They've let the supplement industry get away with not having to prove that there is anything even IN the freaking things.

[Raineh Daze]

So... here's the problem. There's the general election. MP's get picked. That's the whole legislative body, which can overrule the judicial side of things, and there's no executive power...

They've got five years where the only way they can't pass some legislation is if individual party members choose to rebel. Which rarely happens, though normal functioning is weirdly unstable right now.

As for the schools comment: got that going on right now. In every respect. It was introduced by the last Labour government, which happened to be not-at-all socialist or leftwing like the whole fucking point of the party. Current one has picked the idea up and is taking it to eleven. Pick anything restrictive but gun law or the death penalty (for some reason, they gave up on that on the nineties) and the tories will latch onto it with undying fervour.

Want an accurate description of their attitudes? Victorian workhouses.

And they can't be stopped until 2020.

[MrWolfe]

@Wolfe: But....he's number one....and yet...that makes him more powerful....so it's a feedback loop of pain and awful.....gah....

(in other words, yeah, I know.  But because he's number one in the polls he does deserve a bigger share than others, but it's important to balance it with the others and give everyone their fair share.  He's really, really good at making sure his volume of crazy is higher than anyone else's to the point where he drowns people out)

I wouldn't put much stock in those polls. They're not an accurate sample of the voting public, and the results are often skewed further by those reporting them to support whatever agenda they've got. While it is disturbing that so many people are willing to express support for Trump, that show of support does not necessarily translate to votes on election day--and the people being polled (those that bother to respond) do not necessarily represent an accurate cross section of American voters.

EDIT:  HAHAHA oh man, yeah the US has government people in charge of places they benefit from.  From above, the education thing.  Then of course there's the entire supplement industry, literally owning both Nevada senators.  They've let the supplement industry get away with not having to prove that there is anything even IN the freaking things.

There's also quite a lot that we don't know about. Transparency is a huge problem, and that's when politicians aren't actively trying to hide their financial ties--which all of them are to one degree or another.

So... here's the problem. There's the general election. MP's get picked. That's the whole legislative body, which can overrule the judicial side of things, and there's no executive power...

They've got five years where the only way they can't pass some legislation is if individual party members choose to rebel. Which rarely happens, though normal functioning is weirdly unstable right now.

As for the schools comment: got that going on right now. In every respect. It was introduced by the last Labour government, which happened to be not-at-all socialist or leftwing like the whole fucking point of the party. Current one has picked the idea up and is taking it to eleven. Pick anything restrictive but gun law or the death penalty (for some reason, they gave up on that on the nineties) and the tories will latch onto it with undying fervour.

Want an accurate description of their attitudes? Victorian workhouses.

And they can't be stopped until 2020.

Well, workhouses are still better than the fricking spikes shopowners are putting out to prevent homeless people from sleeping where they aren't wanted. Or those sonic "mosquito" things intended to repel adolescents as though they were literal vermin. (Fun fact: I'm in my mid-30's and I can hear those damn things just fine. )

Then again, where I live the cops regularly raid homeless camps, arresting everyone and seizing their possessions under civil asset forfeiture laws. The county actually formed an "Anti-homeless task force" (that's the official name) to deal with the growing problem, and their "solution" was to spend thousands of dollars replacing every bus bench in town with new ones that have a bar through the middle so you can't lay on them. Y'know, instead of funding the only homeless shelter in a 50+ mile radius or doing anything else that might actually help these people. Some states have actually passed laws making it illegal to give out food to the homeless.

So, yeah, both our countries have a pretty solid lock on that whole "force millions into poverty with terrible economic policies for no good reason and then shit on them for being poor" thing.

[Raineh Daze]

Now you're just giving them more ideas. D:

Though I think my original point was 'one of our main parties is practically defined by this attitude'

[MrWolfe]

Can't give people ideas that they already had.

And honestly, the only difference I see is that one of your political parties is up front about it--whereas ours generally rely on Orwellian doubletalk to pretend like they aren't out to fuck us. That's why a law that prevents people from getting married is called the "Defense of Marriage Act", a law that allow business owners to discriminate against their employees and potential customers based on their faith is called the "Religious Freedom Act", and a law that guts privacy, due process, and basic civil rights is called the "Homeland Security Act."

