|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who will lead us now?
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I recognise that the combination of an increasing population, a much larger population of very elderly, a massive increase in chronic conditions caused by obesity and, not least, the huge increase in treatments and drugs available (at a cost) for most conditions, we are bound to - may already have - reach a situation where the demands cannot be paid for.
Particularly given the constraint of a political ideology that wants the state to spend no more than 35% of GDP.
In effect, we no longer have much of a "National" health service. We mainly have a private health service paid for by the state. So withdrawal of the cash and replacement with top-ups will not be too difficult a trick for our Jeremy to pull off in the rest of this government's term.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Though to be honest, I'm not sure there is much else Theresa May could have done bar putting the Brexiteers up front on their pet issue. If (when) failure comes, they do have to be in the front line.
So she's grouped up a prima-donna and two serial liars, one of whom has no ministerial experience to sort out an issue of national important so that when they screw up she has plausible deniability. That is the most charitable explanation.
Apart from anything else, there is a high likelihood of some other foreign crisis kicking off that needs someone with real diplomacy skills, not a self-centred buffoon with an elephant sized vocabulary who only opens his mouth to change feet.
That's pretty much it, yes.
Look on the bright side - things can't get any worse. Can they?
<sarcasm smiley>
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Unfortunately there is potential for things to get much worse. We are off the maps here, and no-one really knows which direction is safe, and which leads off the edge of the world.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Chris Stiles:
quote:
Apart from anything else, there is a high likelihood of some other foreign crisis kicking off that needs someone with real diplomacy skills, not a self-centred buffoon with an elephant sized vocabulary who only opens his mouth to change feet.
I'm guessing that the real power in foreign policy is going to be Mrs May and that the job of the Foreign Secretary will be to manage the FCO and schmooze diplomats at receptions. Rather like the role of Mrst Beckett under Mr Blair, but more so. The FCO has, in effect, been partitioned with international trade and Brexit under separate ministers, which makes the Great Office of State bit a historical fact rather than a living reality. The main justification for having Boris in post is that when Foreign Office questions come up he can stand at the dispatch box and explain that, actually, that stuff about the moon on a stick turned out not to be true. Bit hard on the civil servants who will doubtless glance up at the portraits of Palmerston, Bevin and Eden and mutter: "Makes me sick, motherfucker, how far we done fell", but desperate times and all that jazz.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I wait two weeks now to see a GP. Forward to a modern Conservative Britain! (Unless you're ill or poor).
In my local surgery, there is always a doctor assigned to seeurgent cases, so, as happened several months ago, I phoned early and was given an appointment that afternoon. (As it turned out to be a TIA I spent the next 24 hours in hospital!)
Do you have that sort of system where you are?
Yes, it must be a very badly-run surgery which says "you can't see a doctor for 2 weeks under any circumstances". At my local surgery the medical staff and the much-maligned administrators perform prodigies of service and organisation. On the 2 occasions when I have needed to in recent years, I have been able to see a doctor that day.
I agree that there is a national debate to be had on how much we can reasonably continue to expect from the NHS, but it will be impossible to have that debate while people continue to expect that everything they want or need will be provided instantly for free, and while politicians continue to stoke that belief to get easy votes.
Well, lucky you. Surveys seem to show that waiting times have been increasing, and two weeks is expected to become the norm. But the Tories favour private health, and are going to starve such services of money.
http://tinyurl.com/hcsfne6
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
alienfromzog
Thank you for your post and for the link to an expert view. I suppose it's that I personally have always hated to owe money, but international finances don't work thatway, do they.
Thank you ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It's all deeply tragic. With record low interest rates, the government should be borrowing and investing like crazy. Instead we've had to borrow to cover Osborne's inadequacies...
I am not sad to see Cameron and Osborne gone, it will be nice not to have to see their smug faces any more.
The problem is, I have such low expectations of a May government. Hunt is still in post, we have a smart foolish person as Foreign secretary.
It's all so depressing.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I wait two weeks now to see a GP. Forward to a modern Conservative Britain! (Unless you're ill or poor).
In my local surgery, there is always a doctor assigned to seeurgent cases, so, as happened several months ago, I phoned early and was given an appointment that afternoon. (As it turned out to be a TIA I spent the next 24 hours in hospital!)
Do you have that sort of system where you are?
