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 |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
If it can somehow survive in the short term then for the longer term it needs a shift to a proactive approach to people's health. Yearly health check-ups. Challenging attitudes that obesity is okay, pressure to stop people using their cars for every little journey, support and encouragement to getting and keeping people active, cutting the shit from diets, tackling substance abuse and the causes etc. etc.
Doubtful much if any of that will happen but an ageing population that's increasingly overweight, weak and inactive is the nightmare that's already happening. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I think Wes Streeting is on the right lines with increasing focus on prevention rather than cure. Things like obesity, alcohol and smoking are huge health issues and I would plough a shed load of the money that is currently going into the NHS to improving sports, activity and nutrition work." Spot on. I believe the uk has a problem with the drinking and fast food culture more than anywhere else in western europe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article where starmer said that the nhs have to be "reformed or die" in a speech he had in london, he have a plan and said how we have a choice about how it should meet these rising demands, like raise taxes on working people to meet the ever higher costs of an ageing population, to name some of the things of it. What is your view, can the nhs be saved, or is it to late? I think that there is a chance it can be saved too "I had the experience of the alternative- private healthcare and insurance in the USA is no joke - it’s evil - I witnessed an American colleague with good health insurance through the company face bankruptcy from his wife’s pre-existing condition - he will be in debt for the rest of his life. 3 mortgages on his property.. Read Amazon USA reviews for pet drugs like antibiotics- most of them are by people that are helping others that also cannot afford ‘human’ drugs. When they are reviewing aquatic drugs and referring to ‘their little fishies’ … they are referring to their children. We have to fight corporate greed and their desperation to destroy our NHS. Fight for it.. the alternative is horrifying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article where starmer said that the nhs have to be "reformed or die" in a speech he had in london, he have a plan and said how we have a choice about how it should meet these rising demands, like raise taxes on working people to meet the ever higher costs of an ageing population, to name some of the things of it. What is your view, can the nhs be saved, or is it to late? I think that there is a chance it can be saved too "I'm no Starmer fan but the first step in fixing a problem is to admit there's a problem. Something that so many people are reluctant to do because of some inexplicable link to this nebulous thing called the nhs and which means different things to everyone. But no... It can't be saved and not should it. I'm encouraged to hear him say no more money until reforms are made. Our NHS is a disgrace and has been for too long. It's good to hear it finally admitted and that reforms are necessary. Let's see what he is able to do about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the NHS is a victim of its own success and the more you feed the beast the bigger its appetite gets. In order for the NHS to survive it needs radical and probably unpalatable surgery of its own. " Probably right. But the first thing to do is break the emotional link to it. Call it something else as a starter. Then look at how to be and stay healthy and do healthy things... Ban all fast food, do something meaningful to reduce the demand... Once that's done rebuild it to meet today's and tomorrows needs not those from 70byears ago. And for fucks sake stop putting obstacles in the way of accessing services. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy." Yes, they should think of the long term too  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS does need more funding, something the government can do. How about stopping those in parliament claim for everything and anything they can, take back control of the private sector and run this country like an actual country. Stop hiring "problem solvers" who will take £250k for a year to go it's fucked. " Yes, the nhs needs more funding too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy." You do not want the NHS breaking anymore than it currently is, if you think car insurance companies are terrible wait until you have to deal with health insurance, think of going without that will be £3000 if something breaks never mind surgery. That Americanised system will be worst than this winter fuel fiasco if it’s brought in. You are correct that multiple wrong turns over the past 50 years have caused this, got rid of the skilled expensive older labour force for cheap younger unskilled or overseas cheap labour for maximum profits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. You do not want the NHS breaking anymore than it currently is, if you think car insurance companies are terrible wait until you have to deal with health insurance, think of going without that will be £3000 if something breaks never mind surgery. That Americanised system will be worst than this winter fuel fiasco if it’s brought in. You are correct that multiple wrong turns over the past 50 years have caused this, got rid of the skilled expensive older labour force for cheap younger unskilled or overseas cheap labour for maximum profits. " This is always the scare tactic misinformation that is used. It's clumsy. Much like the nhs must stay, nhs good, anything else bad type message mnay people seem wedded to. The nhs generally is awful now and unfit for purpose. The recent report says so. The best healthcare systems are not based on the nhs. Why would we not follow best practise? The nhs was world leading 50 years ago. Now it isn't. Time to move on to something better. It's needlessly costing people's lives. That's borderline negligence as everyone knows it is happening. Which civilised country treats patients in corridors and makes them wait in pain without even seeing a Dr for days.? Save the best bits thst are functioning as intended and find a better way for the rest. More than anything strategies around reducing demand in the first place. And make it available easily rather than build obstacles to access. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I’d rather pay insurance and know I am going to get treated " So stop using all NHS services now then and go private if you can afford it. There's many people who don't have that option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I’d rather pay insurance and know I am going to get treated " On the one hand I agree but I hope you do not have any pre-existing or historical conditions, hereditary conditions, or lifestyle related risk factors (smoking, drinking, dangerous sports etc) because you won’t get those covered | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I’d rather pay insurance and know I am going to get treated So stop using all NHS services now then and go private if you can afford it. There's many people who don't have that option." Stop using it? Depending on what you are trying to access people have ready stopped using it as so many obstacles are put in the way. It's obviously not easy or it would have been solved by now. But finally admitting it's broken is a good start to fixing "it" whatever "it" is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I’d rather pay insurance and know I am going to get treated " National insurance? Does make me laugh all the talk of it being 'free'. Where do people think the funding comes from? For people with chronic conditions, prescription charges, car park fees etc. are essentially an additional tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only hope for the NHS is some degree of privatisation in a hybrid model. Finally, we seem to have a PM who recognises the NHS is broken and is prepared to admit it. Kudos. But despite appalling levels of service, much of the general public remain wedded to the notion of a 'free' public healthcare system. Without fundamental change, things won't get better." Well indeed. At least there is a chance that now a proper grown up debate can happen. Let's hope so otherwise the next generation are completely fucked. Basically paying 11% of income for not very much. "In 2022 the United Kingdom spent 11.3% of GDP on health, just above the average for comparable countries. Bar chart showing GDP spend on health, starting with USA at 16.6%, then UK in the middle at 11.3% and Ireland at the lowest at 6.1%." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy." Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The NHS can be saved but it needs to look radically different to what it is now. _Everyone_ will need to change the way they work in and use the NHS - the politicians, management, clinical staff and us. I think Wes Streeting is on the right lines with increasing focus on prevention rather than cure. Things like obesity, alcohol and smoking are huge health issues and I would plough a shed load of the money that is currently going into the NHS to improving sports, activity and nutrition work." Plans for obesity were formulated and scrapped by the previous govt. It is such a different issue to alcohol and cigarettes and needs multifactorial approaches. And NOT let the food industry affect policies according to the donations they make to the incumbent party (me cynical?  ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Makes me laugh. The NHS has apparently been dying on its knees every year since I was a kid, and guess what it's still as brilliant as ever. Spent 12 happy years working for them in the past, and it's the best working environment I've ever worked in, and guess what, it wasn't on its knees dying. The media do love to whip stuff up! Mr F. " My experience over 26 years as an employee is totally different. Then as a failed patient! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the NHS is a victim of its own success and the more you feed the beast the bigger its appetite gets. In order for the NHS to survive it needs radical and probably unpalatable surgery of its own. Probably right. But the first thing to do is break the emotional link to it. Call it something else as a starter. Then look at how to be and stay healthy and do healthy things... Ban all fast food, do something meaningful to reduce the demand... Once that's done rebuild it to meet today's and tomorrows needs not those from 70byears ago. And for fucks sake stop putting obstacles in the way of accessing services. " So you want the huge industry of takeaways and restaurants removed? That's harsh. I'd like legislation to improve contents. I've said this about processed foods, per 100g foods have maximum percentage of saturated fats, carbs that sugar, salt, and trans fats maximum in cooking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. You do not want the NHS breaking anymore than it currently is, if you think car insurance companies are terrible wait until you have to deal with health insurance, think of going without that will be £3000 if something breaks never mind surgery. That Americanised system will be worst than this winter fuel fiasco if it’s brought in. You are correct that multiple wrong turns over the past 50 years have caused this, got rid of the skilled expensive older labour force for cheap younger unskilled or overseas cheap labour for maximum profits. " Elaborate on what you mean by the last paragraph. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fuck knows if it can be saved have had surgery cancelled twice in the last year,most recent was 3 weeks ago,ended up in hospital beginning of 2022 and had two lots of emergancy surgery and spent a month in there, cant knock how you are treated in an emergancy because they looked after me really well, but it does seem if it aint an emergancy the nhs is pretty useless,and forget trying to contact anyone there, its always we will get someine to call you back that never happens" It costs more (financial and people cost) to treat via emergency surgery than an elective operation. It's appalling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I’d rather pay insurance and know I am going to get treated National insurance? Does make me laugh all the talk of it being 'free'. Where do people think the funding comes from? For people with chronic conditions, prescription charges, car park fees etc. are essentially an additional tax." Some chronic conditions are treated with free prescriptions. Car parking fees because twats sold the lease or land to private parking companies. National Insurance no longer funds the nhs or pensions. Perhaps bring that back purely for nhs and people can see the costs. Joining NI with income tax then dishing out to all pots in need possibly hides the reduced funding? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I’d rather pay insurance and know I am going to get treated National insurance? Does make me laugh all the talk of it being 'free'. Where do people think the funding comes from? For people with chronic conditions, prescription charges, car park fees etc. are essentially an additional tax. Some chronic conditions are treated with free prescriptions. Car parking fees because twats sold the lease or land to private parking companies. National Insurance no longer funds the nhs or pensions. Perhaps bring that back purely for nhs and people can see the costs. Joining NI with income tax then dishing out to all pots in need possibly hides the reduced funding?" Somebody should inform the king: "The vast majority of public NHS funding comes from general taxation and National Insurance contributions." (From The King's Fund) I think we'd all like to see the costs, including Sir Keir.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I’d rather pay insurance and know I am going to get treated " Haha, you’re a fool if you think that. Some of the most serious and complicated surgeries will be using NHS assets and capabilities - there isn’t the infrastructure because the private healthcare companies are all about profit and won’t invest because the Investment Return isn’t there. So many of my friends and colleagues in the USA were fucked by health insurance. Wives or Kids being tossed out because of healthcare exclusions or pre-existing conditions. Plus big pharma are going to fucking screw you for cost of even basic drugs when NHS price negotiation gets booted out. If you have something long term and expensive private healthcare will do anything to get rid of you. It’s like have a safety rope tied to you, feels good, looks good… but when it’s needed you find the other end isn’t tied to anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Nope I’d rather pay insurance and know I am going to get treated National insurance? Does make me laugh all the talk of it being 'free'. Where do people think the funding comes from? For people with chronic conditions, prescription charges, car park fees etc. are essentially an additional tax. Some chronic conditions are treated with free prescriptions. Car parking fees because twats sold the lease or land to private parking companies. National Insurance no longer funds the nhs or pensions. Perhaps bring that back purely for nhs and people can see the costs. Joining NI with income tax then dishing out to all pots in need possibly hides the reduced funding? Somebody should inform the king: "The vast majority of public NHS funding comes from general taxation and National Insurance contributions." (From The King's Fund) I think we'd all like to see the costs, including Sir Keir.. " You got the point though, that it all goes into one big pot? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who works within the NHS or knows someone who does will probably know exactly why it's in trouble. The red tape and bureaucracy involved is just ridiculous, much like the police front line staff too busy doing admin work and ensuring that the silly policies put in place are followed. Right example. You have a problem,can't get through to your GP or get an appointment they advise you to contact 111 if needed,so you contact 111 who doesn't operate with commonsense but by a series of questions which usually are designed not to help you but to protect themselves from an incorrect diagnosis,so the default response is go to A&E. They give you an appointment for said service,you turn up and end up waiting minimum 8 hrs usually longer to eventually be told a course of antibiotics will suffice, something that previously an out of hours GP could have prescribed over the phone within an hour. How much time and valuable resources has been wasted getting to this point? Elderly patients in care homes, unwilling to take responsibility so they blue light them with an ambulance that ends up sitting outside A&E for 8 hrs waiting for a spot then because they then have to have a bed because transport isn't available after a certain time are then admitted to hospital, the care home refuses to take them back until we'll enough or they die meanwhile that's a bed being taken, because they should treat people in the care homes and take responsibility for their care. We have a blame culture everyone is too scared to take ownership for stuff or make decisions based on experience so everything has to follow this expensive unnecessary response for minor issues, whilst genuinely sick people are dying because of lack of resources. Get rid of online GP consultation,get rid of 111 online and the questionnaire. Start treating people by people not computers and give people the ability to make decisions." Care homes = residential or nursing. Residential will not take medical responsibility - they cannot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed." No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who works within the NHS or knows someone who does will probably know exactly why it's in trouble. The red tape and bureaucracy involved is just ridiculous, much like the police front line staff too busy doing admin work and ensuring that the silly policies put in place are followed. Right example. You have a problem,can't get through to your GP or get an appointment they advise you to contact 111 if needed,so you contact 111 who doesn't operate with commonsense but by a series of questions which usually are designed not to help you but to protect themselves from an incorrect diagnosis,so the default response is go to A&E. They give you an appointment for said service,you turn up and end up waiting minimum 8 hrs usually longer to eventually be told a course of antibiotics will suffice, something that previously an out of hours GP could have prescribed over the phone within an hour. How much time and valuable resources has been wasted getting to this point? Elderly patients in care homes, unwilling to take responsibility so they blue light them with an ambulance that ends up sitting outside A&E for 8 hrs waiting for a spot then because they then have to have a bed because transport isn't available after a certain time are then admitted to hospital, the care home refuses to take them back until we'll enough or they die meanwhile that's a bed being taken, because they should treat people in the care homes and take responsibility for their care. We have a blame culture everyone is too scared to take ownership for stuff or make decisions based on experience so everything has to follow this expensive unnecessary response for minor issues, whilst genuinely sick people are dying because of lack of resources. Get rid of online GP consultation,get rid of 111 online and the questionnaire. Start treating people by people not computers and give people the ability to make decisions. Care homes = residential or nursing. Residential will not take medical responsibility - they cannot." Residential will be a thing of the past within a few years for council run homes. Most are being demolished and rebuilt because they don't meet current requirements for door sizes and ensuite etc... Also why can't they take responsibility they have medical staff onsite and have doctors visit daily ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You got the point though, that it all goes into one big pot?" I did get that point yes. However so far as I'm aware, you're not correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who works within the NHS or knows someone who does will probably know exactly why it's in trouble. The red tape and bureaucracy involved is just ridiculous, much like the police front line staff too busy doing admin work and ensuring that the silly policies put in place are followed. Right example. You have a problem,can't get through to your GP or get an appointment they advise you to contact 111 if needed,so you contact 111 who doesn't operate with commonsense but by a series of questions which usually are designed not to help you but to protect themselves from an incorrect diagnosis,so the default response is go to A&E. They give you an appointment for said service,you turn up and end up waiting minimum 8 hrs usually longer to eventually be told a course of antibiotics will suffice, something that previously an out of hours GP could have prescribed over the phone within an hour. How much time and valuable resources has been wasted getting to this point? Elderly patients in care homes, unwilling to take responsibility so they blue light them with an ambulance that ends up sitting outside A&E for 8 hrs waiting for a spot then because they then have to have a bed because transport isn't available after a certain time are then admitted to hospital, the care home refuses to take them back until we'll enough or they die meanwhile that's a bed being taken, because they should treat people in the care homes and take responsibility for their care. We have a blame culture everyone is too scared to take ownership for stuff or make decisions based on experience so everything has to follow this expensive unnecessary response for minor issues, whilst genuinely sick people are dying because of lack of resources. Get rid of online GP consultation,get rid of 111 online and the questionnaire. Start treating people by people not computers and give people the ability to make decisions. Care homes = residential or nursing. Residential will not take medical responsibility - they cannot. Residential will be a thing of the past within a few years for council run homes. Most are being demolished and rebuilt because they don't meet current requirements for door sizes and ensuite etc... Also why can't they take responsibility they have medical staff onsite and have doctors visit daily ?" Residential care homes don't. You're possibly conflating with nursing homes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. " Hinchingbrooke Hospital. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You got the point though, that it all goes into one big pot? I did get that point yes. However so far as I'm aware, you're not correct." National Insurance contributions count towards the benefits and pensions... From .gov | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You got the point though, that it all goes into one big pot? I did get that point yes. However so far as I'm aware, you're not correct. National Insurance contributions count towards the benefits and pensions... From .gov" Oh, that's weird because somebody earlier in the thread had said: "National Insurance no longer funds the nhs or pensions." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You got the point though, that it all goes into one big pot? I did get that point yes. However so far as I'm aware, you're not correct. National Insurance contributions count towards the benefits and pensions... From .gov" Not quite. Paying NIC for a period of time entitles a person to claim a state pension. However, the money collected through NIC is not ring fenced and instead does just go into the big HM Treasury “pot”. That is why, for example, when Sunak/Hunt reduced NIC in the last budget, it had no impact on pensions or the NHS budget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You got the point though, that it all goes into one big pot? I did get that point yes. However so far as I'm aware, you're not correct. National Insurance contributions count towards the benefits and pensions... From .gov Oh, that's weird because somebody earlier in the thread had said: National Insurance no longer funds the nhs or pensions. " Yes and no. NI contributions are just another tax and are spent immediately on state-supplied services. They are not set aside in a pot or investments for a future date. In that sense pensions are a Ponzi scheme, underwritten by no tangible assets whatsoever. The unique thing that makes the system work is the governments statutory rights to levy taxes. So today's 10 year-olds will pay our pensions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You got the point though, that it all goes into one big pot? I did get that point yes. However so far as I'm aware, you're not correct. National Insurance contributions count towards the benefits and pensions... From .gov Oh, that's weird because somebody earlier in the thread had said: National Insurance no longer funds the nhs or pensions. " I have read that in the past. Always good to provide evidence and the evidence states what NI does pay for. Doesn't pay for nhs! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You got the point though, that it all goes into one big pot? I did get that point yes. However so far as I'm aware, you're not correct. National Insurance contributions count towards the benefits and pensions... From .gov Oh, that's weird because somebody earlier in the thread had said: National Insurance no longer funds the nhs or pensions. Yes and no. NI contributions are just another tax and are spent immediately on state-supplied services. They are not set aside in a pot or investments for a future date. In that sense pensions are a Ponzi scheme, underwritten by no tangible assets whatsoever. The unique thing that makes the system work is the governments statutory rights to levy taxes. So today's 10 year-olds will pay our pensions." In a pot is metaphorical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. Hinchingbrooke Hospital." What about it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. Hinchingbrooke Hospital. What about it? " Answering your question of where. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. Hinchingbrooke Hospital. What about it? Answering your question of where. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956" The company which became the first private firm to manage an NHS hospital says it wants to "withdraw from its contract". Circle Holdings which operates Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire, said its franchise is "no longer viable under current terms". The move comes amid pressure on the casualty department, Circle said. The hospital has also been placed in special measures following a recent Care Quality Commission inspection., external The health watchdog announced on Friday it rated Hinchingbrooke "inadequate", highlighting particular concerns over accident and emergency and medical care. Prof Sir Mike Richards, the commission's chief inspector of hospitals, said: "We have given the trust an overall rating of 'inadequate' and I have made a recommendation the trust is placed into special measures. 'Significant failings' "Our inspection highlighted a number of serious concerns surrounding staffing and risks to patient safety particularly in the A&E department and medical care. "There were substantial and frequent staff shortages in the A&E department. There were a number of other areas of concern, some of which related to the way in which the trust is led and run." He added the findings "highlight the significant failings at Hinchingbrooke hospital". He said: "They are not a judgment on the role of the private sector in the NHS or on franchise arrangements. Where hospitals are failing to promote good care, we will say so regardless of who owns and runs them." Circle took on Hinchingbrooke in early 2012, as it faced closure. 'Unsustainable' It said there had been unprecedented increases in accident and emergency attendances, a lack of care places for patients awaiting discharge, and that funding had been cut by 10.1% this financial year. Circle has made payments to the trust totalling about £4.84m and could be required to make a final support payment of approximately £160,000, the firm said. Under the terms of its 10-year contract, it has the right to end the franchise if the amount of money it has to put in to the trust exceeds £5m. Chief Executive Steve Melton said: "This combination of factors means we have now reluctantly concluded that, in its existing form, Circle's involvement in Hinchingbrooke is unsustainable." Circle chairman Michael Kirkwood said the decision had been made "with regret and after considerable thought". The GMB Union said the Circle takeover had been a "disaster waiting to happen when you get the private sector involved in running a hospital". Spokesman Steve Sweeney said: "It's not overly surprising to see them try to pack their bags, cut loose and walk away. "Obviously having the major backers walk away leaves [the hospital] in a very vulnerable position .... we're hoping that there's some planning in place to aid and assist that." A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "There will now be a "managed transfer of the running of the trust and patient care will not be affected." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. Hinchingbrooke Hospital. What about it? Answering your question of where. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956" Oh I see thanks. But one example of a poorly privatised hospital should not rule out privatisation of other hospitals or indeed the other areas of the NHS. Hospitals are a part of the NHS but not all of the NHS. The hospital example could be used to learn from mistakes and do it better. I'm not an advocate for privatisation by the way. But I am for clear thinking without dogma and of it's the best way to do something then choose the best way. As for "privatisation" what does that even mean? Most thrown it around like some kind of swear word without very much understanding of what it means, and it can mean many different things. But ruling out all privatisation because of one example of something that was done badly isn't particularly clever. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. Hinchingbrooke Hospital. What about it? Answering your question of where. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956 Oh I see thanks. But one example of a poorly privatised hospital should not rule out privatisation of other hospitals or indeed the other areas of the NHS. Hospitals are a part of the NHS but not all of the NHS. The hospital example could be used to learn from mistakes and do it better. I'm not an advocate for privatisation by the way. But I am for clear thinking without dogma and of it's the best way to do something then choose the best way. As for "privatisation" what does that even mean? Most thrown it around like some kind of swear word without very much understanding of what it means, and it can mean many different things. But ruling out all privatisation because of one example of something that was done badly isn't particularly clever. " I've already stated the nhs is a hybrid of public and private but needs to be done better. I'm merely ruling out total privatisation. As for the example, I think it clearly shows healthcare is not an area for making a profit. It's hard enough just to make things meet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. Hinchingbrooke Hospital. What about it? Answering your question of where. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956 Oh I see thanks. But one example of a poorly privatised hospital should not rule out privatisation of other hospitals or indeed the other areas of the NHS. Hospitals are a part of the NHS but not all of the NHS. The hospital example could be used to learn from mistakes and do it better. I'm not an advocate for privatisation by the way. But I am for clear thinking without dogma and of it's the best way to do something then choose the best way. As for "privatisation" what does that even mean? Most thrown it around like some kind of swear word without very much understanding of what it means, and it can mean many different things. But ruling out all privatisation because of one example of something that was done badly isn't particularly clever. I've already stated the nhs is a hybrid of public and private but needs to be done better. I'm merely ruling out total privatisation. As for the example, I think it clearly shows healthcare is not an area for making a profit. It's hard enough just to make things meet. " Yes you're ruling something out based on the failure of one hospital. Which I guess is less than 1 % of the nhs and it's customers. That's not a great argument. It doesn't cleatly show anything of the sort. I'm not arguing for it. I'm arguing for clear thinking and open minds free from dogma to solve an incredibly difficult situation. Of all things I'd be looking at how health services are delivered in the countries who do it very well. Whether that is public private or however it's structured. What can very clearly be evidenced is that the way we have tried to do it doesn't work by any kind of metric. The most appalling of which is the 100s of people dying each and every week because it's so bad. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. Hinchingbrooke Hospital. What about it? Answering your question of where. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956 Oh I see thanks. But one example of a poorly privatised hospital should not rule out privatisation of other hospitals or indeed the other areas of the NHS. Hospitals are a part of the NHS but not all of the NHS. The hospital example could be used to learn from mistakes and do it better. I'm not an advocate for privatisation by the way. But I am for clear thinking without dogma and of it's the best way to do something then choose the best way. As for "privatisation" what does that even mean? Most thrown it around like some kind of swear word without very much understanding of what it means, and it can mean many different things. But ruling out all privatisation because of one example of something that was done badly isn't particularly clever. I've already stated the nhs is a hybrid of public and private but needs to be done better. I'm merely ruling out total privatisation. As for the example, I think it clearly shows healthcare is not an area for making a profit. It's hard enough just to make things meet. " I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Taxes as a percentage of income are at their highest rates since 1948, and that's with the previous government. The issues are poor decision making over the last 50 years. - Failed privatisation experiment of key infrastructure. - Selling of assets such as social housing, increasing rental costs as housing benefit. - Poor social care provision for the elderly leading to rising private care costs. - Destruction of manufacturing leading to a deficit in skilled work, lowering wages for masses of people. - Credit and housing bubbles to cover the cracks. - Bailouts to facilitate the continuation of the problem. - Rising debt due to bailouts and all of the above. We sold off all our assets for short-term gain. And now we are paying the price of squandering that money, instead of reinvesting it for future generations. And that generation is going to be royally pissed off. £100k debt to go to uni, minimum wage jobs at the end of it. Housing prices through the roof. Insecure employment. Why would they care about an NHS when that is disproportionately utilised by those who have screwed them over? They should think about the long-term? Why when the generation before has done the exact opposite and to their detrimental. The NHS is already privatised and is now just a front to filter tax money into private hands, a gigantic cash cow. Just like we have done to telecoms, water and energy. Re last paragraph, the nhs is a hybrid. This hybrid of private and public needs greater improvement to meet our present and future needs. To completely privatise the nhs is a no no! It has been trialled and failed. No. Throwing out the idea of privatisation just because it's privatisation is foolish. Just because it's been tried and failed (when and where was that by the way?) doesn't rule it out. Poor implementation and execution 40 years ago doesn't mean it's not the answer now and in the future. It's just clumsy crayon thinking. Apart from anything the nhs is so nebulous it's ambitious to say the least, to think that one funding model would be suitable for all times to all dimensions of it. It would be sensible however to have an idea of just how much a proper health car system costs in other comparable countries who seem to be able to do it an awful lot better than us. Hinchingbrooke Hospital. What about it? Answering your question of where. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956 Oh I see thanks. But one example of a poorly privatised hospital should not rule out privatisation of other hospitals or indeed the other areas of the NHS. Hospitals are a part of the NHS but not all of the NHS. The hospital example could be used to learn from mistakes and do it better. I'm not an advocate for privatisation by the way. But I am for clear thinking without dogma and of it's the best way to do something then choose the best way. As for "privatisation" what does that even mean? Most thrown it around like some kind of swear word without very much understanding of what it means, and it can mean many different things. But ruling out all privatisation because of one example of something that was done badly isn't particularly clever. I've already stated the nhs is a hybrid of public and private but needs to be done better. I'm merely ruling out total privatisation. As for the example, I think it clearly shows healthcare is not an area for making a profit. It's hard enough just to make things meet. Yes you're ruling something out based on the failure of one hospital. Which I guess is less than 1 % of the nhs and it's customers. That's not a great argument. It doesn't cleatly show anything of the sort. I'm not arguing for it. I'm arguing for clear thinking and open minds free from dogma to solve an incredibly difficult situation. Of all things I'd be looking at how health services are delivered in the countries who do it very