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 Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?"It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate. "I doubt he has lied. It also depends on how the question was phrased. Politicians will always try to spin but Journalists aren't much better, Politicians know Journalists are forever trying to 'catch them out' so try not to deviate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate. "Like you said, a spin. What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up. This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
I doubt he has lied. It also depends on how the question was phrased.
Politicians will always try to spin but Journalists aren't much better, Politicians know Journalists are forever trying to 'catch them out' so try not to deviate."I did not actually state he lied. In my response above I've elaborated on my thoughts of his spiel. Let's face it, it's all about how you interpret data and then how you represent the data. Fact: some progression. Fact: waiting lists have never been higher. Us minions just need to read between the lies, I mean lines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
I doubt he has lied. It also depends on how the question was phrased.
Politicians will always try to spin but Journalists aren't much better, Politicians know Journalists are forever trying to 'catch them out' so try not to deviate.
I did not actually state he lied. In my response above I've elaborated on my thoughts of his spiel. Let's face it, it's all about how you interpret data and then how you represent the data. Fact: some progression. Fact: waiting lists have never been higher.
Us minions just need to read between the lies, I mean lines."You also asked if anyone believes what he spouts?? If he's not lying then we should believe it, no? So the whole thread is about what exactly... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
I doubt he has lied. It also depends on how the question was phrased.
Politicians will always try to spin but Journalists aren't much better, Politicians know Journalists are forever trying to 'catch them out' so try not to deviate.
I did not actually state he lied. In my response above I've elaborated on my thoughts of his spiel. Let's face it, it's all about how you interpret data and then how you represent the data. Fact: some progression. Fact: waiting lists have never been higher.
Us minions just need to read between the lies, I mean lines.
You also asked if anyone believes what he spouts??
If he's not lying then we should believe it, no?
So the whole thread is about what exactly..."It's an enticement to participate in the thread. Do you believe what he says, why? Do you not believe what he says, why? Are you indifferent, why? Do you believe in some of what he says, why? I think my first question is more succinct  . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm genuinely confused as to what this thread is about. Seems like a rant under the guise of something else so unless you can help me out, I'm out." Me too, I've got gardening to do
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff."I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it"You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)? Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?"Robo Rishi malfunctions when put under pressure , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those lockdown lovers…..you reap what you sow. Yes, waiting list were high before the pandemic but effectively closing down large parts of the NHS for long periods of times was always going to have a massive knock on effect. Lovkdowns were not necessary as Sweden proved. " Nobody ‘loved ‘ lockdowns Sweden proved nothing  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For all those lockdown lovers…..you reap what you sow. Yes, waiting list were high before the pandemic but effectively closing down large parts of the NHS for long periods of times was always going to have a massive knock on effect. Lovkdowns were not necessary as Sweden proved. " Sweden didn’t lock down, but did advise working from form, avoiding public transport, using social distancing and other measures. The public overwhelmingly complied - Swedes have a high level of public trust in authorities. Sweden still suffered immensely during the first wave, worse than neighbouring countries who locked down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed."I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time"When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking."Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin"At an all time high. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
At an all time high.
"What is at an all time high? Number of people on the list? Length of time to wait? Exactly what for? Referrals? Specialist appointments? It's a bit ambiguous to just say 'NHS waiting list at all time high' without any context. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin"He is not actually using a figure. Even LK states he's using selectives stats (like I have already stated, he's cherry picking). Go to BBC iPlayer pick Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and ffw to 14.30 minutes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
At an all time high.
What is at an all time high?
Number of people on the list? Length of time to wait? Exactly what for? Referrals? Specialist appointments?
It's a bit ambiguous to just say 'NHS waiting list at all time high' without any context."I've already stated over-all waiting lists. Do people cherry pick what they read in this forum according to which way they lean politically? Sunak picks up on ambulance off-loading times have reduced... They do that once past the winter season | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
At an all time high.
What is at an all time high?
Number of people on the list? Length of time to wait? Exactly what for? Referrals? Specialist appointments?
It's a bit ambiguous to just say 'NHS waiting list at all time high' without any context.
I've already stated over-all waiting lists.
Do people cherry pick what they read in this forum according to which way they lean politically?
Sunak picks up on ambulance off-loading times have reduced... They do that once past the winter season "You obviously mis-judged which way I 'lean'. What is an 'over-all waiting list'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
At an all time high.
What is at an all time high?
Number of people on the list? Length of time to wait? Exactly what for? Referrals? Specialist appointments?
It's a bit ambiguous to just say 'NHS waiting list at all time high' without any context.
I've already stated over-all waiting lists.
Do people cherry pick what they read in this forum according to which way they lean politically?
Sunak picks up on ambulance off-loading times have reduced... They do that once past the winter season
You obviously mis-judged which way I 'lean'.
What is an 'over-all waiting list'?"Now you're taking the Mickey | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
He is not actually using a figure. Even LK states he's using selectives stats (like I have already stated, he's cherry picking).
Go to BBC iPlayer pick Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and ffw to 14.30 minutes."So just watched that bit. Seems he was asked by LK when will people see the difference. He replied about cutting waiting lists was one of his pledges and people are starting to see the difference. He did not state that waiting lists have come down. He mentioned that they have eliminated people waiting 2 years or more and recently people waiting 18 months or more. I interpret that as his claim to people seeing a difference (which was what he was asked). He also said a little bit on that he does not expect the overall lists to reduce until sometime next year (apparently he has said this when setting out the pledges). I'm not sure he has said anything wrong though of course being a politician they know how to spin things. What was interesting to me is the proposed long term plan to train more doctors and nurses here and reduce dependency on overseas people. It will take time but the sooner they start the better assuming the plan is valid | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
He is not actually using a figure. Even LK states he's using selectives stats (like I have already stated, he's cherry picking).
Go to BBC iPlayer pick Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and ffw to 14.30 minutes.
So just watched that bit. Seems he was asked by LK when will people see the difference. He replied about cutting waiting lists was one of his pledges and people are starting to see the difference. He did not state that waiting lists have come down. He mentioned that they have eliminated people waiting 2 years or more and recently people waiting 18 months or more. I interpret that as his claim to people seeing a difference (which was what he was asked). He also said a little bit on that he does not expect the overall lists to reduce until sometime next year (apparently he has said this when setting out the pledges). I'm not sure he has said anything wrong though of course being a politician they know how to spin things. What was interesting to me is the proposed long term plan to train more doctors and nurses here and reduce dependency on overseas people. It will take time but the sooner they start the better assuming the plan is valid"We have been dependent upon overseas nurses since the beginning of the 21st century, so I'm a cynic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?"One of those They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals. They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help. Both statements can be true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true."And they are. Which is what can be said instead of the spin. Instead of waiting for a reporter to go "but", pre-empt it, don't hide it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true."As well as ‘waiting lists were climbing since 2010, and at a record high in 2019, before Covid’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true.
