Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Go to Blackpool Vic" No thank you  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Buy from companies that pay tax on their sales here, rather than ship the cash to the Cayman islands etc. The NHS is affordable and perhaps the greatest thing in Britain. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem is the NHS was never ment to be a profile making company, it was designed so that any money made from the NHS went back into the NHS Now days every rich git and his dog owns shares and they all want their bit before the NHS get anything back " Being privatised via the back door . There is a pic on my Twitter time line of the people that benefit from this and guess what ? Plenty of polititions on there . No exec directors amongst other positions . Pleb Cameron on this list I might add | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are too many unhealthy/lazy diabetic fat people, too many chavs popping out genetically sickly kids and a hell of a lot of NHS funding goes on treating people that are terminal. I know you can't do anything 'ethical' about EOL patients but fat people need to eat less - and exercise more - and chavs need sterilizing. " Get da fuq outta here! LOOOOOL | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are too many unhealthy/lazy diabetic fat people, too many chavs popping out genetically sickly kids and a hell of a lot of NHS funding goes on treating people that are terminal. I know you can't do anything 'ethical' about EOL patients but fat people need to eat less - and exercise more - and chavs need sterilizing. " Must remind myself to remember this post for the 2016 forum awards  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the NHS was set up it was to eradicate the five giants, noone at the time could forsee what was going to happen. If it had carried on being used for its proper purpose and not things like setting up clinics to remove skin tags or people popping into a&e cause they can't pull a sewing needle out of their finger if it had proper bloody management and people in the NHS weren't so fucking greedy it might never have happened. When I worked in the hospital I've never seen such a waste of fucking money in all my life. The worst thing I saw was the amount of food that was provided for meetings while fucking three course buffers for a 4 hour meeting. Noone has ever starved to death through not eating for four hours. I witnessed one corroded being painted 3 times in less than a year. Loads of money spent on stupid fucking ornamental things to make the area look "pretty"" Great British inefficiency certainly doesn't help | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics " Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... " Picking at scabs again, eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... " Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are too many unhealthy/lazy diabetic fat people, too many chavs popping out genetically sickly kids and a hell of a lot of NHS funding goes on treating people that are terminal. I know you can't do anything 'ethical' about EOL patients but fat people need to eat less - and exercise more - and chavs need sterilizing. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Picking at scabs again, eh? "Curious whether that's per head or not and how they included the insurance elements. I'm particularly interested since all we ever hear from Labour is "well if we don't have the NHS we'd have an American system". Well that's funny because the NHS ranks 18th worldwide and the US ranks 37th so I guess it's beyond us to aspire to a system between than 18th? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS)" Genetic problems aren't class specific. No one will listen if you say silly things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Genetic problems aren't class specific. No one will listen if you say silly things. " So if a chav Mother smoked, drank, did drugs and ate mostly processed shit It will not alter a foetuses DNA and genes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Genetic problems aren't class specific. No one will listen if you say silly things. So if a chav Mother smoked, drank, did drugs and ate mostly processed shit It will not alter a foetuses DNA and genes? " I think you should turn off your computer and walk away before you wake up in the morning with a ban. Mate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Genetic problems aren't class specific. No one will listen if you say silly things. So if a chav Mother smoked, drank, did drugs and ate mostly processed shit It will not alter a foetuses DNA and genes? " "Chav" is unnecessary for the example - that's what makes you sound silly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data" Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. " You should stop hanging about on sex sites and move over to the Treasury. Something tells me you'll be more successful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Health care isn't profitable.. Unless a patient is being short shifted or the care being provided is substandard.. " I don't really understand what logic you are using there? If you set the price point high enough then anything can be profitable... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. " Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. You should stop hanging about on sex sites and move over to the Treasury. Something tells me you'll be more successful "It's hard to tell if that's an insult or not? We do quite nicely on here and in my world view the treasury is not where the gifted gravitate towards... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's hard to tell if that's an insult or not? We do quite nicely on here and in my world view the treasury is not where the gifted gravitate towards... " "You might say that but I couldn't possibly comment!" ~ Francis Urquhart | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. " Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's hard to tell if that's an insult or not? We do quite nicely on here and in my world view the treasury is not where the gifted gravitate towards... "You might say that but I couldn't possibly comment!" ~ Francis Urquhart "You have friends there? I know people there but I wouldn't call them friends. Or gifted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP." If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. " As I said, I struggle with the idea that there's really a 19.3% difference in the value of a dollar between London and Paris. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. As I said, I struggle with the idea that there's really a 19.3% difference in the value of a dollar between London and Paris." Think of the Big Mac index. That's a simple way of highlighting the parity of both. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. As I said, I struggle with the idea that there's really a 19.3% difference in the value of a dollar between London and Paris. Think of the Big Mac index. That's a simple way of highlighting the parity of both. " Let's agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing the link all the same. Goodnight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. As I said, I struggle with the idea that there's really a 19.3% difference in the value of a dollar between London and Paris. Think of the Big Mac index. That's a simple way of highlighting the parity of both. Let's agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing the link all the same. Goodnight. " Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's wrong  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. As I said, I struggle with the idea that there's really a 19.3% difference in the value of a dollar between London and Paris. Think of the Big Mac index. That's a simple way of highlighting the parity of both. Let's agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing the link all the same. Goodnight. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's wrong "It's precisely because I comprehend what it's saying that I disagree. Just you can't see the flaws in the method, doesn't mean I'm wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. As I said, I struggle with the idea that there's really a 19.3% difference in the value of a dollar between London and Paris. Think of the Big Mac index. That's a simple way of highlighting the parity of both. Let's agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing the link all the same. Goodnight. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's wrong
Last time I 'won' on an arguement he blocked me "Don't take it so personally. We always do socials before we meet people and I'm honest enough to say I prefer hanging around with people that have similar views. I'm sure we both feel that we each 'win' each time. But it's the taking part that counts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Don't take it so personally. We always do socials before we meet people and I'm honest enough to say I prefer hanging around with people that have similar views. I'm sure we both feel that we each 'win' each time. But it's the taking part that counts. " 'Personally'? LOL You blocked me after some minor squabble about WWII strategy. That's it. I doubt very much wether it has anything to do with personal taste or geographic availability. It almost seems... fragile... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. As I said, I struggle with the idea that there's really a 19.3% difference in the value of a dollar between London and Paris. Think of the Big Mac index. That's a simple way of highlighting the parity of both. Let's agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing the link all the same. Goodnight. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's wrong
It's precisely because I comprehend what it's saying that I disagree. Just you can't see the flaws in the method, doesn't mean I'm wrong. "It's a bit conspiracy theory to me, there's flaws everywhere in statistics where humans are involved. It seems really odd to not accept one part of it so adamantly, especially when it's the more stable option. Don't even know why this is a big deal. Bizarre to say the WHO can't report accurately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS)" You're first post was pretty spot on and no doubt what a lot think but won't say  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The nhs needs to be depoliticised.. Some sort of metaphorical "firewall " erected around it's infrastructure, it needs to be Switzerland.. The various parties have done different things to it starting with Thatcher in the 80s shuttering facilities.. Blair pushing inferior "care in the community ".. Cameron closing different things and tendering them off to inferior private concerns. Health care isn't profitable.. Unless a patient is being short shifted or the care being provided is substandard.. Let's not even mention ttip..." It started before Thatcher. Care in the Community was Thatcher, not Blair. Privatisation started with Blair, not Cameron. You only have to walk into a hospital to see the waste. Obesity, smoking, treating foreigners without them paying, to name but a few things, could all be savings that can be made. I've been in hospital 3 times, my brother once, and every single time we have been waiting all day, for a signature, to be discharged, that's extra food, drinks, and a bed that can't be allocated to someone that needs it. I'm not saying the NHS should be privatised, but it should be run like a private business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
the problem is it's being run as a business and no longer for care, the community care sector is failing our elderly and they end up in specialised beds that cost £200 a night to keep them in because they're care home are incapable of keeping them, or family are unable to help. There are also too many "big wigs" getting paid £45k plus for pen pushing that realistically have never looked after a patient in their life...... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well is it the end of the NHS as we all know and love? With the sound of the news we will be having heart surgery at home soon. What a mess!" Might help if load hypochondriacs didnt waste nhs time Might help if binge drinkers could control their drinking to point not hurting themselves to require treatment that could have been avoided Might help if those with minor ailments like common cold paid trip to pharmacist to buy medicine instead of taking up valuable nhs time If many of these "nhs wasters" as I termed them didnt clog up the nhs system maybe there would be more money to treat those that genuinely ill that over counter meds dont work for | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When the NHS was set up it was to eradicate the five giants, noone at the time could forsee what was going to happen. If it had carried on being used for its proper purpose and not things like setting up clinics to remove skin tags or people popping into a&e cause they can't pull a sewing needle out of their finger if it had proper bloody management and people in the NHS weren't so fucking greedy it might never have happened. When I worked in the hospital I've never seen such a waste of fucking money in all my life. The worst thing I saw was the amount of food that was provided for meetings while fucking three course buffers for a 4 hour meeting. Noone has ever starved to death through not eating for four hours. I witnessed one corroded being painted 3 times in less than a year. Loads of money spent on stupid fucking ornamental things to make the area look "pretty"" . Careful... There's people on here who will tell you to wash your mouth out!. Not Me though,I happen to concur | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"wonder how many folk are taking up hospital beds? because there is no one ,to keep an eye on them at home .. "The point is one action (cuts,change etc) has an action somewhere else that knocks on and on. It cant help when someone is kept in hospital when they could be looked after