Yes, it must be a very badly-run surgery which says "you can't see a doctor for 2 weeks under any circumstances". At my local surgery the medical staff and the much-maligned administrators perform prodigies of service and organisation. On the 2 occasions when I have needed to in recent years, I have been able to see a doctor that day.
I agree that there is a national debate to be had on how much we can reasonably continue to expect from the NHS, but it will be impossible to have that debate while people continue to expect that everything they want or need will be provided instantly for free, and while politicians continue to stoke that belief to get easy votes.
Well, lucky you. Surveys seem to show that waiting times have been increasing, and two weeks is expected to become the norm. But the Tories favour private health, and are going to starve such services of money.
http://tinyurl.com/hcsfne6
I'm not trying to be smug, but I do believe that it's not just funding that is the issue with the NHS. I come across some services which are models of efficiency, and others which are, well, not so good. Now some may be better funded than others, but to say that the NHS is generally starved of funds is too simplistic. Really good staff make all the difference, and I include the managers and administrators in this, people who far too often get bad-mouthed just for existing and doing their jobs.
The fact that people are so important makes it lunacy, of course, to piss off the junior doctors in the way that Hunt has. These are highly qualified people who can sell their skills in a global market, so we should do our best to keep them happy. That doesn't necessarily mean "stuffing their mouths with gold", there are many other things which contribute to making any job bearable.
Waiting times are increasing, I know. To be frank, given the rapidly ageing population, and the fact that medical science now seems to be able to prolong the process of dying almost indefinitely, it's a tribute to the NHS that they aren't going up faster. Demand for healthcare is pretty much infinite, and resources are all too finite. Maybe a Corbyn-led government would bring waiting times down, maybe not. Personally I don't think we'll ever get to find out. For the time being we're stuck with the execrable Hunt.
Maybe those of us who can afford private healthcare should use it for some of our routine "worried well" complaints, and let the NHS concentrate on the really serious stuff?
There are also simple things that can be implemented. Making me see a doctor before I can re-order my innocuous medication that I've been taking forever, that's just silly. Waste of everyone's time.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Some might say it is already too late to instigate rational debate about setting affordable and sensible proposals for what the NHS covers, or how a dedicated mandatory health insurance might be introduced, but it has to be done.
If the population as a whole does not have enough money to pay for the NHS via taxes, how is it possible for it to have enough money to pay for the NHS via mandatory health insurance???
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm guessing that the real power in foreign policy is going to be Mrs May and that the job of the Foreign Secretary will be to manage the FCO and schmooze diplomats at receptions.
Oh, I know how it's possible to explain how it might work in theory - I just doubt it'll work in practice, neither of the two others have a particularly great reputation for persistence and it's assuming an awful lot of competence from May of the sort that cannot be evidenced so far.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, I know it is received wisdom in some quarters that "the tories" hold as an article of faith the destruction of the NHS but that is ducking the issue.
And yet you go on to suggest that the role of the NHS is taken over by mandatory health insurance.
quote:
The expectation that the NHS can keep on offering cradle-to-grave care for all, medical services from GPs and health visitors to critical care, all surgical procedures from open-heart surgery to repair of botched cosmetic procedures, plus fertility treatment, free contraception, etc, etc, etc is not only naive, it is fundamentally dishonest since anyone with a modicum of intellegence must realise that what the "hands off 'our' NHS" attitude implies is that all governments must, effectively, give a blank cheque to the NHS, regardless of any other items which the country may need.
This paragraph moves from cradle-to-grave care, to botched cosmetic procedures, fertility treatment (which presumably are supposed to be frivolous) and then having tarred cradle-to-grave care with the brush of cosmetic procedures alleges fundamental dishonesty on the grounds of an incoherent non-sequitur.
Botched procedures of all kinds have to be treated. One thing that would benefit the NHS is to make private health care providers cover the costs of the consequences of botched procedures, since at the moment a fair proportion of A&E time is spent dealing with the consequences of the inadequacies of the private system.
quote:
I too have benefited from the NHS in my time, but I recognise that the combination of an increasing population, a much larger population of very elderly, a massive increase in chronic conditions caused by obesity and, not least, the huge increase in treatments and drugs available (at a cost) for most conditions, we are bound to - may already have - reach a situation where the demands cannot be paid for.
'Cannot be paid for' is not the same as 'are such as politicians are unwilling to pay for', which is what you actually mean.