As well as ‘waiting lists were climbing since 2010, and at a record high in 2019, before Covid’"Nothing to do with the original Al point but may well be the case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true.
As well as ‘waiting lists were climbing since 2010, and at a record high in 2019, before Covid’
Nothing to do with the original Al point but may well be the case. "It’s a thread entitled waiting lists. I think it’s fair to point out that under the tories, NHS waiting lists have grown longer every year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true.
As well as ‘waiting lists were climbing since 2010, and at a record high in 2019, before Covid’
Nothing to do with the original Al point but may well be the case.
It’s a thread entitled waiting lists. I think it’s fair to point out that under the tories, NHS waiting lists have grown longer every year. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true.
As well as ‘waiting lists were climbing since 2010, and at a record high in 2019, before Covid’
Nothing to do with the original Al point but may well be the case.
It’s a thread entitled waiting lists. I think it’s fair to point out that under the tories, NHS waiting lists have grown longer every year. "I'm still waiting for a definition of 'waiting list', what does that mean exactly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true.
As well as ‘waiting lists were climbing since 2010, and at a record high in 2019, before Covid’
Nothing to do with the original Al point but may well be the case.
It’s a thread entitled waiting lists. I think it’s fair to point out that under the tories, NHS waiting lists have grown longer every year.
I'm still waiting for a definition of 'waiting list', what does that mean exactly?"https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/nhs-backlog-data-analysis https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/hospitals/guide-to-nhs-waiting-times-in-england/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true.
As well as ‘waiting lists were climbing since 2010, and at a record high in 2019, before Covid’
Nothing to do with the original Al point but may well be the case.
It’s a thread entitled waiting lists. I think it’s fair to point out that under the tories, NHS waiting lists have grown longer every year.
I'm still waiting for a definition of 'waiting list', what does that mean exactly?
https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/nhs-delivery-and-workforce/pressures/nhs-backlog-data-analysis
https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/hospitals/guide-to-nhs-waiting-times-in-england/"So according to BMA, some are up and some are down since Sunak took office. I'm still not sure what LK was trying to get at. It would be nice if she was more specific. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
One of those
They've never been higher because covid response shut down all hospitals.
They are coming down becausentheuve begun praying private medical practices ti help.
Both statements can be true.
As well as ‘waiting lists were climbing since 2010, and at a record high in 2019, before Covid’
Nothing to do with the original Al point but may well be the case.
It’s a thread entitled waiting lists. I think it’s fair to point out that under the tories, NHS waiting lists have grown longer every year. "Well it seemed to be to do with the interview. And the quoted parts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
He is not actually using a figure. Even LK states he's using selectives stats (like I have already stated, he's cherry picking).
Go to BBC iPlayer pick Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and ffw to 14.30 minutes.
So just watched that bit. Seems he was asked by LK when will people see the difference. He replied about cutting waiting lists was one of his pledges and people are starting to see the difference. He did not state that waiting lists have come down. He mentioned that they have eliminated people waiting 2 years or more and recently people waiting 18 months or more. I interpret that as his claim to people seeing a difference (which was what he was asked). He also said a little bit on that he does not expect the overall lists to reduce until sometime next year (apparently he has said this when setting out the pledges). I'm not sure he has said anything wrong though of course being a politician they know how to spin things. What was interesting to me is the proposed long term plan to train more doctors and nurses here and reduce dependency on overseas people. It will take time but the sooner they start the better assuming the plan is valid
We have been dependent upon overseas nurses since the beginning of the 21st century, so I'm a cynic."I understand your scepticism which I share. What I disagree on is claiming that RS said the waiting lists are coming down as after watching it he did not say that. In fact he said that they have not come down and does not expect them to until next year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
He is not actually using a figure. Even LK states he's using selectives stats (like I have already stated, he's cherry picking).
Go to BBC iPlayer pick Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and ffw to 14.30 minutes.
So just watched that bit. Seems he was asked by LK when will people see the difference. He replied about cutting waiting lists was one of his pledges and people are starting to see the difference. He did not state that waiting lists have come down. He mentioned that they have eliminated people waiting 2 years or more and recently people waiting 18 months or more. I interpret that as his claim to people seeing a difference (which was what he was asked). He also said a little bit on that he does not expect the overall lists to reduce until sometime next year (apparently he has said this when setting out the pledges). I'm not sure he has said anything wrong though of course being a politician they know how to spin things. What was interesting to me is the proposed long term plan to train more doctors and nurses here and reduce dependency on overseas people. It will take time but the sooner they start the better assuming the plan is valid
We have been dependent upon overseas nurses since the beginning of the 21st century, so I'm a cynic.
I understand your scepticism which I share. What I disagree on is claiming that RS said the waiting lists are coming down as after watching it he did not say that. In fact he said that they have not come down and does not expect them to until next year."Well that last statement is incorrect... Those waiting 2 years blah blah, those waiting 18 months blah blah | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
He is not actually using a figure. Even LK states he's using selectives stats (like I have already stated, he's cherry picking).
Go to BBC iPlayer pick Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and ffw to 14.30 minutes.
So just watched that bit. Seems he was asked by LK when will people see the difference. He replied about cutting waiting lists was one of his pledges and people are starting to see the difference. He did not state that waiting lists have come down. He mentioned that they have eliminated people waiting 2 years or more and recently people waiting 18 months or more. I interpret that as his claim to people seeing a difference (which was what he was asked). He also said a little bit on that he does not expect the overall lists to reduce until sometime next year (apparently he has said this when setting out the pledges). I'm not sure he has said anything wrong though of course being a politician they know how to spin things. What was interesting to me is the proposed long term plan to train more doctors and nurses here and reduce dependency on overseas people. It will take time but the sooner they start the better assuming the plan is valid
We have been dependent upon overseas nurses since the beginning of the 21st century, so I'm a cynic.
I understand your scepticism which I share. What I disagree on is claiming that RS said the waiting lists are coming down as after watching it he did not say that. In fact he said that they have not come down and does not expect them to until next year.
Well that last statement is incorrect... Those waiting 2 years blah blah, those waiting 18 months blah blah"He said they have virtually eliminated people waiting 2years or more and people waiting 18 months or more. He also said that the overall figure had not yet come down and does not expect it to until next year. I did not hear him once claim that the overall figure was going down in fact he said the opposite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
He is not actually using a figure. Even LK states he's using selectives stats (like I have already stated, he's cherry picking).
Go to BBC iPlayer pick Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and ffw to 14.30 minutes.