at home,but cuts again make it impossible. Will rich people see their loved ones inadequately cared for, no. So lets be honest bring back the workhouses so that we all know where we stand, keep the gifts for the rich so they can carry on paying low wages through subs that come the tax payer. But more importantly make mps answer a question honestly when asked ( condition of election) and stop the nonsense, the bullshit and give us truth. For fuck sake anyone can hide behind figures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Complexity! It's a funny thing but the more problems we solve, the more complex it becomes, the more complex something becomes the more capital(profit, excess energy) is required to sustain it!. If you follow that curve long enough it leads to two outcomes, collapse or change the system! If you want specialists who can transplant hands, deconjoin twins, understand viruses.... There's a whole load of investment of time and energy in getting it, education, university's, equipment, laboratory's... You start off with the 99% making enough excess to support the 1%.. But those figures are constantly being eroded by the fact that we keep solving problems, meaning it's 98%-2% ... And a exponential curve comes into force... One that can't last no matter how much we wish it to!. " I think you're ignoring the fact that the fruits of R&D are cumulative. But I agree with your conclusion all the same. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We as a nation spent only three quarters what our comparitor nations like France and Germany spend It's not that complicated really, if you under invest in something it isn't going to be as good, nothing to do with sustainability etc just basic economics Do you have a reference for those stats? Genuinely interested... Here's a data set from 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country#data Thanks, the problem is that the figures are in PPP which is a very subjective measure. There's a 19.3% difference in the conversion they use on health PPP just between Britain and France. France was only 15.6% higher spend per head in the first place and it's a bit late to try and work out how much of that is just down to the currency conversion. Using PPP makes sense, converting currencies doesn't mean much if stuff costs less in Malawi. I doubt the WHO just bodged the report. Yeah it makes sense if you want to compare the UK and Malawi. But if one needs a WHO report to know the UK is better than Malawi, I'd suggest one has bigger problems. Living standards in UK, USA, France and Germany are comparable enough that a straight spend per head in dollars would be better than PPP. If the index is constant (probably OECD or something) then why does it matter? I mean, you could argue exchange rates are conceptual and can't be used for similar reasons. Also, PPP isn't equal in US vs UK even if it's not noticeable. As I said, I struggle with the idea that there's really a 19.3% difference in the value of a dollar between London and Paris. Think of the Big Mac index. That's a simple way of highlighting the parity of both. Let's agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing the link all the same. Goodnight. Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's wrong
Last time I 'won' on an arguement he blocked me
Don't take it so personally. We always do socials before we meet people and I'm honest enough to say I prefer hanging around with people that have similar views.
I'm sure we both feel that we each 'win' each time. But it's the taking part that counts. "Jeez, that would be boring, sat around, chatting, basically saying "yes I agree" all night. I prefer nights out with friends who have differing views, we can disagree without it descending into a fist fight lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that an important factor that is always ignored when the NHS is debated is the way that the labour government thought it was a jolly good idea to give out PFI contracts. By the end of 2007 they had awarded 83 contracts, the total cost to the NHS will be £53 billion!!!!! When these contracts are eventually paid off the NHS will own assets valued at £8 billion. These contracts and the PCTP contracts they also awarded have crippled the NHS for years to come. I don't understand how it makes sense to anybody to fund the NHS by using Wonga style loans." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS)" People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit" Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. " You're right, those nice Tories are only interested in fiscal responsibility and would never, ever use underhand means in order to achieve a completely fair society in which rich people have to pay less tax for the uneducated masses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. You're right, those nice Tories are only interested in fiscal responsibility and would never, ever use underhand means in order to achieve a completely fair society in which rich people have to pay less tax for the uneducated masses." The Tories have made people obese? Not the Thyroids or hormones? One learns something new here everyday | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. You're right, those nice Tories are only interested in fiscal responsibility and would never, ever use underhand means in order to achieve a completely fair society in which rich people have to pay less tax for the uneducated masses." Shocking isn't it, anyone would think politicians tell lies! Thank goodness we have left wing politicians who are different to normal politicans and incapable of lying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Complexity! It's a funny thing but the more problems we solve, the more complex it becomes, the more complex something becomes the more capital(profit, excess energy) is required to sustain it!. If you follow that curve long enough it leads to two outcomes, collapse or change the system! If you want specialists who can transplant hands, deconjoin twins, understand viruses.... There's a whole load of investment of time and energy in getting it, education, university's, equipment, laboratory's... You start off with the 99% making enough excess to support the 1%.. But those figures are constantly being eroded by the fact that we keep solving problems, meaning it's 98%-2% ... And a exponential curve comes into force... One that can't last no matter how much we wish it to!. I think you're ignoring the fact that the fruits of R&D are cumulative. But I agree with your conclusion all the same. " . Yeah I wasn't really ignoring, yes you put one hour into r&d and get five hours back so to speak but what we do is solve another problem, which requires more spare input with those five spare hours so in reality it gets you places but it never really solves the problem. The NHS needs to have clear guidelines about what it can do for society and what it can't!... To constantly chase means you either need massive resources constantly feed in or face collapse sooner or later. I think we need to be honest in the west about where we constantly keep getting the "input" in for this exponential "chase"!. This perception of we " always get more " has to end sooner or later, you can't just keep on stretching the elastic band without expecting it to snap at some point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. You're right, those nice Tories are only interested in fiscal responsibility and would never, ever use underhand means in order to achieve a completely fair society in which rich people have to pay less tax for the uneducated masses. Shocking isn't it, anyone would think politicians tell lies! Thank goodness we have left wing politicians who are different to normal politicans and incapable of lying. " 