[Raineh Daze]

I believe that the piece of legislation about what data police and secret services are supposedly allowed to gather is under the cheerful name 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers' or something.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... the more we click on stuff like that, the more the media pays attention to him,
the more power he gets  the Democrats get , down ballot !!

fix'd

'Cause you know, Trump is "awesome".
 

[Samwise]

Well actually, if more people ignored him the problem would go away. With out all the media attention and support (which he wouldn't have if it weren't for the media attention), he'd be just another loony with batshit "political" views.

So basically you want to turn selection of the government over to the media corporations:
Those corporations pick who they like for each office, cover that person exclusively, ignore everyone else, and that way nobody will have any knowledge of or inclination to vote for other candidates.
Gee, what a great way to achieve a totally Corporatist (Fascist) state.

I'm pretty sure the US does not have people stuck in charge of whole areas of public spending when they have immense personal stake in the success of private ventures at the expense of public spending.

Now and again.
More often we wind up with "panels" of "experts" who "advise" (read: "ghostwrite") regulations for whole industries to "protect consumers" that "somehow" manage to wind up protecting the established oligarchy of businesses from any competition.

That is, we literally have a minister that's willing to let people die to force financial terms. Given responsibility for the whole fucking health service. Since US health provision is a mess...: you've got one person who owns a health service. If they refuse to negotiate, they promptly cause staff shortages and indirect deaths across the entire country, because they think they know better than the whole medical profession.

And this is one fucking person in the current government.

Even if the person doesn't own a health service, why should there be one person in government making such decisions for an entire industry?
Yet that is the Bern wants to copy for the American health care industry, and his supporters cheer it enthusiastically.

The NRA holds sway over too many politicians, and they essentially run elections in a number of states.  And I do mean run.  If you don't have an A+ rating from them you will lose the race to your opponent.

As opposed to Planned Vivisection holding sway?
Or Greenfarce holding sway?
Or any of the approved "progressive" organizations dictating terms to candidates?

Then there's the whole Citizens United decision, which essentially means corporations and such are election players now, so it's not just people, it's people and corporations.....which ave a lot more speech than regular people because they have no limit to money.

Corporations are owned by people.
So it is "people and groups of people".
Of course there isn't much complaint when it is unions throwing millions around to buy candidates and order campaigns. You know, unions, which are just corporations of labor.

By the way, which organizations give the most and who do they give too?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
SEIU
ActBlue
AFCSME
NEA
Fahr LLC

3 of the top 5 are unions
1 is ultra-rich activist Tom Steyer
1 is a Democratic super-PAC
All give overwhelmingly to Democrats

[bhu]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/12/12/the-not-so-secret-plan-to-nominate-mitt-romney  wtf

[Libertad]

Shhh, don't tell the #cantstumpthetrump guys, but their favorite Presidential candidate's doing business with teh Moozlims!

[Raineh Daze]

That is, we literally have a minister that's willing to let people die to force financial terms. Given responsibility for the whole fucking health service. Since US health provision is a mess...: you've got one person who owns a health service. If they refuse to negotiate, they promptly cause staff shortages and indirect deaths across the entire country, because they think they know better than the whole medical profession.

And this is one fucking person in the current government.

Even if the person doesn't own a health service, why should there be one person in government making such decisions for an entire industry?
Yet that is the Bern wants to copy for the American health care industry, and his supporters cheer it enthusiastically.

Er... what? I'm not sure what decision you think is being made by one person, here. Hunt's total incomprehension of the idea of 'negotiation' is the issue. Or 'listening to the people who actually run the thing'. Unfortunately, he's the person responsible for communicating government desires for a state-owned resource and being a link to the treasury. Since the goal is 'save money AND provide a full 24/7 service'*, the idea of altering the way pay is calculated came up. The only decision that could be being condemned is one side refusing to even compromise. And such things can happen WITHOUT a public body because of industry bodies and trade unions.