So just watched that bit. Seems he was asked by LK when will people see the difference. He replied about cutting waiting lists was one of his pledges and people are starting to see the difference. He did not state that waiting lists have come down. He mentioned that they have eliminated people waiting 2 years or more and recently people waiting 18 months or more. I interpret that as his claim to people seeing a difference (which was what he was asked). He also said a little bit on that he does not expect the overall lists to reduce until sometime next year (apparently he has said this when setting out the pledges). I'm not sure he has said anything wrong though of course being a politician they know how to spin things. What was interesting to me is the proposed long term plan to train more doctors and nurses here and reduce dependency on overseas people. It will take time but the sooner they start the better assuming the plan is valid
We have been dependent upon overseas nurses since the beginning of the 21st century, so I'm a cynic.
I understand your scepticism which I share. What I disagree on is claiming that RS said the waiting lists are coming down as after watching it he did not say that. In fact he said that they have not come down and does not expect them to until next year.
Well that last statement is incorrect... Those waiting 2 years blah blah, those waiting 18 months blah blah
He said they have virtually eliminated people waiting 2years or more and people waiting 18 months or more. He also said that the overall figure had not yet come down and does not expect it to until next year. I did not hear him once claim that the overall figure was going down in fact he said the opposite"Cos he'd have known LK wasn't lying about the over-all figure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
Like you said, a spin.
What is likely is that the odd hospital here and there have made an improvement, but overall the numbers are up.
This is probably true of every year, that small progress is made SOMEWHERE, but not as a result of a pledge. Just the continual efforts of healthcare staff.
I thought it might be the opposite with the overall figures improving if he has stated a drop in the waiting list as opposed to a few hospitals. If the figures have not gone down I think he will regret claiming it
You don't understand how politicians will claim a win if they can declare progress is made (somewhere)?
Like when Bojo stated 50,000 MORE nurses, and a junior minister admitted they were including figures of retaining staff. They don't volunteer the "small print" unless pushed.
I thought my first post was clear that they are claiming a win but in reality it's just spin, so agreeing with you. The only difference I have is that I am expecting he used the national figures to show improvement as opposed to isolated hospitals. However as I have not seen it yet that is purely an assumption on my part. In the program did he say if he was talking national figures ? As I say I am agreeing it is spin but it may be accurate at the same time
When LK stated the over-all figure is higher, I interpret that as the total figure in NHS England. The devolved nations deal with their health services. Therefore I can only assume he is cherry picking.
Sounds like he is using the national figure then. Unless LK is saying that the list has increased since his pledge to reduce it then it seems to be an accurate statement on his part. However it conveniently ignores that the list is higher than say a few years ago, hence the spin
He is not actually using a figure. Even LK states he's using selectives stats (like I have already stated, he's cherry picking).
Go to BBC iPlayer pick Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg and ffw to 14.30 minutes.
So just watched that bit. Seems he was asked by LK when will people see the difference. He replied about cutting waiting lists was one of his pledges and people are starting to see the difference. He did not state that waiting lists have come down. He mentioned that they have eliminated people waiting 2 years or more and recently people waiting 18 months or more. I interpret that as his claim to people seeing a difference (which was what he was asked). He also said a little bit on that he does not expect the overall lists to reduce until sometime next year (apparently he has said this when setting out the pledges). I'm not sure he has said anything wrong though of course being a politician they know how to spin things. What was interesting to me is the proposed long term plan to train more doctors and nurses here and reduce dependency on overseas people. It will take time but the sooner they start the better assuming the plan is valid
We have been dependent upon overseas nurses since the beginning of the 21st century, so I'm a cynic.
I understand your scepticism which I share. What I disagree on is claiming that RS said the waiting lists are coming down as after watching it he did not say that. In fact he said that they have not come down and does not expect them to until next year.
Well that last statement is incorrect... Those waiting 2 years blah blah, those waiting 18 months blah blah
He said they have virtually eliminated people waiting 2years or more and people waiting 18 months or more. He also said that the overall figure had not yet come down and does not expect it to until next year. I did not hear him once claim that the overall figure was going down in fact he said the opposite
Cos he'd have known LK wasn't lying about the over-all figure."I would expect he would but as he confirmed what LK said I don't see the issue | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone working in the NHS ever seen a " waiting list " ? I doubt there is such a thing .. i.e a list of names with position on the list .I have often thought there is more than one " List". The list to go on the list etc . " There are indeed lists, but yes - there are myriad reasons why the names on said list can be paused, cancelled, expedited or anything else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone working in the NHS ever seen a " waiting list " ? I doubt there is such a thing .. i.e a list of names with position on the list .I have often thought there is more than one " List". The list to go on the list etc . " Yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?"He is a politician, why would we believe him. The last person to enter the house of commons, with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS transfer you from one list to another, then get you in for a pre-op eventually and then that has to be redone buying them more time to actually do what needs done. " Maybe this is why the overall list is often mentioned instead of individual lists | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model?" How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit?" It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. " So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium?" As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … " That’s conjecture though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … That’s conjecture though " What is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … That’s conjecture though What is " “Better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not” Can anyone guarantee that insurance policies would cover fairly and not be refused for historic ailments or certain circumstances? We’ve all expedited insurance companies and their smallprint, I presume? I could say ‘let’s remove outsourcing from the NHS and plough that money back into specific areas’ - but would it work? I dunno. Conjecture. Just as saying an insurance based system would work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … " Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … That’s conjecture though What is “Better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not” Can anyone guarantee that insurance policies would cover fairly and not be refused for historic ailments or certain circumstances? We’ve all expedited insurance companies and their smallprint, I presume? I could say ‘let’s remove outsourcing from the NHS and plough that money back into specific areas’ - but would it work? I dunno. Conjecture. Just as saying an insurance based system would work." I would say we should try removing the outsourcing first to see if it does work by the NHS retaining more of its budget and reallocating where needed. I would prioritise life saving healthcare over anything elective. That includes removing IVF from NHS. Focus on saving lives. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! " Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service" Indeed. Shareholders be happy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service" So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! " And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. " NotMe NotSure how you had that as a take out. Vets are private? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. NotMe NotSure how you had that as a take out. Vets are private?" the NHS is suffering from all the points you make, change vets to nurses, doctors and people saying I want more treatments. Hospitals on any given day are full of people who need to be there, and more importantly don’t need to be there, but they are because they can be. A&E is abused every day due to people who take drugs, drink to much alcohol, minor injuries and everything in between and they want treatment. Society has changed the NHS hasn’t been able to keep up and under its present guise never will. If we had a private healthcare system it might encourage people to look after themselves better and if they don’t it’s them and not everyone else that needs to pay for their treatment. Insurance companies up the fees and that is a life lesson | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. NotMe NotSure how you had that as a take out. Vets are private? the NHS is suffering from all the points you make, change vets to nurses, doctors and people saying I want more treatments. Hospitals on any given day are full of people who need to be there, and more importantly don’t need to be there, but they are because they can be. A&E is abused every day due to people who take drugs, drink to much alcohol, minor injuries and everything in between and they want treatment. Society has changed the NHS hasn’t been able to keep up and under its present guise never will. If we had a private healthcare system it might encourage people to look after themselves better and if they don’t it’s them and not everyone else that needs to pay for their treatment. Insurance companies up the fees and that is a life lesson " So because some people don’t look after themselves very well, you’re comfortable with companies making as much money as they can out of your illness? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. NotMe NotSure how you had that as a take out. Vets are private? the NHS is suffering from all the points you make, change vets to nurses, doctors and people saying I want more treatments. Hospitals on any given day are full of people who need to be there, and more importantly don’t need to be there, but they are because they can be. A&E is abused every day due to people who take drugs, drink to much alcohol, minor injuries and everything in between and they want treatment. Society has changed the NHS hasn’t been able to keep up and under its present guise never will. If we had a private healthcare system it might encourage people to look after themselves better and if they don’t it’s them and not everyone else that needs to pay for their treatment. Insurance companies up the fees and that is a life lesson So because some people don’t look after themselves very well, you’re comfortable with companies making as much money as they can out of your illness?" Not making money but them being responsible and paying for that responsibility, yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. NotMe NotSure how you had that as a take out. Vets are private? the NHS is suffering from all the points you make, change vets to nurses, doctors and people saying I want more treatments. Hospitals on any given day are full of people who need to be there, and more importantly don’t need to be there, but they are because they can be. A&E is abused every day due to people who take drugs, drink to much alcohol, minor injuries and everything in between and they want treatment. Society has changed the NHS hasn’t been able to keep up and under its present guise never will. If we had a private healthcare system it might encourage people to look after themselves better and if they don’t it’s them and not everyone else that needs to pay for their treatment. Insurance companies up the fees and that is a life lesson So because some people don’t look after themselves very well, you’re comfortable with companies making as much money as they can out of your illness? Not making money but them being responsible and paying for that responsibility, yes" But you will pay increased premiums for that responsibility. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. NotMe NotSure how you had that as a take out. Vets are private? the NHS is suffering from all the points you make, change vets to nurses, doctors and people saying I want more treatments. Hospitals on any given day are full of people who need to be there, and more importantly don’t need to be there, but they are because they can be. A&E is abused every day due to people who take drugs, drink to much alcohol, minor injuries and everything in between and they want treatment. Society has changed the NHS hasn’t been able to keep up and under its present guise never will. If we had a private healthcare system it might encourage people to look after themselves better and if they don’t it’s them and not everyone else that needs to pay for their treatment. Insurance companies up the fees and that is a life lesson So because some people don’t look after themselves very well, you’re comfortable with companies making as much money as they can out of your illness? Not making money but them being responsible and paying for that responsibility, yes" But NotMe you know that insurance companies don’t roll like that. They will increase EVERYONE’S premiums over time and decrease the level of cover. They will lobby hard to avoid having to cover pre-existing, hereditary, and lifestyle related conditions. You know the Healthcare companies won’t roll like that. They will increase charges forcing the insurance companies to increase premiums (as per my vet analogy). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. NotMe NotSure how you had that as a take out. Vets are private? the NHS is suffering from all the points you make, change vets to nurses, doctors and people saying I want more treatments. Hospitals on any given day are full of people who need to be there, and more importantly don’t need to be there, but they are because they can be. A&E is abused every day due to people who take drugs, drink to much alcohol, minor injuries and everything in between and they want treatment. Society has changed the NHS hasn’t been able to keep up and under its present guise never will. If we had a private healthcare system it might encourage people to look after themselves better and if they don’t it’s them and not everyone else that needs to pay for their treatment. Insurance companies up the fees and that is a life lesson So because some people don’t look after themselves very well, you’re comfortable with companies making as much money as they can out of your illness? Not making money but them being responsible and paying for that responsibility, yes But NotMe you know that insurance companies don’t roll like that. They will increase EVERYONE’S premiums over time and decrease the level of cover. They will lobby hard to avoid having to cover pre-existing, hereditary, and lifestyle related conditions. You know the Healthcare companies won’t roll like that. They will increase charges forcing the insurance companies to increase premiums (as per my vet analogy). " And so be it, but we will have the opportunity to take our £ elsewhere if we are unhappy with the cost or the service. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model? How much of the “cash” the NHS receives is actually paid out to private sector companies who have taken over aspects of the services (and logistics of running) the NHS previously delivered itself? And of that, how much was retained as profit? It doesn’t really matter, it’s still not working so when is the right time to pull the plug? It will need to be pulled one day, is sooner rather than later a better option? Implement a lower tax scheme to fund health insurance for those that need help and go private. That should shake things up, health services will need to perform then. So in principal I could support the govt removing national insurance from our tax burden so that people can use that money to pay for private health insurance BUT I earn a lot so my NI payments are a lot and should easily cover a meaty insurance premium. What about those on low incomes? No income? Benefits? Children? Will there be sacrosanct rules in place that requires insurance providers to ALWAYS accept pre-existing or hereditary conditions without any impact on premiums? What about lifestyle choices? What about age and propensity to get ill? What happens if your income levels decrease and you can no longer afford the premium? As I mentioned, everyone pays a low tax to support those who need insurance. Scrap NI and take a fixed amount. There would be obvious limitations, such as a basic cover for those who are subsidised, but that’s the same in most things and I’m sure an insurance company would allow a top up if they wanted a more substantial insurance covering. Not you but most will cry so only the wealthy will get the best cover, but the reality of better cover is cosmetic, food, amenities not life threatening cover or not … Because nobody in their right mind would fully trust any government of any persuasion in the future to maintain the protections I say are sacrosanct, then the UK would need a written constitution with this healthcare pledge written in. Even if a govt did go down this route, the private healthcare industry would be lobbying hard to drop cover of pre-existing, hereditary, and life style related illnesses ASAP! Not so sure, a lot of money to be made from people paying in and not using the service So not sure if this is helpful or not but pet insurance is possibly somewhat analogous. 1. It increases in cost every year as per gets older. 2. Once you have a condition treated in any way it becomes pre-existing meaning if you move to a different insurer they will not cover that if it reoccurs. 