NICE was founded to deal with some of those issues, in particular keeping down the costs of drugs. I do hope you approve of strengthening its powers. I do hope you also approve of legislation to make drug testing more transparent so that new drugs are only introduced when they're actually more effective than older drugs.
quote:
Some might say it is already too late to instigate rational debate about setting affordable and sensible proposals for what the NHS covers, or how a dedicated mandatory health insurance might be introduced, but it has to be done. Simply repeating the mantra that "our" NHS must be preserved is not the answer, nor is demonising public servants and politicians who are trying to achieve the impossible by running it.
Who are these 'some' who might say that it is too late, and what happens if it is too late?
Since mandatory health insurance is in every country where it exists either more expensive or has worse outcomes and in at least one notorious instance both, I don't see why we should discuss introducing it. If we were unable to afford an NHS we would also be unable to afford mandatory health insurance.
If politicians' proposed reforms of the NHS look like they're trying to achieve the impossible, it's not simply demonising them to point out that the fault may lie in the politicians and the proposed reforms.
The politicians are not averse to a spot of demonising the public servants - as wasteful or greedy - when it suits them.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It may, for aught I know, be an appropriate time to have an honest conversation about what we can and cannot expect from the National Health Service, but there do appear to be a number of members of the Cabinet who have just won an EU Referendum on a policy of spending an extra £350 million a week on it, if we leave the EU.
Were they all a bunch of lying fucks? Say it ain't so!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
How is a "dedicated mandatory health insurance" more affordable than an NHS? Either you're raising more money by making the mandatory premiums bigger than the curren tax share for the NHS (in which case it's functionally a tax increase, and you could achieve the same effect by just increasing taxes), or you're not raising more money, in which case you're assuming some magic efficiency savings.
The only way a heath insurance scheme becomes more affordable than an NHS is if it performs less healthcare, and by that you mean less healthcare for poor people.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The only way a heath insurance scheme becomes more affordable than an NHS is if it performs less healthcare, and by that you mean less healthcare for poor people.
My first reaction was that they do not care about the poor. But, on reflection, I think they must as they seem intent on creating more of them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Some might say it is already too late to instigate rational debate about setting affordable and sensible proposals for what the NHS covers, or how a dedicated mandatory health insurance might be introduced, but it has to be done.
If the population as a whole does not have enough money to pay for the NHS via taxes, how is it possible for it to have enough money to pay for the NHS via mandatory health insurance???
I suspect we all know the answer to that question. If people die preventable deaths when the government were supposed to pay for the treatment, we must all feel the shame. If they die because they were under insured, that's their own silly fault and we can bury them with a clear conscience.
Although we all believe in free health care for ourselves, I believe people in Britain today prioritise the right to become a millionaire above the right to free healthcare.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It may, for aught I know, be an appropriate time to have an honest conversation about what we can and cannot expect from the National Health Service, but there do appear to be a number of members of the Cabinet who have just won an EU Referendum on a policy of spending an extra £350 million a week on it, if we leave the EU. ...
It's very important to keep on reminding them about this, in season and out of it. And all the other promises they made. And everything else they claimed.
Bang on about it and keep on banging.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It may, for aught I know, be an appropriate time to have an honest conversation about what we can and cannot expect from the National Health Service, but there do appear to be a number of members of the Cabinet who have just won an EU Referendum on a policy of spending an extra £350 million a week on it, if we leave the EU. ...
It's very important to keep on reminding them about this, in season and out of it. And all the other promises they made. And everything else they claimed.
Bang on about it and keep on banging.
I think you're right. However, I find it hard to do when I knew from the start it was impossible.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
L’organist: bit of a tangent, but paying for contraceptives is excellent economic sense. In my neck of the woods, the pill costs the princely sum of €2 a month give or take. The expense to the State of a woman getting pregnant is considerably higher.
Humble servant: France actually does have essentially a private healthcare service paid for by the State. You pay the (self-employed) professional upfront and then claim a refund from the Social Security (70% of standard rates set by the Government) and your top-up insurance. FWIW it looks to me like it works better than the current set-up in the UK. That said, it has problems of its own and I think the situation is going to get untenably expensive at some point. The funding of healthcare is a major headache for all developed economies with aging populations and we need to be honest about that.