Requiring someone in the government to be appointed as being in charge of it is possibly the most tangential opposition to the idea of a free-at-the-point-of-use health service I've ever seen, though,

*Which is never happening, because as people keep trying to say, the supporting staff wouldn't be available all the time, and who the fuck would schedule an appointment for two thirty in the morning? It was kicked off because people admitted at the weekend have a greater chance of dying... which is because weekend admissions are more likely to be emergencies, relatively speaking. Not because of worse service.

[Samwise]

Er... what? I'm not sure what decision you think is being made by one person, here. Hunt's total incomprehension of the idea of 'negotiation' is the issue.

According to you.
I'm sure according to Hunt, he completely understands the idea of "negotiation", is making a perfectly sound offer, and it is the people refusing it that are messing things up because they don't understand the idea of "negotiation".

Or 'listening to the people who actually run the thing'.

Could it be that those people have their own vested interest, namely making money for themselves, which interferes with their decision making?

Unfortunately, he's the person responsible for communicating government desires for a state-owned resource and being a link to the treasury.

Maybe the problem is that it is a "state-owned resource"?
Particularly since, in point of fact, the state does not actually own the relevant resource, namely the time and effort of the physicians.

Since the goal is 'save money AND provide a full 24/7 service'*, the idea of altering the way pay is calculated came up. The only decision that could be being condemned is one side refusing to even compromise. And such things can happen WITHOUT a public body because of industry bodies and trade unions.

"Cheap, quick, or good - pick any two."

Except that whenever it is cheap it will never really be quick or good, but people keep insisting on chasing that fantasy because it sells.

Requiring someone in the government to be appointed as being in charge of it is possibly the most tangential opposition to the idea of a free-at-the-point-of-use health service I've ever seen, though,

It is one of the most direct oppositions - that some individual somewhere, or even just some committee somewhere, is ultimately responsible for making all of the medical decisions for millions of other people, when that person or persons has never met the people seeking care, the people providing the care, or the people providing the supplies required for the care.

*Which is never happening, because as people keep trying to say, the supporting staff wouldn't be available all the time, and who the fuck would schedule an appointment for two thirty in the morning?

I don't know, maybe . . . somehow who wasn't able to schedule their heart attack until a more convenient time?

It was kicked off because people admitted at the weekend have a greater chance of dying... which is because weekend admissions are more likely to be emergencies, relatively speaking. Not because of worse service.

How do you know that?
Did you treat those people?
Did you train the people who treated those people?
Are you all of those people who sought care?
What if those people just plain had regular work during the week and could only schedule for a weekend?

Just because they are emergencies doesn't mean the people suffering them shouldn't be able to access superior treatment. I'm sure they are quite thrilled to have their health care needs casually dismissed by you because they may not be particularly cost effective. Though admittedly, cutting back on emergency care and just letting people who need it die would help reign in costs. Of course I think you might have a bit of trouble selling that as a policy position if you were so openly honest and direct about your intention and priorities.
"It is not worth it or fair to save one if we cannot save all, and since we do not have the money, we will just let everyone die equally!"

[Raineh Daze]

Er... what? I'm not sure what decision you think is being made by one person, here. Hunt's total incomprehension of the idea of 'negotiation' is the issue.

According to you.
I'm sure according to Hunt, he completely understands the idea of "negotiation", is making a perfectly sound offer, and it is the people refusing it that are messing things up because they don't understand the idea of "negotiation".

Or 'listening to the people who actually run the thing'.

Could it be that those people have their own vested interest, namely making money for themselves, which interferes with their decision making?

More context: it's the contracts for junior doctors. It's opposed by them, consultants, the actual administration of the NHS, and just about anyone else involved with it. His proposal that would supposedly be cost-neutral has been repeatedly examined and found to lead to a decrease in overall pay, as well as reclassifying normal working hours to include many of those currently regarded as unsociable. The others involved in the 'negotiations' have had no input on the new contracts (which could be enforced regardless of agreement), and trying to get any sort of compromise hasn't worked.

It's Hunt at fault. Especially as it's not a pay rise being argued for, it's avoiding an effective wage decrease and change in working hours.

Unfortunately, he's the person responsible for communicating government desires for a state-owned resource and being a link to the treasury.

Maybe the problem is that it is a "state-owned resource"?
Particularly since, in point of fact, the state does not actually own the relevant resource, namely the time and effort of the physicians.

