Search results

the only reason? how about expertise, efficiencies, economcy of scale. not always applicable in all cases, the NHS is large enough to run many of its own services at scale, for example. I also dont believe competition is necessarily always suitable or productive. i do take your point though...

why not? you're talking about how provision is made available in the US, only to those that have paid up their insurance. i dont believe we should see this as all one way, or all the other. we can have private companies providing services to specification, with part of that spec they offer...

i didnt. why do you assume that public will be better? the delivery of service should be what we are concerned with, not the method of ownership of the provider. as for education, the left wing policies of 50s-60s did more to harm eduction to the poor than any right wing policy could ever do.

always curious by this old cheshnut, why does it matter so much whether a service is run privately or publically, doesnt the service itself matter the most?

thats not income, its not comparable to the previous year (as new people on the rich list came to the UK) and much of it is overseas.

neither would left wing parties, as the last Labour government did none of this, expect apply a 50% income tax rate in the 11th hour.

er, sorry, are you trying to say that those concerns dont exist outside "capitalist" economic systems? this will be news to many.