[Esprit d'escalier]
[ 15. July 2016, 08:34: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
alienfromzog
Thank you for your post and for the link to an expert view. I suppose it's that I personally have always hated to owe money, but international finances don't work thatway, do they.
Thank you
It's all deeply tragic. With record low interest rates, the government should be borrowing and investing like crazy. Instead we've had to borrow to cover Osborne's inadequacies...
I am not sad to see Cameron and Osborne gone, it will be nice not to have to see their smug faces any more.
The problem is, I have such low expectations of a May government. Hunt is still in post, we have a smart foolish person as Foreign secretary.
It's all so depressing.
AFZ
Is the argument that because we didn't borrow to catalytically expand the economy we've had to borrow to compensate an under-performing one failing further?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It may, for aught I know, be an appropriate time to have an honest conversation about what we can and cannot expect from the National Health Service,
but there do appear to be a number of members of the Cabinet who have just won an EU Referendum on a policy of spending an extra £350 million a week on it, if we leave the EU. ...
It's very important to keep on reminding them about this, in season and out of it. And all the other promises they made. And everything else they claimed.
Bang on about it and keep on banging.
Why? Is that going to make the Brexit vote (or voters) disappear?
All this bitterness seems like a good way to give yourself a heart attack. Then you really will need the NHS!
In any case, not all Brexiteers voted as they did because they expected the NHS to be flush with money afterwards.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the argument that because we didn't borrow to catalytically expand the economy we've had to borrow to compensate an under-performing one failing further?
Yes, in part. There's more to it than that but yes, this is true.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
L’organist: bit of a tangent, but paying for contraceptives is excellent economic sense. In my neck of the woods, the pill costs the princely sum of €2 a month give or take. The expense to the State of a woman getting pregnant is considerably higher.
Humble servant: France actually does have essentially a private healthcare service paid for by the State. You pay the (self-employed) professional upfront and then claim a refund from the Social Security (70% of standard rates set by the Government) and your top-up insurance. FWIW it looks to me like it works better than the current set-up in the UK. That said, it has problems of its own and I think the situation is going to get untenably expensive at some point. The funding of healthcare is a major headache for all developed economies with aging populations and we need to be honest about that.
[Esprit d'escalier]
The French do generally love their system and with good reason it's very good.
But
1) It's significantly more expensive (~30%)
2) There are some issues with a pay-by-procedure system that are avoided with the NHS. (And there are converse benefits - you have to weigh one against the other).
Ultimately though - the NHS is significantly more efficient. If you want to cope with expanding costs, I would suggest that using the most efficient system is the way to go. If you have a policy of destabilizing and deconstructing the most efficient system then it seems to suggest the aim is somewhat different.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As I understand it, the creeping trend in the French system is to increase the share of the cost covered by private health insurance, arranged either by individuals or by their employers.
It is one of the best systems in the world right now, but there are definitely questions about its sustainability.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Is the argument that because we didn't borrow to catalytically expand the economy we've had to borrow to compensate an under-performing one failing further?
Yes, in part. There's more to it than that but yes, this is true.
AFZ
Or you could say that Osborne's catastrophic austerity policies have cost billions of pounds to the economy, have choked it considerably, and in part, led to Brexit, since some people understandably felt pissed off at services being cut, eroded, or closed down. Ah well, the new government can abandon austerity now, so if you want to get from A to B, the best way to do it is go backwards to begin with. This is Torybollockseconomics.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It may, for aught I know, be an appropriate time to have an honest conversation about what we can and cannot expect from the National Health Service,
but there do appear to be a number of members of the Cabinet who have just won an EU Referendum on a policy of spending an extra £350 million a week on it, if we leave the EU. ...
It's very important to keep on reminding them about this, in season and out of it. And all the other promises they made. And everything else they claimed.
Bang on about it and keep on banging.
Why? Is that going to make the Brexit vote (or voters) disappear?
All this bitterness seems like a good way to give yourself a heart attack. Then you really will need the NHS!
In any case, not all Brexiteers voted as they did because they expected the NHS to be flush with money afterwards.
Guilty conscience much?