well. Whether that is public private or however it's structured. What can very clearly be evidenced is that the way we have tried to do it doesn't work by any kind of metric. The most appalling of which is the 100s of people dying each and every week because it's so bad. " I've said the same thing myself about looking at other healthcare systems that are successful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article where starmer said that the nhs have to be "reformed or die" in a speech he had in london, he have a plan and said how we have a choice about how it should meet these rising demands, like raise taxes on working people to meet the ever higher costs of an ageing population, to name some of the things of it. What is your view, can the nhs be saved, or is it to late? I think that there is a chance it can be saved too "In terms familiar to the NHS, my answer will be provided within a similar time as that of an Emergency Ambulance. Getting an Ambulance today is somewhat similar to the Witch trials of the 1700's. - Dunk the bitch under water for 3 hours and if she is still breathing then she is a witch, if she is dead, she was innocent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well." Does working perfectly well include drugs that are unaffordable? Profiting from the misfortune and misery of others never seems quite right. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well. Does working perfectly well include drugs that are unaffordable? Profiting from the misfortune and misery of others never seems quite right." You could equally see it as profiting from alleviating misfortune and misery of others. That's why people go into pharmaceutical research. It's private enterprise that gets things done! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well. Does working perfectly well include drugs that are unaffordable? Profiting from the misfortune and misery of others never seems quite right." You could count numerous industries as "profiting from misfortune of others" And healthcare being run by government doesn't mean no one is profiting. We still pay money. It just fills different pockets differently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well. Does working perfectly well include drugs that are unaffordable? Profiting from the misfortune and misery of others never seems quite right." On the flip side, how many groundbreaking treatments have been developed and introduced by businesses hoping to profit. Without the prospect of profit would they have perused the course they did ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well. Does working perfectly well include drugs that are unaffordable? Profiting from the misfortune and misery of others never seems quite right." So people should work for free in the health service? Dr's surgeons consultants should all not be paid? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well. Does working perfectly well include drugs that are unaffordable? Profiting from the misfortune and misery of others never seems quite right." What about "Profiting" from the health and happiness of others? How does that sit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well. Does working perfectly well include drugs that are unaffordable? Profiting from the misfortune and misery of others never seems quite right. On the flip side, how many groundbreaking treatments have been developed and introduced by businesses hoping to profit. Without the prospect of profit would they have perused the course they did ?" Perused  , wtf, PURSUED | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article where starmer said that the nhs have to be "reformed or die" in a speech he had in london, he have a plan and said how we have a choice about how it should meet these rising demands, like raise taxes on working people to meet the ever higher costs of an ageing population, to name some of the things of it. What is your view, can the nhs be saved, or is it to late? I think that there is a chance it can be saved too "It's fooked. They've got plenty money, they just waste too much on bureaucracy. And the ageing native people aren't the problem, it's the foreign Johnnies being imported to replace said native population. Stand by for the lefty, pro migrant,Palestinian te**orist supporters to burst a blood vessel at this one. Oh, btw, seeing as it's prom season ,is anyone triggered by Land of Hope and Glory? I personally think it should be our National Anthem. I LOVE IT. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided." You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care." Do you still think the state sector cares? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Do you still think the state sector cares?" The NHS will treat hereditary or pre-existing conditions along with lifestyle related conditions. Try getting health insurance to cover any of that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Do you still think the state sector cares?" I think the workers providing treatment and care do. The private sector are only interested in the in and out type of treatment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree about a hybrid model, but why can't profit be compatible with healthcare provision? Medicine is transactional in many countries, and works perfectly well. Does working perfectly well include drugs that are unaffordable? Profiting from the misfortune and misery of others never seems quite right. What about "Profiting" from the health and happiness of others? How does that sit? " It sits like bullshit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care." You mean like the NHS care? Two year waiting lists? Weeks to see a GP? Postcode lottery treatments? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care." Why wouldn't they be interested? There are numerous countries with private healthcare sectors which treat long term health conditions as well. It just costs a bit of money if you pay directly. If you get a health insurance, the insurance premium is higher. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Why wouldn't they be interested? There are numerous countries with private healthcare sectors which treat long term health conditions as well. It just costs a bit of money if you pay directly. If you get a health insurance, the insurance premium is higher." That is a bit hand wavey. The law/legislation would have to change to ensure in the UK that pre-existing and hereditary conditions could not either prevent you getting insurance or moving provider or seeing dramatic increases in premiums. Currently in the UK health insurance companies can refuse to provide cover for pre-existing and hereditary conditions or will charge a king’s ransom to provide cover. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Do you still think the state sector cares? The NHS will treat hereditary or pre-existing conditions along with lifestyle related conditions. Try getting health insurance to cover any of that "They treat it because they have no choice. It's state run. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Do you still think the state sector cares? The NHS will treat hereditary or pre-existing conditions along with lifestyle related conditions. Try getting health insurance to cover any of that
They treat it because they have no choice. It's state run."And your point is? Actually you’ve proven my point. The NHS is therefore a good thing as they do not discriminate based on health history or wealth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Do you still think the state sector cares? The NHS will treat hereditary or pre-existing conditions along with lifestyle related conditions. Try getting health insurance to cover any of that
They treat it because they have no choice. It's state run.