Every human being is capable of massaging a message to suit their ideological pathway - the basis of that ideology is what really matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Complexity! It's a funny thing but the more problems we solve, the more complex it becomes, the more complex something becomes the more capital(profit, excess energy) is required to sustain it!. If you follow that curve long enough it leads to two outcomes, collapse or change the system! If you want specialists who can transplant hands, deconjoin twins, understand viruses.... There's a whole load of investment of time and energy in getting it, education, university's, equipment, laboratory's... You start off with the 99% making enough excess to support the 1%.. But those figures are constantly being eroded by the fact that we keep solving problems, meaning it's 98%-2% ... And a exponential curve comes into force... One that can't last no matter how much we wish it to!. I think you're ignoring the fact that the fruits of R&D are cumulative. But I agree with your conclusion all the same. . Yeah I wasn't really ignoring, yes you put one hour into r&d and get five hours back so to speak but what we do is solve another problem, which requires more spare input with those five spare hours so in reality it gets you places but it never really solves the problem. The NHS needs to have clear guidelines about what it can do for society and what it can't!... To constantly chase means you either need massive resources constantly feed in or face collapse sooner or later. I think we need to be honest in the west about where we constantly keep getting the "input" in for this exponential "chase"!. This perception of we " always get more " has to end sooner or later, you can't just keep on stretching the elastic band without expecting it to snap at some point " I just meant that it takes decades to work out how to cure the first AIDS patient. But once you've cured 100 it become significantly easier... I think healthcare, generally and not specific to the NHS, is one of the roaring success stories of the last few hundred years. Think of all the diseases that used to kill people that are virtually eradicated. People live longer and childbirth is no longer the riskiest part of a womans life. The problem is the diseases keep evolving... tricky fuckers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. You're right, those nice Tories are only interested in fiscal responsibility and would never, ever use underhand means in order to achieve a completely fair society in which rich people have to pay less tax for the uneducated masses. Shocking isn't it, anyone would think politicians tell lies! Thank goodness we have left wing politicians who are different to normal politicans and incapable of lying.
Every human being is capable of massaging a message to suit their ideological pathway - the basis of that ideology is what really matters."It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some on here really have no idea at all how the NHS is run, your just spouting crap that you read in tomorrow's chip wrappers. Rather than slag the NHS off why not comment on the good or is that impossible for you?. It's all well and good blaming obese people or as another poster said 'chavs' but they are a small proportion of the issue. Really think out of the box!!" There are so very many things that are brilliant about our NHS | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Complexity! It's a funny thing but the more problems we solve, the more complex it becomes, the more complex something becomes the more capital(profit, excess energy) is required to sustain it!. If you follow that curve long enough it leads to two outcomes, collapse or change the system! If you want specialists who can transplant hands, deconjoin twins, understand viruses.... There's a whole load of investment of time and energy in getting it, education, university's, equipment, laboratory's... You start off with the 99% making enough excess to support the 1%.. But those figures are constantly being eroded by the fact that we keep solving problems, meaning it's 98%-2% ... And a exponential curve comes into force... One that can't last no matter how much we wish it to!. I think you're ignoring the fact that the fruits of R&D are cumulative. But I agree with your conclusion all the same. . Yeah I wasn't really ignoring, yes you put one hour into r&d and get five hours back so to speak but what we do is solve another problem, which requires more spare input with those five spare hours so in reality it gets you places but it never really solves the problem. The NHS needs to have clear guidelines about what it can do for society and what it can't!... To constantly chase means you either need massive resources constantly feed in or face collapse sooner or later. I think we need to be honest in the west about where we constantly keep getting the "input" in for this exponential "chase"!. This perception of we " always get more " has to end sooner or later, you can't just keep on stretching the elastic band without expecting it to snap at some point I just meant that it takes decades to work out how to cure the first AIDS patient. But once you've cured 100 it become significantly easier... I think healthcare, generally and not specific to the NHS, is one of the roaring success stories of the last few hundred years. Think of all the diseases that used to kill people that are virtually eradicated. People live longer and childbirth is no longer the riskiest part of a womans life. The problem is the diseases keep evolving... tricky fuckers" . Yes and no... Hiv is getting less virulent with every person it passes through, in a thousand years it would be no worse than a common cold, and at which time it would evolve to survive, all were doing is speeding the process up!... All lines are converging at the same point for a reason imo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. You're right, those nice Tories are only interested in fiscal responsibility and would never, ever use underhand means in order to achieve a completely fair society in which rich people have to pay less tax for the uneducated masses. Shocking isn't it, anyone would think politicians tell lies! Thank goodness we have left wing politicians who are different to normal politicans and incapable of lying.