I was referring to the NHS in general, there.

Since the goal is 'save money AND provide a full 24/7 service'*, the idea of altering the way pay is calculated came up. The only decision that could be being condemned is one side refusing to even compromise. And such things can happen WITHOUT a public body because of industry bodies and trade unions.

"Cheap, quick, or good - pick any two."

Except that whenever it is cheap it will never really be quick or good, but people keep insisting on chasing that fantasy because it sells.

That's the problem, yes.

Requiring someone in the government to be appointed as being in charge of it is possibly the most tangential opposition to the idea of a free-at-the-point-of-use health service I've ever seen, though,

It is one of the most direct oppositions - that some individual somewhere, or even just some committee somewhere, is ultimately responsible for making all of the medical decisions for millions of other people, when that person or persons has never met the people seeking care, the people providing the care, or the people providing the supplies required for the care.

... so like any director of a company, only without the intrinsic profit motivation and requirement?

Also, it may come as a surprise, but the government deals with some organisational and financial matters. They do not, in fact, mess with the medical side of things; THAT is done by the health service itself (which is further regionally divided; it's not a monolithic entity)

*Which is never happening, because as people keep trying to say, the supporting staff wouldn't be available all the time, and who the fuck would schedule an appointment for two thirty in the morning?

I don't know, maybe . . . somehow who wasn't able to schedule their heart attack until a more convenient time?

When they say 24/7, they don't mean heart attacks. They mean normal appointments and routine surgeries--even though most of the support needed would be impossible without making THAT 24/7, which isn't being proposed. Tinkering with doctors' contracts isn't going to make every service available 24/7.

It was kicked off because people admitted at the weekend have a greater chance of dying... which is because weekend admissions are more likely to be emergencies, relatively speaking. Not because of worse service.

How do you know that?
Did you treat those people?
Did you train the people who treated those people?
Are you all of those people who sought care?
What if those people just plain had regular work during the week and could only schedule for a weekend?

Just because they are emergencies doesn't mean the people suffering them shouldn't be able to access superior treatment. I'm sure they are quite thrilled to have their health care needs casually dismissed by you because they may not be particularly cost effective. Though admittedly, cutting back on emergency care and just letting people who need it die would help reign in costs. Of course I think you might have a bit of trouble selling that as a policy position if you were so openly honest and direct about your intention and priorities.
"It is not worth it or fair to save one if we cannot save all, and since we do not have the money, we will just let everyone die equally!"

Hyperbole and misconstruing the point. I have no idea where the jump comes from 'the people that investigated this thought about the reason for admission' to supposing that I'm advocating worse services or that people shouldn't use hospitals at the weekend. I'm for increasing spending, especially if this inane idea of all services operating 24/7 is carried on.

This is the research that started it. It's an increase of a 1.3% death rate to a 1.5% death rate. You're also more likely to die midweek than at the weekend, which would suggest the problem isn't with uneven service.

[dman11235]

Planned Parenthood doesn't lobby (considering that they're struggling to get federal funding right now that's not surprising.  Republicans keep trying to defund it because of rhetoric like yours, despite how untrue it is).  Greenpeace is a terrorist organization and doesn't lobby.  The NRA pays for entire election campaigns.  In some elections, you are running for a political spot as an NRA appointment.  They're pretty different.  On the point of unions?  I agree.  Because I'm not a douchebag.  Corporations should not be able to fund campaigns, and if they are, hold them to the same laws, not made up new ones.

[Samwise]

It's Hunt at fault. Especially as it's not a pay rise being argued for, it's avoiding an effective wage decrease and change in working hours.

That's what happens when you are a "state-owned resource" - the state gets to decide your value.

I was referring to the NHS in general, there.

Right.
And the doctors are part of the NHS.
So . . . see above for the consequences.

That's the problem, yes.

So if you know the problem, why are you are complaining about a rather obvious and inevitable outcome, rather than pointing to it as a reason to change to a different system?

... so like any director of a company, only without the intrinsic profit motivation and requirement?

And a captive customer base, yes.
Precisely.