It's actually pretty salient that we're expected to have an honest discussion about the NHS when a number of serving Cabinet Ministers have attained their office by, among other reasons, lying about the level of funding available to same. Let's face it, without Brexit, it's unlikely that Fox, Davis and Leadsom would be in the Cabinet and Johnson would have been at some mid-level Cabinet position learning that a talent for the winning phrase is no substitute for being a capable administrator in government. When the recession bites and there is less money available for such frivolous luxuries as schools and hospitals it won't be entirely unreasonable to point out that the consequences of this particular course of action were not entirely in keeping with what its advocates suggested might be the case.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jeremy Hunt is staying at the Department of Health.
This was nearly a foregone conclusion. It merely emphasises the lie that they ever intended to slow down the destruction of the NHS.
70 years on and the NHS still hasn't been destroyed...
Not for want of trying. Since Sir Keith Joseph gained any kind of foothold in making Conservative policy destroying the NHS has been that party's priority. KJ was a swivel-eyed loon while Thatcher was a moderating influence.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jeremy Hunt is staying at the Department of Health.
This was nearly a foregone conclusion. It merely emphasises the lie that they ever intended to slow down the destruction of the NHS.
70 years on and the NHS still hasn't been destroyed...
Not for want of trying. Since Sir Keith Joseph gained any kind of foothold in making Conservative policy destroying the NHS has been that party's priority. KJ was a swivel-eyed loon while Thatcher was a moderating influence.
If it's a priority it's not a priority that they have done very much about.
Granted, since 2010 they haven't spent as much on it as they indicated that they were going to and, granted, they wasted an inordinate amount of time and money in a rather pointless reorganisation that they had promised not to do. They are, nonetheless, spending £116.4 billion on it. Which is, on the face of it, rather an odd thing to do if getting rid of it was a priority.
Inasmuch as the Tories have priorities they are largely a) get re-elected and b) spend less money on things whilst getting the same, or better, outcomes. Which is a perfectly good reason not to support them but the "Woe unto Illium" stuff does rather boil down to "who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Ultimately though - the NHS is significantly more efficient. If you want to cope with expanding costs, I would suggest that using the most efficient system is the way to go.
Generally international comparisons bear that out - in terms of outcomes the NHS compares favourably with other OECD countries which fund their health services in similar manners:
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20151121_BRC537.png
The NHS doesn't do as well when compared with France and Germany - but they spend more public money on their health services, even before private spending is involved.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Guilty conscience much?
It's actually pretty salient that we're expected to have an honest discussion about the NHS when a number of serving Cabinet Ministers have attained their office by, among other reasons, lying about the level of funding available to same. Let's face it, without Brexit, it's unlikely that Fox, Davis and Leadsom would be in the Cabinet and Johnson would have been at some mid-level Cabinet position learning that a talent for the winning phrase is no substitute for being a capable administrator in government. When the recession bites and there is less money available for such frivolous luxuries as schools and hospitals it won't be entirely unreasonable to point out that the consequences of this particular course of action were not entirely in keeping with what its advocates suggested might be the case.
These politicians are all in the same political party. That party was always going to have more or less the same policy towards the NHS, regardless of Brexit. IOW, if the NHS is going to suffer outside the EU then it was also going to suffer inside the EU.
The only way for us to influence what happens to the NHS will be to vote for a different political party when the chance comes. It won't be too long.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If (destroying the NHS) is a priority it's not a priority that they have done very much about.
Granted, since 2010 they haven't spent as much on it as they indicated that they were going to and, granted, they wasted an inordinate amount of time and money in a rather pointless reorganisation that they had promised not to do. They are, nonetheless, spending £116.4 billion on it. Which is, on the face of it, rather an odd thing to do if getting rid of it was a priority.
Inasmuch as the Tories have priorities they are largely a) get re-elected and b) spend less money on things whilst getting the same, or better, outcomes. Which is a perfectly good reason not to support them but the "Woe unto Illium" stuff does rather boil down to "who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes".
They were wasting time and money well before then. Don't you remember the "internal market" that added a whole tier of middle-management to every General Practice? That was in the late eighties and early nineties and I can remember the "jollies" my brother-in-law went on (he was one of these managers for some years) that it cost a hell of a lot! You could, I suppose, justify it by saying that x procedures have been done in a BUPA clinic at 70% of the cost that the local NHS hospital, but the NHS still had to provide all the follow up care and, of course, there were all those managers to feed and water.
[ 15. July 2016, 14:04: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Guilty conscience much?
