Frankly, it leaves a lot to be desired and you should go away and think a little harder before you start proselytising your proto-religion.

It is simply childish to call for the ‘overthrow of capitalism’ by revolution, as violence becomes unavoidable and uncontrollable. Try evolutionary reforms instead, before I start reading you the fable of the hare and the tortoise.

Surely by allocating according to need, one can only create a free-rider system if we believe that some people are not meeting their contribution to any common system? Indeed there are problems in deciding what constitutes a contribution, but to be blithe about it for a moment, if we transcend the social division of labour, which is one of the points of Marxism, that problem diminishes a great deal.

As for the potential for corruption, I see little problem with the concept of subsidiarity, of services being provided by the most local authority which can reliably provide such a service, so long as that local authority has the capacity to be democratically scrutinized by the workers who run it and the workers who depend upon it.

Hmmm… that’s neither a long term answer nor a short term answer to the problem of resource allocation is it? Either way, you’l l have to allocate resources since they are scarce.

There is a valid argument to be made thatat least by allocating resources according to their true cost, you make their production and distribution more efficient. By allocating them according to need, you create the free-rider problem and lots of potential for corruption (since its largely a centralised system of distribution).

So, if you support IVF treatment for whoever it works for, what was all that nonsense about lesbians discriminating against themselves for?

As for talking about private sector health care, now instead of a moral qualification, you seek to impose a wealth qualification? I don’t know about you but I can’t afford £5,000 even I wanted to father a child more than anything else in the world.

Hmm, that reminds me of the exact tactics used by those you diametrically oppose.

I’d be bothered to put you straight by pointing you to previous discussions on this issue here if I didn’t think it’d do you more good to go looking for yourself before you make baseless accusations.

But to save you the trouble I’ll repeat again that I’m all for IVF treatment for whoever it works for, however, it is not a primary health concern for the NHS and is more suitable to the private sector.

I’m far from hot under the collar; I’m simply not a reformist, proceeding from my understanding of capitalism as a system of the class exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, and its perpetuation by the state. Within a fully adapted liberal, market economy, choices are constrained and lack of choice is normalised by the consistent imbalance provided by the accumulation of capital into fewer and fewer hands. Unless that is redressed by the state - and even then, wealth redistribution doesn’t solve problems endemic to capitalism, e.g. poverty. Anyway, that lengthy diatribe of yours is nice way to attempt to shift the focus of the argument.

The current system cannot be tweaked to everyone’s benefit. The welfare institutions of capitalism are limited by considerations of taxation. The state is a weapon of class dominance, and eventually taxation will see the wholesale rebellion of the ruling class - which will carry with them the petit-bourgeoisie and elements of the proletariat unless a strong socialist movement exists with the power to overthrow formal democracy and establish a proper workers’ democracy. This is how I would characterize the Thatcherite backlash of the 1980’s. Recent increases in NHS funding have only been bought by the privatisation of large chunks of NHS-aligned health provision, allowing massive profiteering even while resources are still manifestly inadequate.

Even were I to accept your proposition that the current mixed situation can be tweaked to the benefit of everyone, how are we to reconcile this with your earlier attacks on the position of supporting IVF insemination of lesbians as logical fallacy? I notice that even now, whilst trying desperately to find a purchase to grapple on to, to resist my argument, you have yet to state concretely your position on the issues, beyond feeble innuendos.

If it comes down to a choice between providing chemotherapy to a cancer patient, or providing IVF to a heterosexual or homosexual woman I know someone is going to be unhappy.

However that’s no reason to call for the overthrow of the system and impose your financial preferences on unwilling members of the public just out of adherence to a dusty, moth-eaten and outdated theory which is fully open to the interpretation of those who would use it to unsavory ends.

In particular revolution is unreasonable because it provides no guarantee of policy success or policy sustainability, whereas constant and continuous reform does.

As I see it a command economy is inherently unstable and open to the dangers of misrepresentation and manipulation, whereas a diverse decentralised economy is flexible and responsive to representation based on participation.

In a marxist state there is only hobson’s choice, whereas in a fully adapted liberal economy choice provides satisfaction, while a fully open liberal society provides choices which aren’t divisive.

Regarding IVF treatment, marxists see it as a common good, while capitalists see it as a private good. So logically, marxists use common means to pay for it, while those with private means use those private means in payment.

The current situation is a mixed situation and can be tweaked to everybodies benefit. I would prefer to institute less damaging and less far-reaching liberal reforms rather than preach for the complete overthrow and destruction of everything.

I just don’t know why you get so hot under the collar that you start banging on in favour of ill thought out threatening prescriptions which wouldn’t be helpful and aren’t necessary.

I believe in an NHS which is funded to the point where it has the resources to deal adequately with every single medical condition with which it might be confronted.

As I’ve said before however, and as your sudden collapse and subsequent change of tack suggest to me, I don’t think this is a question in which you are genuinely interested in doing what is right. I think you just don’t like the idea of lesbians being permitted to have IVF treatment. In short, I think you’re something of a bigot, just with less honesty than the kind I most often run into.

What of financial barriers? I’m a Marxist; I believe in the appropriation and socialization of the entire means of production as a way to create the necessary space for individual and material freedom. I don’t think finances should come into it.

If we’re talking about financial barriers as things are, rather than as I want them to be, then IVF should be freely available on the NHS until such times as all taxpayers are given a democratic say in the prioritisation of one treatment over another. Unless we’re allowed to rank heart disease, erectile dysfunction, AIDS, drug addiction, bronchial infection, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and every other single condition for which an there is an available treatment, then we should simply continue with the greatest possible availability of everything.

Well, I don’t consider any barriers to be acceptable. As I’ve laid out, science has allowed us to overcome the barrier that nature erected, and thus it is consistent that we grant lesbian couples the same rights as others who wish to conceive using artificial insemination by donor. I’m not aware that there are any other barriers to be considered.

I dispute the conception of morality which dictates how people should live; socially I am the view that so long as people live with reference to J.S. Mill’s doctrine of harming no other, great. I don’t consider lesbian parents do be doing their child harm - and any assertion I’ve heard made in disagreement is riddled with logical inconsistencies.

I think this is all pretty self-evident from what I’ve said before, by the way, so I’m wondering why you’re trying to string out the argument you’ve so patently lost.