And your point is? Actually you’ve proven my point. The NHS is therefore a good thing as they do not discriminate based on health history or wealth "Private sector doesn't discriminate. It's a business. Why shouldn't it be? If we ran the nhs like a business it might work. You know, if you don't contribute you don't use it. See where I'm going yet? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Do you still think the state sector cares? The NHS will treat hereditary or pre-existing conditions along with lifestyle related conditions. Try getting health insurance to cover any of that
They treat it because they have no choice. It's state run.
And your point is? Actually you’ve proven my point. The NHS is therefore a good thing as they do not discriminate based on health history or wealth "No, fair play, they don't discriminate - everybody gets the same crap service. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Why wouldn't they be interested? There are numerous countries with private healthcare sectors which treat long term health conditions as well. It just costs a bit of money if you pay directly. If you get a health insurance, the insurance premium is higher. That is a bit hand wavey. The law/legislation would have to change to ensure in the UK that pre-existing and hereditary conditions could not either prevent you getting insurance or moving provider or seeing dramatic increases in premiums. Currently in the UK health insurance companies can refuse to provide cover for pre-existing and hereditary conditions or will charge a king’s ransom to provide cover." What's hand wavey? There are many countries which do provide insurance cover for pre-existing conditions. As I told, the premiums are higher. Every service has a cost and someone has to pay for it. It applies to NHS too. It's not a free service. The question is who runs the service and who pays the cost. If a patient is willing to pay more money for the treatment or pay higher premiums, there is no reason why private healthcare cannot provide such treatment while NHS can. With NHS, tax payers pay that money. With private healthcare, the person who has the condition pays the money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hilarious that after the state of public transport, the water companies, electric suppliers etc. etc. there are still people who throw the 'run it like a business' argument around. " Is the state of NHS any better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Why wouldn't they be interested? There are numerous countries with private healthcare sectors which treat long term health conditions as well. It just costs a bit of money if you pay directly. If you get a health insurance, the insurance premium is higher. That is a bit hand wavey. The law/legislation would have to change to ensure in the UK that pre-existing and hereditary conditions could not either prevent you getting insurance or moving provider or seeing dramatic increases in premiums. Currently in the UK health insurance companies can refuse to provide cover for pre-existing and hereditary conditions or will charge a king’s ransom to provide cover. What's hand wavey? There are many countries which do provide insurance cover for pre-existing conditions. As I told, the premiums are higher. Every service has a cost and someone has to pay for it. It applies to NHS too. It's not a free service. The question is who runs the service and who pays the cost. If a patient is willing to pay more money for the treatment or pay higher premiums, there is no reason why private healthcare cannot provide such treatment while NHS can. With NHS, tax payers pay that money. With private healthcare, the person who has the condition pays the money. " I didn’t need you to explain something that is universally understood thanks
Who said it was free? However, it is free at the point of use regardless of the cost and regardless of what you as an individual have contributed in tax.
As for your point on other countries…errr yes I know which is why I said “The law/legislation would have to change…” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hilarious that after the state of public transport, the water companies, electric suppliers etc. etc. there are still people who throw the 'run it like a business' argument around. Is the state of NHS any better?" Probably not. Maybe one of those water companies should take over it? What about Branson? He must have some free time these days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The first step is to break the NHS down into smaller units. It has become way to big and unmanageable. Smaller units would be more efficient and mitigate against the risk of the entire healthcare system failing. Each unit could be fully or partly privatised according to the services provided. You think the private sector would care/treat the many with long term conditions? They are not interested in that sort of care. Do you still think the state sector cares? The NHS will treat hereditary or pre-existing conditions along with lifestyle related conditions. Try getting health insurance to cover any of that
They treat it because they have no choice. It's state run.
And your point is? Actually you’ve proven my point. The NHS is therefore a good thing as they do not discriminate based on health history or wealth
Private sector doesn't discriminate. It's a business. Why shouldn't it be?
If we ran the nhs like a business it might work. You know, if you don't contribute you don't use it. See where I'm going yet?"Yeah and I think your point is bollox
I think ALL British citizens regardless of their financial position should have access to healthcare. I think you should not be disadvantaged because you have a hereditary condition or pre-existing condition.