It's actually pretty salient that we're expected to have an honest discussion about the NHS when a number of serving Cabinet Ministers have attained their office by, among other reasons, lying about the level of funding available to same. Let's face it, without Brexit, it's unlikely that Fox, Davis and Leadsom would be in the Cabinet and Johnson would have been at some mid-level Cabinet position learning that a talent for the winning phrase is no substitute for being a capable administrator in government. When the recession bites and there is less money available for such frivolous luxuries as schools and hospitals it won't be entirely unreasonable to point out that the consequences of this particular course of action were not entirely in keeping with what its advocates suggested might be the case.
These politicians are all in the same political party. That party was always going to have more or less the same policy towards the NHS, regardless of Brexit. IOW, if the NHS is going to suffer outside the EU then it was also going to suffer inside the EU.
The only way for us to influence what happens to the NHS will be to vote for a different political party when the chance comes. It won't be too long.
"These politicians" said if we left the EU we could spend another £350 million quid a week on the NHS. These politicians look set to send us into a recession. Recessions are not known for periods when public spending rises. Is it now somehow impolite to point these things out and draw the appropriate conclusions/.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Do you believe that the recession will be the natural outcome of Brexit, or is Brexit simply a convenient excuse for something that the Tory party wanted to happen anyway?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you believe that the recession will be the natural outcome of Brexit, or is Brexit simply a convenient excuse for something that the Tory party wanted to happen anyway?
One doesn't obviate the other , but it was always highly likely that an consequence of a vote for Brexit would be a recession (but we were told to ignore our brains and listen to our hearts, so).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I must admit, I was surprised that some rather middle class areas voted for Brexit. You'd think they had too much to lose. Those with less to lose might not feel quite so regretful, though.
Certainly, if the UK alone experiences a recession then I'm sure the other European countries will relish the experience. But it would be churlish of them to criticise us if our misfortune is their opportunity....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you believe that the recession will be the natural outcome of Brexit, or is Brexit simply a convenient excuse for something that the Tory party wanted to happen anyway?
The natural outcome of Brexit.
As a party of business people, financiers, making money and profit, most Conservatives are unlikely to want a recession for its own sake.
The belief that cutting ourselves loose from Europe, as advocated by Mrs Leadsom, will make everybody rich and prosperous was, and remains, seriously delusional.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I have a relative who works in the City, something to do with trading Eurobonds, whatever, my eyes glaze over...Anyway, it's been good to him. He says that to continue this lucrative trade if we lose the euro "financial passport", his employer will have to open a subsidiary in Paris, or Frankfurt maybe. So he and many of his colleagues will relocate, and earn and spend their large salaries elsewhere. Also the (large) profits will be taxed elsewhere. He reckons that the cumulative effect of this move and others like it will mean a lost to the exchequer several times greater than the gain from no longer paying subs to the EU.
I'm sure there are dozens of stories like this being told throughout the financial services industry and beyond, and the total effect may well be devastating. It will take a while to take effect, and will depend on what sort of Brexit we end up with, but some sort of recession is now inevitable. Nothing I hear from David Davis indicates to me that he has a clue what to do about the risks of Brexit, and he may not even be aware of many of them. I can only hope he's getting good advice and listens to it.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Enoch: quote:
The belief that cutting ourselves loose from Europe, as advocated by Mrs Leadsom, will make everybody rich and prosperous was, and remains, seriously delusional.
I doubt they're worried about *everybody*, although there's a first time for everything.
The business people who were for Brexit were keen to get rid of those pesky EU regulations (on workers' rights, environmental standards, product safety...) which are burying them in red tape and preventing them from exercising their godlike powers of entrepreneurship to Save the Economy, create millions of new jobs and give free jam to everyone.
Actually, yes... delusional is the word.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Let's look on the bright side - Boris might be a useful person to have at the FO to deal with President Trump.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
...but, but, .. there is a free-trade deal in the offing with Australia, apparently ... perhaps. Let's not worry that Oz is like 15,000 km away or the population is like 7% of the EU's or that a free-trade agreement is not the same as a customs union. What matters is that Austalia is larger by area than the whole the EU! So that makes up for everything and then some. ... No?
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
...but, but, .. there is a free-trade deal in the offing with Australia, apparently ... perhaps.