Every human being is capable of massaging a message to suit their ideological pathway - the basis of that ideology is what really matters.
It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice"It does if it able to distinguish between mice dependant on their status, weight, ability to pay etc etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The OP said the news was this and that ... I just scoured the BBC, which will always find something to have a go at the Tories, and couldn't find any news of the NHS collapsing, or its privatisation or anything else untoward. Maybe someone can copy me a link please? What I do know is Labour privatised about 5% of the NHS. The Tories have added about 1%.... go figure. And then someone threw in the Rail Privatisation as an example of what is wrong. The reason the BR managers who mortgaged their houses and took out bank loans to buy the businesses they worked in was that Prescott and Labour was shouting he would buy back anything that was sold and this scared the big investors. So the local managers bought in. 2 years later Labour broke that promise, the now ex-BR managers sold to the big investors and made millions. Good luck to them because THEY took the risk. And given we have had more new rolling stock, new stations, lines opened and the railways now carry double the passengers BR did at Privatisation I would suggest its been a success. of course it has faults but would BR have bought 400 freight locos at £1 Million a piece or bought tiulting trains that worked? No. BR was a perfect example of a Nationalised industry that had been run for the benefit of its employees and not the customers. Passengers were an intrusion into the cosy life of the railwayman. Not ONE publicly owned industry has ever worked for the benefit of customers. GPO used to tell you WHEN you might get a phone .... lovely. Gas Board? ... BRS?... the Unions loved it as they could close the country down with two phone calls. And no I am NOT advocating the NHS be privatised at all ... just saying some things work (like the NHS) and some things don't and to use BR as a beacon of all that was great in public ownership is bloody hilarious ... BR Sandwich anyone?" Re your opening comment we get different channels in yorkshire the same as everyone else on here but you. Dont just pick the bits of news that suit you. Perhaps the beeb are miffed at the tories about cuts lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. You're right, those nice Tories are only interested in fiscal responsibility and would never, ever use underhand means in order to achieve a completely fair society in which rich people have to pay less tax for the uneducated masses. Shocking isn't it, anyone would think politicians tell lies! Thank goodness we have left wing politicians who are different to normal politicans and incapable of lying.
Every human being is capable of massaging a message to suit their ideological pathway - the basis of that ideology is what really matters.
It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice
It does if it able to distinguish between mice dependant on their status, weight, ability to pay etc etc"Well the person I quoted played a big hand in getting 600,000,000 people out of poverty. They did so precisely because they stopped giving a crap about ideology and just focussed on results, what a crazy idea that is... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be hard, being right all the time " . I don't have any stake in the game anymore, it allows you complete honesty!. Progress is a double edged sword, every time you save a precious human life, something has to die. Nature bats last and some day we'll learn "we" aren't the centre of the universe! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) People are obese in this country because of Thyroid and hormonal problems. Not because they are over-eating and not exercising. This is a fact. I read it on the forums here And in any case, obsessed people are not unfit Yeah "calories" don't even exist, they are just a Tory conspiracy to turn public opinion against people who don't have good education about food. You're right, those nice Tories are only interested in fiscal responsibility and would never, ever use underhand means in order to achieve a completely fair society in which rich people have to pay less tax for the uneducated masses. Shocking isn't it, anyone would think politicians tell lies! Thank goodness we have left wing politicians who are different to normal politicans and incapable of lying.
Every human being is capable of massaging a message to suit their ideological pathway - the basis of that ideology is what really matters.