3. Pet insurance premiums have rocketed. Why? 4. Because years back most people did not have pet insurance. If they could not afford the treatment/operation the animal often got put to sleep. 5. Now that most people have pet insurance they say yes to most treatment. 6. So vets know they can charge more and do. 7. So pet insurance payouts have increased through both increased activity (more people saying yes to treatment) and more expensive vet costs. 8. So pet insurance premiums keep going up and... 9. Because they are so expensive pet owners are like “fuck it I want my monies worth so I am saying yes to all the treatment the vet is suggesting” Ad infinitum!!!! And that in a nutshell is why the NHS is screwed… Whether we like it or not it is not fit for purpose and it needs to go because it has been proven year in year out to be nothing more than a money pit offering very little in return. God, I know I’ve set this up for the usual, under tories it has been mismanaged and in year x it was thriving…. NotMe NotSure how you had that as a take out. Vets are private? the NHS is suffering from all the points you make, change vets to nurses, doctors and people saying I want more treatments. Hospitals on any given day are full of people who need to be there, and more importantly don’t need to be there, but they are because they can be. A&E is abused every day due to people who take drugs, drink to much alcohol, minor injuries and everything in between and they want treatment. Society has changed the NHS hasn’t been able to keep up and under its present guise never will. If we had a private healthcare system it might encourage people to look after themselves better and if they don’t it’s them and not everyone else that needs to pay for their treatment. Insurance companies up the fees and that is a life lesson So because some people don’t look after themselves very well, you’re comfortable with companies making as much money as they can out of your illness? Not making money but them being responsible and paying for that responsibility, yes But NotMe you know that insurance companies don’t roll like that. They will increase EVERYONE’S premiums over time and decrease the level of cover. They will lobby hard to avoid having to cover pre-existing, hereditary, and lifestyle related conditions. You know the Healthcare companies won’t roll like that. They will increase charges forcing the insurance companies to increase premiums (as per my vet analogy). And so be it, but we will have the opportunity to take our £ elsewhere if we are unhappy with the cost or the service." And there’ll be little or no difference, as we see now with car insurance or such. As I’ve said previously, we should look to France or Germany if we want a model of what healthcare should look like. Not the USA. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As I’ve said previously, we should look to France or Germany if we want a model of what healthcare should look like." Possibly not Germany. Having lived there I can confirm that the health system is fairly fast and efficient, and that the populace are not unhealthy. However whenever the subject comes up, everyone moans at how much it costs. There's little difference in cost between the German and the American systems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) " I agree with this. The NHS should be there to save lives (ie injuries or cancer treatment) and ensure lives are safe (giving birth). All elective procedures should be removed and that includes things like IVF. Basically if the treatment is needed they offer it but if the treatment is a question of choice they don’t (you choose to have a baby or have a wart removed, you don’t choose to have a heart attack or be in a car crash). On top of that we stop health tourism. People entering the UK for work, study, or social reasons MUST have comprehensive travel/health insurance. The NHS only therefore provides treatment to British taxpayers (note I did not say citizens) and those born here. You could go further and make it a legal requirement for businesses who are bringing any overseas worker to the UK on a visa to provide mandatory health insurance for an defined period (whole period if just a project or first year if long term/emigrating to UK). I would also make medical training (doctors and nurses) more attractive by reinstating grants with have earn out clauses to retain talent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) I agree with this. The NHS should be there to save lives (ie injuries or cancer treatment) and ensure lives are safe (giving birth). All elective procedures should be removed and that includes things like IVF. Basically if the treatment is needed they offer it but if the treatment is a question of choice they don’t (you choose to have a baby or have a wart removed, you don’t choose to have a heart attack or be in a car crash). On top of that we stop health tourism. People entering the UK for work, study, or social reasons MUST have comprehensive travel/health insurance. The NHS only therefore provides treatment to British taxpayers (note I did not say citizens) and those born here. You could go further and make it a legal requirement for businesses who are bringing any overseas worker to the UK on a visa to provide mandatory health insurance for an defined period (whole period if just a project or first year if long term/emigrating to UK). I would also make medical training (doctors and nurses) more attractive by reinstating grants with have earn out clauses to retain talent. " *choose to try and get pregnant hence no IVF. However, giving birth should be NHS to protect life of mother and baby. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS waiting lists are increasing and the NHS can't cope after all the cash it receives should it still be running? When is the right time to say no amount of money is going to make this any better, we need to change the model?" Watch the newsnight prog on NHS at 75. You'll find we underfund compared to our European cousins (less admin, less staff, less beds per capita). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) " Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) I agree with this. The NHS should be there to save lives (ie injuries or cancer treatment) and ensure lives are safe (giving birth). All elective procedures should be removed and that includes things like IVF. Basically if the treatment is needed they offer it but if the treatment is a question of choice they don’t (you choose to have a baby or have a wart removed, you don’t choose to have a heart attack or be in a car crash). On top of that we stop health tourism. People entering the UK for work, study, or social reasons MUST have comprehensive travel/health insurance. The NHS only therefore provides treatment to British taxpayers (note I did not say citizens) and those born here. You could go further and make it a legal requirement for businesses who are bringing any overseas worker to the UK on a visa to provide mandatory health insurance for an defined period (whole period if just a project or first year if long term/emigrating to UK). I would also make medical training (doctors and nurses) more attractive by reinstating grants with have earn out clauses to retain talent. " Hip replacement surgery that is elective should be scrapped until traumatic? False economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) I agree with this. The NHS should be there to save lives (ie injuries or cancer treatment) and ensure lives are safe (giving birth). All elective procedures should be removed and that includes things like IVF. Basically if the treatment is needed they offer it but if the treatment is a question of choice they don’t (you choose to have a baby or have a wart removed, you don’t choose to have a heart attack or be in a car crash). On top of that we stop health tourism. People entering the UK for work, study, or social reasons MUST have comprehensive travel/health insurance. The NHS only therefore provides treatment to British taxpayers (note I did not say citizens) and those born here. You could go further and make it a legal requirement for businesses who are bringing any overseas worker to the UK on a visa to provide mandatory health insurance for an defined period (whole period if just a project or first year if long term/emigrating to UK). I would also make medical training (doctors and nurses) more attractive by reinstating grants with have earn out clauses to retain talent. " Nurse bursaries were reintroduced (at a lower rate), alongside allied professionals). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) I agree with this. The NHS should be there to save lives (ie injuries or cancer treatment) and ensure lives are safe (giving birth). All elective procedures should be removed and that includes things like IVF. Basically if the treatment is needed they offer it but if the treatment is a question of choice they don’t (you choose to have a baby or have a wart removed, you don’t choose to have a heart attack or be in a car crash). On top of that we stop health tourism. People entering the UK for work, study, or social reasons MUST have comprehensive travel/health insurance. The NHS only therefore provides treatment to British taxpayers (note I did not say citizens) and those born here. You could go further and make it a legal requirement for businesses who are bringing any overseas worker to the UK on a visa to provide mandatory health insurance for an defined period (whole period if just a project or first year if long term/emigrating to UK). I would also make medical training (doctors and nurses) more attractive by reinstating grants with have earn out clauses to retain talent. Hip replacement surgery that is elective should be scrapped until traumatic? False economy." Fair challenge but in my head (which you aren’t privy to) that is not elective it is preventative as it stops someone having pain or disability later in life. There would no doubt be an extensive list and debate over what would be classed as choice vs necessary. I see your other point on prevention vs cure and that is highly relevant in terms of false economies (ie far better to spend some money getting a person to stop smoking rather than lots of money for cancer treatment). I wonder which of those two the private sector is more interested in? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) I agree with this. The NHS should be there to save lives (ie injuries or cancer treatment) and ensure lives are safe (giving birth). All elective procedures should be removed and that includes things like IVF. Basically if the treatment is needed they offer it but if the treatment is a question of choice they don’t (you choose to have a baby or have a wart removed, you don’t choose to have a heart attack or be in a car crash). On top of that we stop health tourism. People entering the UK for work, study, or social reasons MUST have comprehensive travel/health insurance. The NHS only therefore provides treatment to British taxpayers (note I did not say citizens) and those born here. You could go further and make it a legal requirement for businesses who are bringing any overseas worker to the UK on a visa to provide mandatory health insurance for an defined period (whole period if just a project or first year if long term/emigrating to UK). I would also make medical training (doctors and nurses) more attractive by reinstating grants with have earn out clauses to retain talent. Hip replacement surgery that is elective should be scrapped until traumatic? False economy. Fair challenge but in my head (which you aren’t privy to) that is not elective it is preventative as it stops someone having pain or disability later in life. There would no doubt be an extensive list and debate over what would be classed as choice vs necessary. I see your other point on prevention vs cure and that is highly relevant in terms of false economies (ie far better to spend some money getting a person to stop smoking rather than lots of money for cancer treatment). I wonder which of those two the private sector is more interested in?" Whichever you have paid for I would imagine, why would they be interested in anything else? I said that flippantly, but it is true and I’m okay with that because I feel we should be looking after ourselves more in our own lives and not be reliant or held back by the government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth." I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented." Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription?" What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work." “I’m Alright, Jack” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack”" And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later" I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good." Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy " Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. " accountability should be pre req, simple | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple " So you want more state intervention in people’s lives? Interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple So you want more state intervention in people’s lives? Interesting. " Isn't dishing out prescription for food state intervention? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple So you want more state intervention in people’s lives? Interesting. Isn't dishing out prescription for food state intervention?" That’s an intervention which helps those who need it through no fault of their own (dietary needs). Where does accountability end? Are we allowed to drink? Smoke? Drive go-karts? Drive cars, even? If I have a car accident that’s my fault - I’m accountable. Should I fund my healthcare? Who decides? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple So you want more state intervention in people’s lives? Interesting. Isn't dishing out prescription for food state intervention? That’s an intervention which helps those who need it through no fault of their own (dietary needs). Where does accountability end? Are we allowed to drink? Smoke? Drive go-karts? Drive cars, even? If I have a car accident that’s my fault - I’m accountable. Should I fund my healthcare? Who decides? " Ita an intervention which isn't needed though, everyone else buys food. How about we all get food on prescription seeing as we need to to live, through no fault of our own. Accident and Emergency is a different thing, as is serious healthcare. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple So you want more state intervention in people’s lives? Interesting. " Not at all, less. Start looking after yourself or face the consequences of no support. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple So you want more state intervention in people’s lives? Interesting. Not at all, less. Start looking after yourself or face the consequences of no support. " Who decides the boundaries of looking after oneself? You’re presumably healthy - but you could have diabetes in 6 months, despite living a healthy life. “Sorry NotMe. No more prescriptions for you, you’re diabetic. You must not have looked after yourself” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work." Such empathy. Some people actually pay for their prescriptions. And gluten free stuff is a lot more expensive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later" I suppose you think smoking cessation shouldn't be free... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple " Who is accountable for coeliac disease? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease?" Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends " I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
I doubt he has lied. It also depends on how the question was phrased.
Politicians will always try to spin but Journalists aren't much better, Politicians know Journalists are forever trying to 'catch them out' so try not to deviate.
I did not actually state he lied. In my response above I've elaborated on my thoughts of his spiel. Let's face it, it's all about how you interpret data and then how you represent the data. Fact: some progression. Fact: waiting lists have never been higher.
Us minions just need to read between the lies, I mean lines.
You also asked if anyone believes what he spouts??
If he's not lying then we should believe it, no?
So the whole thread is about what exactly..."It’s about people like you that can’t think for yourself. The waiting lists are a disgrace to this once proud nation, higher than any of the big EU countries in comparison. Oh but it’s come down from a previously bad position therefore we. the Tory party are great - keep voting for us as we haven’t quite finished destroying the NHS and pumping effluent into your rivers and seas. Oh by the way everything we privatised is starting to fail because all the profits were given to shareholders whilst you stupid people didn’t pay attention. If it’s not a. Bare face lie then it’s avoiding the truth. Ffs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sunak on LK on Sunday: RS: As you can see hospital waiting lists are coming down as I said in one of my five priorities. LK: But the lists have never been higher... RS: Yeah but (repeats what he has just stated) LK: (tries to get a word in) RS: (repeats again) yes the overall waiting lists are higher but (repeats spiel)
FFS does anyone believe what he spouts?
It sounds like politicians spin. When something is in a bad way and they improve it a bit then it's claimed as progress. I suppose you would need to know the figures from when he made the pledge and the figures today. I don't know them but suspect there is a good chance that his statement is accurate.
I doubt he has lied. It also depends on how the question was phrased.
Politicians will always try to spin but Journalists aren't much better, Politicians know Journalists are forever trying to 'catch them out' so try not to deviate.
I did not actually state he lied. In my response above I've elaborated on my thoughts of his spiel. Let's face it, it's all about how you interpret data and then how you represent the data. Fact: some progression. Fact: waiting lists have never been higher.
Us minions just need to read between the lies, I mean lines.
You also asked if anyone believes what he spouts??
If he's not lying then we should believe it, no?
So the whole thread is about what exactly...
It’s about people like you that can’t think for yourself. The waiting lists are a disgrace to this once proud nation, higher than any of the big EU countries in comparison.
Oh but it’s come down from a previously bad position therefore we. the Tory party are great - keep voting for us as we haven’t quite finished destroying the NHS and pumping effluent into your rivers and seas.