Australian exports about £5bn to the UK, and imports about £7bn from the UK, so in real terms is a fairly small amount from a UK perspective. As Australia is a smaller economy in percentage terms these figures are more important to them.
Of course it's easy to get a free-trade deal if you just say 'yes' to everything.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Chris Stiles wrote: quote:
Of course it's easy to get a free-trade deal if you just say 'yes' to everything.
- a thought that has crossed my mind more than once recently. Usually just after somebody says how easy it will be to strike trade deals in short order now we have decided to part company with the EU.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
...but, but, .. there is a free-trade deal in the offing with Australia, apparently ... perhaps.
Australian exports about £5bn to the UK, and imports about £7bn from the UK, so in real terms is a fairly small amount from a UK perspective. As Australia is a smaller economy in percentage terms these figures are more important to them.
Of course it's easy to get a free-trade deal if you just say 'yes' to everything.
And small in Aust terms. In 2014-15, Aust exports to Japan were $46.5 bn. The figures for China and the US are even higher.
Then of course is the reliability of the UK as a trading partner. When the decision there was to go off with a new European girlfriend 40 years ago, there was very substantial damage to Tasmania and to our friends across the Tasman. It has now decided to dump the EU and seeks to come back to older relationships. We're well justified in asking how long this mood will last.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
I well remember as a teenager being both aghast and ashamed that we could dump the Commonwealth in the way we did.
I still feel that.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I note that the new PM, in being asked during the Trident debate whether she was personally prepared to "authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?'"
Said "Yes" smiled, and went on to try to score a party political point.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
100,000? Is there something wrong with your nukes?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
They're quite small, 8 times of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and the deployed sub can only carry 4 - which require a day or more's notice to fire, and are part manufactured and part serviced in the ISA.
But apparently, this is vital to our defence and will stop a country the size of Russia from attacking us ....
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They're quite small, 8 times of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and the deployed sub can only carry 4 - which require a day or more's notice to fire, and are part manufactured and part serviced in the ISA.
But apparently, this is vital to our defence and will stop a country the size of Russia from attacking us ....
What, however, is a better, improved alternative? what deterrent, what piece of equipment or system, would provide a real, practical, workable convincing, and more importantly improved, deterrent?
I do not of course know the answer, so I definitely support the retention of Britain's nuclear deterrent.
My granddaughters and their future families will be living through this century and they should be able to look forward to a life without world wars.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If the deterrent is not independent of the US, which it isn't, it is entirely futile. Also, strategic planning that involves committing a massive crime of humanity is not acceptable to me.
The alternative is a high quality conventional defence force and high quality diplomacy. And probably, covert investment in sabotage. After all, most missiles have computer operated guidance systems.
[ 19. July 2016, 06:55: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They're quite small, 8 times of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and the deployed sub can only carry 4 - which require a day or more's notice to fire, and are part manufactured and part serviced in the ISA.
But apparently, this is vital to our defence and will stop a country the size of Russia from attacking us ....
I read that our subs will carry 8 missiles, but could carry more, and that each missile will have 3 warheads, but could contain more, and that they are thought to have 7 to 30 times the power of Little Boy.
A launch could, if targeted at Russian cities, and if all the warheads arrived and detonated, kill millions, perhaps a few tens of millions.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They're quite small, 8 times of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and the deployed sub can only carry 4 - which require a day or more's notice to fire, and are part manufactured and part serviced in the ISA.
But apparently, this is vital to our defence and will stop a country the size of Russia from attacking us ....
I read that our subs will carry 8 missiles, but could carry more, and that each missile will have 3 warheads, but could contain more, and that they are thought to have 7 to 30 times the power of Little Boy.
A launch could, if targeted at Russian cities, and if all the warheads arrived and detonated, kill millions, perhaps a few tens of millions.
Just to be clear on the numbers, we've unilaterally decided that they will only carry 8, each with 3 warheads. However, they were built, and until recently did, carry a full war load of 12 missiles, each with 12 warheads - meaning each boat could deal with 144 targets.
The missile bodies are manufactured in the USA, the warheads are built in the UK to UK design.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
However, they were built, and until recently did, carry a full war load of 12 missiles, each with 12 warheads - meaning each boat could deal with 144 targets.
A gross of death - something rather English about that.
Which reminds me - I wonder if a post-Brexit Mrs May will be reclaiming our right to measure the energy released by each warhead in terms of Btu?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