It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice
It does if it able to distinguish between mice dependant on their status, weight, ability to pay etc etc
Well the person I quoted played a big hand in getting 600,000,000 people out of poverty. They did so precisely because they stopped giving a crap about ideology and just focussed on results, what a crazy idea that is... "Ah, the eternal refrain of those who want to shut down debate. I suppose that an ideology-less society is akin to the class-less society. It is only so if you agree with the hegemony. As regards the NHS, I trust it has been noticed that 5-years ago the rallying call was to place management into the "hands of the doctors and clinicians", closing down the PCTs. Now that the doctors and clinicians (who have always been dubious) are actively become hostile to the changes they are being vilified. Plus ca change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is getting worse and worse, they are way behind on timescales etc. We have a new multi million pound Hospital here, always turning people away because of lack of beds etc. Its meant to be something like a 3 month turn around from seeing your GP to getting the Op done or whatever procedure that's needed. I went to my GP with a foot problem in Nov 2015, saw a specialist in Dec was told I needed an MRI Scan, and was to call the specialist for a follow up, had the MRI 2 weeks ago so rang them up and was told end of April is the earliest they can see me. I stress this is just seeing a specialist to sort out the operation date. Miles behind they timescales they advertise " Problem with Pembury is that the investment to build the shiny new toy came from pfi, the repayments the trust has to make back are massive. So shiny new toy and massive debt. The funding should of come from government not privately financed imo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't read the posts in this thread Has it descended into fatties vs smokers yet ? That's the way most NHS threads go " not yet .... it's still idealist economists vs pragmatic medics at the moment | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't read the posts in this thread Has it descended into fatties vs smokers yet ? That's the way most NHS threads go " It is not 'vs'. They are both needed to keep the NHS But someone wrote that they are just a small issue. I guess the vast amounts spent on heart surgeries and strokes which are mainly caused by reasons other than obesity or smoking, could be the problem | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't read the posts in this thread Has it descended into fatties vs smokers yet ? That's the way most NHS threads go " . Id put that idea to channel 5 if I were you... Sounds like a ratings winner  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't read the posts in this thread Has it descended into fatties vs smokers yet ? That's the way most NHS threads go . Id put that idea to channel 5 if I were you... Sounds like a ratings winner "We could even have a 'celebrity' version | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I haven't read the posts in this thread Has it descended into fatties vs smokers yet ? That's the way most NHS threads go . Id put that idea to channel 5 if I were you... Sounds like a ratings winner
We could even have a 'celebrity' version ". I hear jo brand could play both sides!... Oh good God Alan partridge was right all along... Inner city sumo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have just read back my post and it seems I worded part of it badly. I was just pointing out that a lot of the funding goes towards treating people with self inflicted illnesses (as well as a lot of the funding goes on keeping people alive that will die within a year) We cannot expect the NHS to continue when people cannot be bothered in keeping themselves healthy. Also the World population has doubled since the 70s, and we cannot sustain a World where kids are having genetically unhealthy kids - as soon as they are able - and people are eating themselves to death (with decades of treatment by the NHS) Genetic problems aren't class specific. No one will listen if you say silly things. " Going to back this up from the perspective of somebody whose mother works in the NHS and as somebody who did a medical genetics placement with the NHS. Genetic illnesses arise in correspondence to various factors. Yes good diet and healthy living reduces the risk of developing say an illness such as diabetes or heart disease - though this illness is less linked to genetics and more down to what you put in your body. Genetic problems can arise spontaneously, your DNA replicates throughout life and point mutations can cause issues such as cancer or new illnesses, additionally epigenetic factors can cause different genes to be 'switched' on or off throughout life. Ultimately genetic illnesses are fluid throughout all individuals regardless of class, earning and even having a perfect diet and running for an hour each night is no good if you live in a country with bad air pollution. The NHS tries to educate people as well as it can given it's budget, often relying on people to voluntarily educate - but as many researchers within and external to the NHS have pointed out, one of the big issues is the fact that we live in a society with a government which simply does not facilitate healthy living very well. Our society is riddled with factors which impact upon peoples mental health which has an almost immediate impact upon physical wellbeing and health, unless it is correctly diagnosed and managed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've worked for the NHS for 22 years, and I've had private health insurance for 19 years. The NHS is wonderful for those that don't pay, but terrible for those that do. Currently ranked as 18th best in the world, and dropping rapidly." When you say 'don't pay' I presume you mean individuals who can't find work so can't pay taxes? If so this is a current problem with the government which has not delivered on a national wide creation of well paying jobs. Plenty of shelf stacking jobs but not much which helps people save and invest for their future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Complexity! It's a funny thing but the more problems we solve, the