So if legislation can be passed to make that discrimination (ie higher premiums or refused cover) illegal then a private insurance model will work fine as long as poor people also get access (so how will that work if they can’t pay premiums?) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hilarious that after the state of public transport, the water companies, electric suppliers etc. etc. there are still people who throw the 'run it like a business' argument around. Is the state of NHS any better? Probably not. Maybe one of those water companies should take over it? What about Branson? He must have some free time these days." The problem with water companies is a lack of competition. Healthcare will not have that problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Who said it was free? However, it is free at the point of use regardless of the cost and regardless of what you as an individual have contributed in tax. " It can be free at the point of use only as long as the society can bear that cost. Anyway, if you understand that it's just a matter of cost, why do you think private healthcare sector wouldn't treat long term ailments? " As for your point on other countries…errr yes I know which is why I said “The law/legislation would have to change…”" It doesn't have to change. But even if you want to change it, it wouldn't be that difficult. We are talking about changing the entire structure if how NHS operates. It's a small step in the bigger scheme of things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Who said it was free? However, it is free at the point of use regardless of the cost and regardless of what you as an individual have contributed in tax. It can be free at the point of use only as long as the society can bear that cost. Anyway, if you understand that it's just a matter of cost, why do you think private healthcare sector wouldn't treat long term ailments? As for your point on other countries…errr yes I know which is why I said “The law/legislation would have to change…” It doesn't have to change. But even if you want to change it, it wouldn't be that difficult. We are talking about changing the entire structure if how NHS operates. It's a small step in the bigger scheme of things." We might be talking at cross purposes but right now in the UK private health insurance companies can refuse to cover hereditary and pre-existing conditions. So if we don’t change the law in the UK, and we moved to a private insurance model, how would people with those conditions get treatment? Especially if they cannot afford to cover the full cost? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" right now in the UK private health insurance companies can refuse to cover hereditary and pre-existing conditions. So if we don’t change the law in the UK, and we moved to a private insurance model, how would people with those conditions get treatment? " They don't have to doesn't mean they shouldn't. It's a matter of cost. And even if we want to change the law, is it really that hard when you are trying to do something as big as restructuring the NHS? " Especially if they cannot afford to cover the full cost? " Right now, that cost is covered by other people in case the person isn't paying that much taxes. We could still do that. Running the healthcare service and paying for it are two different problems and can be handled separately. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hilarious that after the state of public transport, the water companies, electric suppliers etc. etc. there are still people who throw the 'run it like a business' argument around. Is the state of NHS any better? Probably not. Maybe one of those water companies should take over it? What about Branson? He must have some free time these days. The problem with water companies is a lack of competition. Healthcare will not have that problem. " The problem with water companies is that greedy bastards view opportunistic profits as more useful to them than long term investments. Will the competitive healthcare market have ambulances racing each other to get to road traffic accidents? The'business is better' argument is bollocks. Plenty of well run organisations in the third sector. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hilarious that after the state of public transport, the water companies, electric suppliers etc. etc. there are still people who throw the 'run it like a business' argument around. Is the state of NHS any better? Probably not. Maybe one of those water companies should take over it? What about Branson? He must have some free time these days. The problem with water companies is a lack of competition. Healthcare will not have that problem. The problem with water companies is that greedy bastards view opportunistic profits as more useful to them than long term investments. Will the competitive healthcare market have ambulances racing each other to get to road traffic accidents? The'business is better' argument is bollocks. Plenty of well run organisations in the third sector." Ridiculous arguments. Why are ambulances going to compete to reach the same patient? There are numerous countries which have private healthcare and I can confidently say that people running businesses aren't that stupid. The "business is better" argument has worked on pretty much most aspects of our lives. We moved from having landline phones, DSL modem connection that was transferring bytes per second with a very few people having huge computers in their home to us using a small device to watch HD porn. You didn't need public sector to do that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hilarious that after the state of public transport, the water companies, electric suppliers etc. etc. there are still people who throw the 'run it like a business' argument around. Is the state of NHS any better? Probably not. Maybe one of those water companies should take over it? What about Branson? He must have some free time these days." There was virgin healthcare | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the WHO, the UK has an adult obesity rate of 28% (67/191 countries), and in a 2022 report by the WHO ranked the UK third (behind Turkey and Malta) for having the most obese adults of the 52 countries in the WHO European region. Add a third of uk children overweight. Add smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, no surprise treating these self inflicted illnesses consume nearly 40% of the nhs budget " Yawn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I read an article where starmer said that the nhs have to be "reformed or die" in a speech he had in london, he have a plan and said how we have a choice about how it should meet these rising demands, like raise taxes on working people to meet the ever higher costs of an ageing population, to name some of the things of it. What is your view, can the nhs be saved, or is it to late? I think that there is a chance it can be saved too
It's fooked. They've got plenty money, they just waste too much on bureaucracy. And the ageing native people aren't the problem, it's the foreign Johnnies being imported to replace said native population.
Stand by for the lefty, pro migrant,Palestinian te**orist supporters to burst a blood vessel at this one.
Oh, btw, seeing as it's prom season ,is anyone triggered by Land of Hope and Glory? I personally think it should be our National Anthem. I LOVE IT. "Agreed 👍 Rousing as always, and a cheeky Bordeaux too toast both Henry”s  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the WHO, the UK has an adult obesity rate of 28% (67/191 countries), and in a 2022 report by the WHO ranked the UK third (behind Turkey and Malta) for having the most obese adults of the 52 countries in the WHO European region. Add a third of uk children overweight. Add smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, no surprise treating these self inflicted illnesses consume nearly 40% of the nhs budget Yawn" An intelligent grown up and well considered offering to the debate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to the WHO, the UK has an adult obesity rate of 28% (67/191 countries), and in a 2022 report by the WHO ranked the UK third (behind Turkey and Malta) for having the most obese adults of the 52 countries in the WHO European region. Add a third of uk children overweight. Add smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, no surprise treating these self inflicted illnesses consume nearly 40% of the nhs budget Yawn An intelligent grown up and well considered offering to the debate" What debate? It's a broken record. And I'm fed up repeating myself to be met with ignorance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