Also, it may come as a surprise, but the government deals with some organisational and financial matters. They do not, in fact, mess with the medical side of things; THAT is done by the health service itself (which is further regionally divided; it's not a monolithic entity)

Really?
Is that why the government was able to make the decision to eliminate a number of cancer drugs?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/08/nhs-costs-cancer-drugs-fund-review
(I even used the Guardian instead of the Telegraph or Daily Mail for you.)
I guess the government DOES mess with the medical side of things.

When they say 24/7, they don't mean heart attacks. They mean normal appointments and routine surgeries--even though most of the support needed would be impossible without making THAT 24/7, which isn't being proposed. Tinkering with doctors' contracts isn't going to make every service available 24/7.

Okay, see . .  here I'm baffled.
There is a problem with having normal appointments on weekends?
Middle of the night possibly, but then over here it is set up so you can get regular appointments about 8-14 hours of the day, depending on your specific area, and emergency rooms take up the rest. (I can actually get walk-ins around 12 hours of the day, 7 days a week, at the medical group my primary care doctor is.)
I can get x-rays and such with walk ins around 8 hours any weekday and 6 hours on Saturday.
Surgery is always going to be an issue due to the limited number of surgeons available, but . . .
That leads into your basic free market versus government managed monopoly issue. Yes, you pay more, possibly a whole lot more, in a free market, but you wind up with significantly greater access as well. Plus of course the emergency services remain in place.

Hyperbole and misconstruing the point. I have no idea where the jump comes from 'the people that investigated this thought about the reason for admission' to supposing that I'm advocating worse services or that people shouldn't use hospitals at the weekend. I'm for increasing spending, especially if this inane idea of all services operating 24/7 is carried on.

Hyperbole is the name of this game though:
You support single-payer government medicine or you want the poor to "die quickly".
You support free market medicine or you want everyone to "die equally".
Don't hate the player, hate the game.

And throwing more money at it won't solve the problem.
You will still have the same number of health care providers, with the same number of working hours, with the same amount of supplies. At best you could outbid another country and take some of their available health care pool, but you will still be reducing the amount of resources you have available for other purposes.

This is the research that started it. It's an increase of a 1.3% death rate to a 1.5% death rate. You're also more likely to die midweek than at the weekend, which would suggest the problem isn't with uneven service.

I'm sure there are several reasons for the disparity, and more ways to read the data to suggest anything and everything as the cause.
That's the problem with politically driven statistical analysis.
It is compounded when the government has a monopoly.

[Samwise]

Planned Parenthood doesn't lobby (considering that they're struggling to get federal funding right now that's not surprising.  Republicans keep trying to defund it because of rhetoric like yours, despite how untrue it is).

Yes, they do:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-parenthood23jan23-story.html

Greenpeace is a terrorist organization and doesn't lobby.

 

Yes, they do:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/lobbying

The NRA pays for entire election campaigns.  In some elections, you are running for a political spot as an NRA appointment.  They're pretty different.

No, they don't.
That would be illegal.
Their endorsement might help, like the endorsement of Planned Eugenics or Greenfarce, and they can run significant numbers of public interest ads, but they cannot actually finance a campaign out of whole cloth.
That is nice rhetoric, but it does not represent reality.

On the point of unions?  I agree.  Because I'm not a douchebag.

I'm sure the unions would disagree with your completely.
It remains that they are fully capable of spending absurd amounts of money to support candidates and they do.

Corporations should not be able to fund campaigns, and if they are, hold them to the same laws, not made up new ones.

They are held to the same laws.
It was a new law they were being subjected to that was overturned as a result of Citizens United.
For some reason though, treating corporations like unions is outrageously unholy to virtually all "progressives", so they complain about Citizens United as if it created some special status for corporations that is different from everyone else.

[MrWolfe]

The biggest problem with that whole "but corporations are just groups of people" argument is that those people already have a vote and the ability to donate to campaigns if they choose. Allowing "corporations" to contribute funds or otherwise support a candidate is really just giving the people who run it additional means to influence the political process.

Then you get BS like that ruling that allows businesses to contribute however much they want, under the guise of "free speech"--allowing execs to not only donate twice, (once with their personal funds, and once with their corporation's) but also to completely ignore the normal campaign contribution limits.