more complex it becomes, the more complex something becomes the more capital(profit, excess energy) is required to sustain it!. If you follow that curve long enough it leads to two outcomes, collapse or change the system! If you want specialists who can transplant hands, deconjoin twins, understand viruses.... There's a whole load of investment of time and energy in getting it, education, university's, equipment, laboratory's... You start off with the 99% making enough excess to support the 1%.. But those figures are constantly being eroded by the fact that we keep solving problems, meaning it's 98%-2% ... And a exponential curve comes into force... One that can't last no matter how much we wish it to!. I think you're ignoring the fact that the fruits of R&D are cumulative. But I agree with your conclusion all the same. . Yeah I wasn't really ignoring, yes you put one hour into r&d and get five hours back so to speak but what we do is solve another problem, which requires more spare input with those five spare hours so in reality it gets you places but it never really solves the problem. The NHS needs to have clear guidelines about what it can do for society and what it can't!... To constantly chase means you either need massive resources constantly feed in or face collapse sooner or later. I think we need to be honest in the west about where we constantly keep getting the "input" in for this exponential "chase"!. This perception of we " always get more " has to end sooner or later, you can't just keep on stretching the elastic band without expecting it to snap at some point I just meant that it takes decades to work out how to cure the first AIDS patient. But once you've cured 100 it become significantly easier... I think healthcare, generally and not specific to the NHS, is one of the roaring success stories of the last few hundred years. Think of all the diseases that used to kill people that are virtually eradicated. People live longer and childbirth is no longer the riskiest part of a womans life. The problem is the diseases keep evolving... tricky fuckers" Amen to this. Good health care, especially if it is affordable or free principally aids society. Not just lower morality rates but also it means people are happier an better workers. It also reduces the risk of pandemics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I've worked for the NHS for 22 years, and I've had private health insurance for 19 years. The NHS is wonderful for those that don't pay, but terrible for those that do. Currently ranked as 18th best in the world, and dropping rapidly." I'm sorry but I simply don't agree with this. I work in a senior clinical position in the NHS and would, and have, always used it - as do all (to my knowledge) of my colleagues. I would never go private either to use or work. Obviously, I cannot talk for all localities or local areas but where we live the service is absolutely excellent. In austere times, when funding is being slashed, it is difficult to maintain but the education and selflessness of many staff are masking the gaps (for now). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that an important factor that is always ignored when the NHS is debated is the way that the labour government thought it was a jolly good idea to give out PFI contracts. By the end of 2007 they had awarded 83 contracts, the total cost to the NHS will be £53 billion!!!!! When these contracts are eventually paid off the NHS will own assets valued at £8 billion. These contracts and the PCTP contracts they also awarded have crippled the NHS for years to come. I don't understand how it makes sense to anybody to fund the NHS by using Wonga style loans." You do know PFI was invented by the Major government, expanded by labour and continues to be used today by the conservatives don't you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think that an important factor that is always ignored when the NHS is debated is the way that the labour government thought it was a jolly good idea to give out PFI contracts. By the end of 2007 they had awarded 83 contracts, the total cost to the NHS will be £53 billion!!!!! When these contracts are eventually paid off the NHS will own assets valued at £8 billion. These contracts and the PCTP contracts they also awarded have crippled the NHS for years to come. I don't understand how it makes sense to anybody to fund the NHS by using Wonga style loans. You do know PFI was invented by the Major government, expanded by labour and continues to be used today by the conservatives don't you?" This is true. Harriet Harmen said it was just a way to privatise public services (when she was in opposition), then she realised that "buy now, pay later" was quite a good vote winner and changed her mind... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You do know PFI was invented by the Major government, expanded by labour and continues to be used today by the conservatives don't you?" " Oh dear .. as usual a half story. Why didn't you say how many PFIs Lamont and Major initiated and for how much? Probably because he saw it as a secondary option and actually didn't instigate any of substance. Oh wait you didn't know that? Where as Mr Brown (he of the magical hands who saved the world) completed more than 900 schemes with a total capital value of £56 billion – yet the amount the taxpayer will have to repay currently stands at £229 billion. And THAT is what we are all struggling with now. So when Lefties crack on about the Tories 'privatising the NHS' its too late. Labour already did it! And when the same Lefties trot out the mantra (as in the OPs remarks) that the NHS is short of money maybe look at the cost of all those PFIs Mr Brown cooked up. And he did it so he could say 'Labour built all these schools and hospitals' when they actually didn't. But hey it was New Labour and truth was a distant cousin. Read and weep: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8279753/Gordon-Browns-poisoned-PFI-legacy.html And do tell us what PFIs the current or previous Governments initiated as opposed to having to pay for them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And do tell us what PFIs the current or previous Governments initiated as opposed to having to pay for them?" maybe you COULD answer that question BUT i reckon