Oh by the way everything we privatised is starting to fail because all the profits were given to shareholders whilst you stupid people didn’t pay attention.
If it’s not a. Bare face lie then it’s avoiding the truth.
Ffs "That's hilarious 
I'm not sure what you're trying to say either apart from trying to insult me.
I see this more and more when people don't have coherent arguments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). " Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. " But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to cease trying to attempt to provide all servics free of charge. It is ridiculous to attempt to do so. Most other European countries have a mixture of private and public healthcsre . We have fallen behind the times . There should be a major review of how Doctors actually spend their time . How much of their work could be undertaken by less qualified staff at less expense .? The services should be split into various accountable units with a much greater emphasis on performance. ... " They do, they are called nurses (nurse practitioners, advanced nurse practitioners, nurse consultants, specialised nurses). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. " I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. " So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? " And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to cease trying to attempt to provide all servics free of charge. It is ridiculous to attempt to do so. Most other European countries have a mixture of private and public healthcsre . We have fallen behind the times . There should be a major review of how Doctors actually spend their time . How much of their work could be undertaken by less qualified staff at less expense .? The services should be split into various accountable units with a much greater emphasis on performance. Various medical staff refused to cooperate when attempts were made to clamp down on health tourism. This type of attitude shows a rather callous and indifferent attitude towards how money is spent . The NHS has a costly and expensive pension scheme all funded by the tax payer. " Fuck me I agree with Pat 
Apart from the pension bit. ALL pensions should be better rather than looking to reduce those that are good. It is part of the overall package and one reason cited for why public sector pay normally lags behind private sector because they ultimately get a better pension. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. " But you don’t actually know whether they have or haven’t, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. " In My (very humble) Opinion the biggest challenges come from fragmentation and privatisation through outsourcing. It’s like utilities where the need to extract profit to pay dividends can only result in one of two outcomes - increased cost/price or decreased service (wrapped up in the smokescreen of “efficiency”). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We need to cease trying to attempt to provide all servics free of charge. It is ridiculous to attempt to do so. Most other European countries have a mixture of private and public healthcsre . We have fallen behind the times . There should be a major review of how Doctors actually spend their time . How much of their work could be undertaken by less qualified staff at less expense .? The services should be split into various accountable units with a much greater emphasis on performance. Various medical staff refused to cooperate when attempts were made to clamp down on health tourism. This type of attitude shows a rather callous and indifferent attitude towards how money is spent . The NHS has a costly and expensive pension scheme all funded by the tax payer. Fuck me I agree with Pat
Apart from the pension bit. ALL pensions should be better rather than looking to reduce those that are good. It is part of the overall package and one reason cited for why public sector pay normally lags behind private sector because they ultimately get a better pension. "Hard agree - the pension was always a life for some public sector jobs, higher pay in the private but better conditions in the public. You past your money and you takes your choice. Now those in the private sector with crappy private pensions don’t like the public sector getting the pensions that they signed up to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. But you don’t actually know whether they have or haven’t, right? " I’m more confident in my assumption based on the state of the NHS than yours… As mentioned above, staff making the rules up, the way things are managed internally it’s a shocking mess that needs pulling apart and reinventing. So many things wrong and here we are paying for it, in the private sector we would be demanding a refund and we would get it based on the shocking under performance. It’s okay to say something is broken, rather than keep throwing money at the problem | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. But you don’t actually know whether they have or haven’t, right? I’m more confident in my assumption based on the state of the NHS than yours… As mentioned above, staff making the rules up, the way things are managed internally it’s a shocking mess that needs pulling apart and reinventing. So many things wrong and here we are paying for it, in the private sector we would be demanding a refund and we would get it based on the shocking under performance. It’s okay to say something is broken, rather than keep throwing money at the problem " Do you speak fro the whole of the private sector? Because I’ve worked in both public and private - this idea that the private sector as an entity is a bastion of efficiency and saving is laughable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. But you don’t actually know whether they have or haven’t, right? I’m more confident in my assumption based on the state of the NHS than yours… As mentioned above, staff making the rules up, the way things are managed internally it’s a shocking mess that needs pulling apart and reinventing. So many things wrong and here we are paying for it, in the private sector we would be demanding a refund and we would get it based on the shocking under performance. It’s okay to say something is broken, rather than keep throwing money at the problem Do you speak fro the whole of the private sector? Because I’ve worked in both public and private - this idea that the private sector as an entity is a bastion of efficiency and saving is laughable. " Being a little salty there… You have however highlighted a perfect example of how the people working for a public sector or private sector organisation are most likely to break it through their complacency, most often it appears when there is no skin the game to earn the money that keeps a business going. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s like utilities where the need to extract profit to pay dividends can only result in one of two outcomes - increased cost/price or decreased service (wrapped up in the smokescreen of “efficiency”)." Your assuming that the entity is currently being run in an efficient manner. If it isn't, there's the possibility of efficiency increases, resulting in reduced prices and increased services, just like what happened with BT. Of course, the private sector can also run things badly, I'm just saying that there are more than 2 possibilities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. But you don’t actually know whether they have or haven’t, right? I’m more confident in my assumption based on the state of the NHS than yours… As mentioned above, staff making the rules up, the way things are managed internally it’s a shocking mess that needs pulling apart and reinventing. So many things wrong and here we are paying for it, in the private sector we would be demanding a refund and we would get it based on the shocking under performance. It’s okay to say something is broken, rather than keep throwing money at the problem Do you speak fro the whole of the private sector? Because I’ve worked in both public and private - this idea that the private sector as an entity is a bastion of efficiency and saving is laughable. Being a little salty there… You have however highlighted a perfect example of how the people working for a public sector or private sector organisation are most likely to break it through their complacency, most often it appears when there is no skin the game to earn the money that keeps a business going. " Surely everyone working for an organisation has skin in the game - everyone has an interest in getting paid, don’t they? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. " So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done!" No knowledge on individual ailments no, but I don’t need to… People to close the coal face are always a problem when it comes to understanding the wider implications as the truly believe they know it all, through experience in a narrow band role | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done! No knowledge on individual ailments no, but I don’t need to… People to close the coal face are always a problem when it comes to understanding the wider implications as the truly believe they know it all, through experience in a narrow band role" I and my colleagues don't need to know it all. Especially when there are folk like you who know more than NICE | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Until the NHS goes back to what it's meant for and only treats debilitating and life threatening conditions then it's basically fkd A few years ago they changed the name Accident and Emergency dept to Emergency department... Now enforce it ! Example, our local GO surgery spends a fair chunk of its budget supplying gluten free food in prescription. There are dozens of examples of what is being ignored and trying to blame it all in politians (not that I trust them either mind you) Noooooooooo we don't want an NHS that is purely reactive. It is cheaper to be proactive and minimise needs to be reactive. This is a recent change in the NHS and needs to go further. Lifestyle choices are a huge burden on the NHS as is the ageing community and population growth. I didn't mention reactive, but when people have the idea that they can claim for basic foods on the NHS because they have gluten intolerance things are fucked up big time. A charge to see a GP should have been brought in 5 years ago and should be immediately implemented. Why shouldn't they get it on prescription? What else could we burden the nation with, prescription free wise? Can’t people stand on their own 2 feet when it comes to looking after themselves a little better? How hard is it to switch the shopping to gluten free? A tad more expensive, cut something out to make it work. “I’m Alright, Jack” And that makes me not a burden to you or anyone else. Thank me later I’m young, healthy (touch wood) and pay a sizeable amount of tax. I’m not a burden either - but one day I may be. You too. It’s ok, I don’t mind paying, it’s for the greater good. Lovely, I hope you enjoy supporting everyone you don't know personally and it it tickles the ego just enough for you to be happy Believing in healthcare for all isn’t about ego, silly Billy. It’s about decency. accountability should be pre req, simple Who is accountable for coeliac disease? Missing the point massively... I'm talking about poor lifestyle choices, even that has been diluted down to make it sound less offensive. The NHS is a broken service and people who don't care to take reasonable care of themselves are going to end the service completely. Nobody getting help is where it ends I haven't missed the point I have simply stayed on your point of gluten free food on prescription. When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done! No knowledge on individual ailments no, but I don’t need to… People to close the coal face are always a problem when it comes to understanding the wider implications as the truly believe they know it all, through experience in a narrow band role I and my colleagues don't need to know it all. Especially when there are folk like you who know more than NICE "You don’t know it all, and the NHS has been destroyed by poor performance at every level. And we are still paying for it… I do not know any organisation globally that under performs to the level of the NHS and its budget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done! No knowledge on individual ailments no, but I don’t need to… People to close the coal face are always a problem when it comes to understanding the wider implications as the truly believe they know it all, through experience in a narrow band role I and my colleagues don't need to know it all. Especially when there are folk like you who know more than NICE
You don’t know it all, and the NHS has been destroyed by poor performance at every level.
And we are still paying for it… I do not know any organisation globally that under performs to the level of the NHS and its budget."Bless ya. You carry on spouting your anti NHS rhetoric... I'm gonna join the others who have stopped listening (reading obvs). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done! No knowledge on individual ailments no, but I don’t need to… People to close the coal face are always a problem when it comes to understanding the wider implications as the truly believe they know it all, through experience in a narrow band role I and my colleagues don't need to know it all. Especially when there are folk like you who know more than NICE
You don’t know it all, and the NHS has been destroyed by poor performance at every level.
And we are still paying for it… I do not know any organisation globally that under performs to the level of the NHS and its budget.
Bless ya. You carry on spouting your anti NHS rhetoric... I'm gonna join the others who have stopped listening (reading obvs)."Is saying the NHS is on its knees because of bad management 'now Anti-NHS rhetoric'? I don't think there's roo many people who would disagree with him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done! No knowledge on individual ailments no, but I don’t need to… People to close the coal face are always a problem when it comes to understanding the wider implications as the truly believe they know it all, through experience in a narrow band role I and my colleagues don't need to know it all. Especially when there are folk like you who know more than NICE
You don’t know it all, and the NHS has been destroyed by poor performance at every level.
And we are still paying for it… I do not know any organisation globally that under performs to the level of the NHS and its budget.
Bless ya. You carry on spouting your anti NHS rhetoric... I'm gonna join the others who have stopped listening (reading obvs).
Is saying the NHS is on its knees because of bad management 'now Anti-NHS rhetoric'?
I don't think there's roo many people who would disagree with him."When he spouts assumptions against practices that may have research evidence in their favour and save the NHS money in the long run, but won't back it up, yeah. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done! No knowledge on individual ailments no, but I don’t need to… People to close the coal face are always a problem when it comes to understanding the wider implications as the truly believe they know it all, through experience in a narrow band role I and my colleagues don't need to know it all. Especially when there are folk like you who know more than NICE
You don’t know it all, and the NHS has been destroyed by poor performance at every level.
And we are still paying for it… I do not know any organisation globally that under performs to the level of the NHS and its budget.
Bless ya. You carry on spouting your anti NHS rhetoric... I'm gonna join the others who have stopped listening (reading obvs).
Is saying the NHS is on its knees because of bad management 'now Anti-NHS rhetoric'?
I don't think there's roo many people who would disagree with him.
When he spouts assumptions against practices that may have research evidence in their favour and save the NHS money in the long run, but won't back it up, yeah."You mean the gluten free food prescriptions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... When research provides evidence that spending x money for preventative measures saves xx money on treatment, the NHS promotes the expenditure (even paying GPs to do so). Spending money on preventative measures saves money, I'm not disputing. What I'm questioning is how the never ending bottomless pit of money is actually spent in the NHS and gluten free food being prescribed pretty much sums up how mismanaged the NHS is. But you are not saying why. Do you even know what coeliac disease is? And what the doctors are trying to prevent? I suggest you Google the topic within NICE. I’m not interested in individual items as you mention, it’s not my area of expertise. What I am interested in is senior people making the right choices on where money is spent, and the example you gave and supported on gluten free food on prescription is an example of this. So maybe the senior people have looked into the matter and decided that this was the right choice on where money should be spent? And more likely they haven’t… or the NHS wouldn’t be in such a bad place. So you admit you're basing your opinion on something you have no knowledge on. Well done! No knowledge on individual ailments no, but I don’t need to… People to close the coal face are always a problem when it comes to understanding the wider implications as the truly believe they know it all, through experience in a narrow band role I and my colleagues don't need to know it all. Especially when there are folk like you who know more than NICE
You don’t know it all, and the NHS has been destroyed by poor performance at every level.
And we are still paying for it… I do not know any organisation globally that under performs to the level of the NHS and its budget.
Bless ya. You carry on spouting your anti NHS rhetoric... I'm gonna join the others who have stopped listening (reading obvs).
Is saying the NHS is on its knees because of bad management 'now Anti-NHS rhetoric'?
I don't think there's roo many people who would disagree with him.
When he spouts assumptions against practices that may have research evidence in their favour and save the NHS money in the long run, but won't back it up, yeah."You said you hadn't missed the point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Happy Birthday NHS. 75 years and that’s just the waiting lists. Boom boom. Won’t make it to 100 though. " That actually did make me laugh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