you haven't GOT a clue about THAT yourself really HAVE you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You do know PFI was invented by the Major government, expanded by labour and continues to be used today by the conservatives don't you?" Oh dear .. as usual a half story. Why didn't you say how many PFIs Lamont and Major initiated and for how much? Probably because he saw it as a secondary option and actually didn't instigate any of substance. Oh wait you didn't know that? Where as Mr Brown (he of the magical hands who saved the world) completed more than 900 schemes with a total capital value of £56 billion – yet the amount the taxpayer will have to repay currently stands at £229 billion. And THAT is what we are all struggling with now. So when Lefties crack on about the Tories 'privatising the NHS' its too late. Labour already did it! And when the same Lefties trot out the mantra (as in the OPs remarks) that the NHS is short of money maybe look at the cost of all those PFIs Mr Brown cooked up. And he did it so he could say 'Labour built all these schools and hospitals' when they actually didn't. But hey it was New Labour and truth was a distant cousin. Read and weep: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8279753/Gordon-Browns-poisoned-PFI-legacy.html And do tell us what PFIs the current or previous Governments initiated as opposed to having to pay for them?" Theres a big new super hospital in the Midlands just signed off by George Osborne under PFI for one, there's lots of articles documenting coalition PFI spending, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be interested in those because it's against how you'd like to see things I think labours PFI use was a disgrace but i have the good fortune of not having blue tinted glasses in so I can see what the other side are doing as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And do tell us what PFIs the current or previous Governments initiated as opposed to having to pay for them? maybe you COULD answer that question BUT i reckon you haven't GOT a clue about THAT yourself really HAVE you" Oh dear another Leftie trying to play clever. Look YOU made the allegation. I challenged it so YOU are supposed to either put up or shut up. Otherwise its just a remark not a fact. Asking ME to prove how right YOU were when it was ME challenging isn't sort of how it works ...
But as it happens yes I do have an idea what has happened. Its called 'PF2'... Even the Leftie Union blogs admit that.
Which is basically a very big change in how these things are done given the huge number (700+) we still have running from Labour's days. But none have been initiated under this Government.
What is patently obvious is the total failure of every Labour PFI and the exceptional deceit employed by Blair and Brown (nothing new there then). The 3 Tube lines PFIs all collapsed costing millions. The new IEP trains purchase are all PFI and very expensive. And of course the two carriers which could not be changed to CATOBAR because of the costs in contract change and other factors. (Luckily they will still be very effective with STOVL) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres a big new super hospital in the Midlands just signed off by George Osborne under PFI for one, there's lots of articles documenting coalition PFI spending, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be interested in those because it's against how you'd like to see things " Oh this PPP you mean. yeah the private sector stumping up £16 million to build it .. Hmmmm... No PFI there old son ... http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/business-news/carillion-lands-430m-midland-metropolitan-9835072 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theres a big new super hospital in the Midlands just signed off by George Osborne under PFI for one, there's lots of articles documenting coalition PFI spending, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be interested in those because it's against how you'd like to see things Oh this PPP you mean. yeah the private sector stumping up £16 million to build it .. Hmmmm... No PFI there old son ... http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/business-news/carillion-lands-430m-midland-metropolitan-9835072" The National Audit Office report (called "the choice of finance for capital investment" if you want to check your facts) on use of PFI in March 2015 said "Departments’ use of private finance for new capital investment has fallen to £2.3 billion per year on average over the past 5 years". So unless they are not telling the truth there's been at least 11 billion pounds worth of PFI since the last labour government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And do tell us what PFIs the current or previous Governments initiated as opposed to having to pay for them? maybe you COULD answer that question BUT i reckon you haven't GOT a clue about THAT yourself really HAVE you Oh dear another Leftie trying to play clever. Look YOU made the allegation. I challenged it so YOU are supposed to either put up or shut up. Otherwise its just a remark not a fact. Asking ME to prove how right YOU were when it was ME challenging isn't sort of how it works ...
But as it happens yes I do have an idea what has happened. Its called 'PF2'... Even the Leftie Union blogs admit that.
Which is basically a very big change in how these things are done given the huge number (700+) we still have running from Labour's days. But none have been initiated under this Government.
What is patently obvious is the total failure of every Labour PFI and the exceptional deceit employed by Blair and Brown (nothing new there then). The 3 Tube lines PFIs all collapsed costing millions. The new IEP trains purchase are all PFI and very expensive. And of course the two carriers which could not be changed to CATOBAR because of the costs in contract change and other factors. (Luckily they will still be very effective with STOVL)"chishy ..... you are confusing ME with Someone ELSE. scroll back THROUGH the thread and you will SEE that you have mistaken me FOR someone else. please QUOTE my allegation if you CAN. it will BE difficult for you TO do this because i MADE no allegation and IT is just another of your FANTASIES  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
